Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Abdiction of Tsar Nicholas II - Witness report

Hi,

I did find an interesting flick about the abdication of the last Tsar. It is within a video from the Romanov Royal Martyrs channel at Youtube.

"One of the main features of this video is the film with V. Shulgin, one of the two Duma members who met Tsar Nicholas II and received from him his abdication statement. Shulgin related the story in 1957, after Stalin’s death, in a film that was shot in the very same train compartment where they met Nicholas II and received his abdication."

The whole part about the abdication is from minutes 10 to 20. Shulgin appears from the minutes 10 to 15.


I leave this here in the thread, since the whole vid is about the end of the Romanov rule and the Empress is mentioned quite often.
 
I have recently read 5 books on Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra (and family) and I have to stop because it just gets more depressing. Did anyone ever really try to rescue them? Also, I have read conflicting accounts about their desire to be rescued. The book by Edvard Radzinksy speaks of letters that passed between them and some supposed rescuers and their hopes that it would pan out. However, it turned out to be a fake. Then, in "The Romanov Sisters", the author says that Nicholas and Alexandra refused to leave Russia. What is the truth or does anyone really know?
 
Last edited:
There are all sorts of weird and wonderful rumours about plots to rescue them from Ekaterinburg, but I don't think any of them are true. I did once read a very weird book which claimed that Tatiana was actually rescued! There were certainly ideas about them going to Britain, Germany or Denmark: I think Kerensky would have agreed to that, if there'd been a firm offer, but, once the Bolsheviks were in power, I doubt it would have happened.


I think Nicholas and Alix did have this idea of being the Father and Mother of the nation, but I think they realised that the game was up, and that they'd have gone if given the chance. I'm not aware that they refused to leave. I'd think they assumed their cousins would come to their rescue ... I understand why they didn't, but I don't suppose they did :-( .
 
There were other royals who were rescued, but Nich and Alexandra and the girls were sent to Siberia, a place where its pretty difficult to reach. They were guarded all the time. Rescue would have been very difficult and since they were the rulers, the Bolsheviks had no intention of turning a blind eye and let them go. And the trouble was also where they were to go once they were rescued. I don't think any European country wanted them as they were symbols of reaction... George V did consider a rescue plan at an early stage but the girls were ill, with measles and couldn't go, and then George took advice from his ministers who knew that the British public would not want them on Brit soil and he agreed. I htink the Kaiser did offer asylum but Aliexandra did not want them to go to Germany...
 
'We do not want to and cannot ESCAPE' Reply (in French) from the Imperial Family on June 11th 1918 to a note smuggled into the house at Ekaterinberg, from a White Russian officer in the town, who twice communicated with the family in that way.

I really recommend Helen Rappaport's book 'The Race to Save the Romanovs' in which she goes thoroughly into the various plans and schemes to rescue the family especially earlier on. She states, what I too believe, that any rescue of the family from Siberia would have been far too difficult.

In her opinion there was only one slim opportunity to save herself and the girls, if the Tsarina had taken it, and that was during the early part of the revolt in St Petersburg when she and her daughters were in the Alexander Palace. Of course the Tsar and Tsaravitch were away at that time.

Rappaport's conclusion in the book emphasises the closeness of the family and their deep religious and patriotic feelings. They were in her opinion fatalistic about their probable fate once they reached Siberia. They often expressed to each other that leaving Russia, and perhaps each other, would be worse than death. This was stated by the girls to their parents too, many times.
 
Last edited:
'We do not want to and cannot ESCAPE' Reply (in French) from the Imperial Family on June 11th 1918 to a note smuggled into the house at Ekaterinberg, from a White Russian officer in the town, who twice communicated with the family in that way.

I really recommend Helen Rappaport's book 'The Race to Save the Romanovs' in which she goes thoroughly into the various plans and schemes to rescue the family especially earlier on. She states, what I too believe, that any rescue of the family from Siberia would have been far too difficult.

In her opinion there was only one slim opportunity to save herself and the girls, if the Tsarina had taken it, and that was during the early part of the revolt in St Petersburg when she and her daughters were in the Alexander Palace. Of course the Tsar and Tsarovitch were away at that time.

Rappaport's conclusion in the book emphasises the closeness of the family and their deep religious and patriotic feelings. They were in her opinion fatalistic about their probable fate once they reached Siberia. They often expressed to each other that leaving Russia would be worse than death. This was stated by the girls to their parents too, many times.

Thank you. I will definitely read that book. I am going to read something a little lighter before I do. Their story is just so tragic:sad:
 
Its very sad but the stupid behaviour of Alex and Nicholas was what led to the Revolution... I thtink its a pity that Alex didn't escape with the girls.. She might have been able to negotiate to get Nicholas or at least Alexie out - but the question was what to do with them when they got out... Noone wanted them...
 
Yes duchess, try something fluffy and faintly humorous about Hollywood or something for a while. Reading about the IF's fate (or viewing documentaries) now has the same effect on me as my taking in lots of books about the Holocaust, and Anne Frank in particular, did years ago. You come to a stage where enough is enough. I rarely read about the IF's last months of life nowadays but Rappaport's book was too good to pass up, as I very much admire her as an author.
 
Last edited:
Its very sad but the stupid behaviour of Alex and Nicholas was what led to the Revolution... I thtink its a pity that Alex didn't escape with the girls.. She might have been able to negotiate to get Nicholas or at least Alexie out - but the question was what to do with them when they got out... Noone wanted them...

Yes, it was stupid behavior. I could never understand why Alix did not encourage Nicholas toward a constitutional monarchy. He certainly listened to her. She was Queen Victoria's favorite grandchild so certainly she knew the benefits of a constitutional monarchy for both the monarch and the people, even though she was raised in Germany.
 
By Nicholas II's reign it was far too late. The rot against autocracy set it at the time of the Decembrists early in the 19th century. If moves towards democracy had begun in the 1830s there might have been a chance. After that, it was one slow decline to disaster IMO.

After the assassination of Alexander the Liberator, Nicholas's grandfather, his son Alexander III was determined to retain autocracy and strengthen it. His younger brothers agreed with that philosophy and had an enormous influence over the young and inexperienced Tsar Nicholas.

Alexandra didn't interest herself in politics in the earlier years of her marriage. And she was quite happy with the way things were. When her grandmother Victoria spoke to her about being gracious to commoners she replied 'Here' (in Russia) 'it is not necessary to seek the favour of the people'.

She was in fact quite upset when a limited Duma was set up after the mini-revolution in 1905 that 'Baby' (Alexei) wouldn't inherit the same powers and prestige as his ancestors.
 
Last edited:
I think that there was a chance even at the beginning of Nicky's reign. If it didn't save the dynasty, it might have at least saved their lives... if he had allowed a Duma with some powers, in the early years of his reign.. there would probalby have been discontent still and the War might still have caused the end of his reign but Russia would have moved a fraction closer to a normal developing democracy and it wouldn't have required such a massive Revolution to try and break the stranglehold that autocracy had on Russia. There would have been more political parties, and while there would still have been Communists they might not have been able to get a hold on power the way they did, and kill off the Tsar and his family. Nicky might have been pushed to abidcate but he might have been allowed to abidcate and leave the country....
 
It seems like, every time there was a move towards reform, something happened to spook the Romanovs. Catherine the Great was spooked by the Pugachev revolt and the French Revolution. Alexander I might have made changes had he not been distracted by the Napoleonic Wars, but then the Decembrist Uprising spooked Nicholas I right at the start of his reign. Even Alexander II rolled back on things after being spooked by the Polish Uprising, and then his assassination drove his son right the other way. But, yes, I think there was still a chance early in Nicholas II's reign, and sensible ministers like Witte could see that.
 
It seems like, every time there was a move towards reform, something happened to spook the Romanovs. Catherine the Great was spooked by the Pugachev revolt and the French Revolution. Alexander I might have made changes had he not been distracted by the Napoleonic Wars, but then the Decembrist Uprising spooked Nicholas I right at the start of his reign. Even Alexander II rolled back on things after being spooked by the Polish Uprising, and then his assassination drove his son right the other way. But, yes, I think there was still a chance early in Nicholas II's reign, and sensible ministers like Witte could see that.

I dont have a detailed knowledge of Russian history.. but I think that for Russia's sake as well, some moves towards reform would have been better than what happened. Because the Russian tsars had stamped on even a mild measure of reform, in 1917 Russia had to move from the 18th C (or even earlier) to the 20th C in one jump, and the Communist system was a brutal blunt instrument that probably killed more than it helped. Had Nicky allowed a proper Duma in 1905, the country would have begun to develop a bit further towards constitutional monarchy.. and Nicky would not have been in sole charge when the war broke out.. and made a hash of things. I think that its possible that if the war was going badly, a semi constitutional monarchy with Nick at the head and a sick child like Alexis as the heir would have been vulnerable.. and as the people got more fed up wiht them, there might have been pressure for them to leave and the country would become a republic, like Germany and other monarchies did toward the end of the war.

But it might have been a case of saying "Sign this abdication paper and get out" to Nick and the IF, so he would have escaped with his life.. And mabye it would have been easier, if Nicky wasn't seen as the Bloody Tsar who had refused all reform, for him to find asylum somwhere.
 
The Russian regime of Nicholas II. was as backwards as the one of Alexander I., the winner over Napoleon, and much more liberal, than the one of Stalin, the winner over Hitler.

All three were involved in giant wars, yet Nicky II. was the only one, who died not in his bed...

The difference between the three: While Alexander I. and Stalin were attacked by their enemies, Nicky II. attacked his.

And this is the turning point imho: The Russian nation has always been willing to endure gruelling situations and to fight against the most terrible opponents - in defence of Mother Russia!

So, I am pretty much convinced, that if Nicky II. had waited for a pre-emptive strike of the Germans, he would have been the victorious hero instead of dead....
 
I think the Bolsheviks were genuinely concerned that the White Army might take Ekaterinburg and liberate the Romanovs, and that that was why they decided to shoot them when they did, but who knows what would have happened if they had? Maybe somewhere - Denmark? Greece? - would have taken them in?
 
King Alfonso XIII of Spain, (probably with the encouragement of his wife) tried constantly after the Revolution to negotiate safe travel for the IF. In the autumn of 1918, having heard that the Tsarina and her daughters were still alive but being held by the Bolsheviks, he urgently renewed his efforts. He was prepared to have them settle in Spain, at least temporarily. However, by then they were dead.

The Danish Royal family, not particularly well off, paid large ransoms (in vain) for two Princes of the extended family who were later shot by the Bolsheviks. I believe they would have been allowed to settle in Denmark, just as the Dowager Empress and her daughter were. And if Nicholas and his family had managed to get away before Siberia, then I am convinced that they would have been allowed to stay there, at least for a while.
 
Last edited:
I think that when they went to Siberia it was nearly impossible to rescue them. But possible at first other royal families while they would like to rescue fellow royals did not think they'd actually be shot, that they would spend some years in confinement and eventually when things cooled down, it would be possible for them to leave the country...
And of course the other RF's were concerned for their own survival in their own countries and weren't keen to take in a member of a RF who had such a poor reputation and who would be seen as Nicholas the Bloody and might arouse their own socialists and communists to protests that might get out of hand. Which was no doubt why the Romanovs tried to hold onto their jeweler and money so that if they did manage to get away they had money to support themselves which might make it a bit easier to find somewhere that would take them in.
 
Voice Recording of Tsar Nicholas II

This is the ONLY surviving recording of a speech by Nicholas II. It was delivered during the visit of French President Emile Loubet to Russia, in May 1902:

An interesting youtube vid (~ 4 min) about the visit of the then French President!
 
The irony is that now the Russians idolize Nicholas II, and call him our father, the Emperor, Natalya Poklonskaya,



I am sorry this one is in Russian, but you can google more, perhaps with English subtitles

Religious processions in honor of the deceased royal family


 
Last edited:
The irony is that now the Russians idolize Nicholas II, and call him our father, the Emperor, Natalya Poklonskaya
Now, that was bound to happen after seventy years of a Communist dictatorship.
That he was murdered also gives him sympathy in retrospect, I guess.
 
he was still a bad Tsar and just because the Communists were also very bad rulers does not negate that. If Nicholas hadn't been such a bad and inflexbile tsar, there might not have been a communist revolution
 
he was still a bad Tsar and just because the Communists were also very bad rulers does not negate that.

"ALSO very bad"? They were a totally different league of not bad but evil!

Stalin alone sentenced more people to death on an average morning between his shower and the breakfast, than the Romanovs in their rule over 300 years!

Not to speak of Lenin's Red Terror and the "Holodomor"!
 
Last edited:
"ALSO very bad"? They were a totally different league of not bad but evil!

Stalin alone sentenced more people to death on an average morning between his shower and the breakfast, than the Romanovs in their rule over 300 years!

Not to speak of Lenin's Red Terror and the "Holodomor"!
This! :previous:

Also, it is not so much about what Nicholas was like as a person.
But it rather is about him being a symbol of a lost era, and a marture.
 
But when you are murdered because you almost entirely brought it on yourself... :ermm:
And then your death is what allowed a more murderous regime to take over...
It's just that no one remembers Nicholas and plenty of people do remember Communism.
 
he was still a bad Tsar and just because the Communists were also very bad rulers does not negate that. If Nicholas hadn't been such a bad and inflexbile tsar, there might not have been a communist revolution

There could still have been a communist revolution.
And the people who murdered Nicholas II and his family were worse people than Nicholas II.
 
There could still have been a communist revolution.

Yep! And there is this widespread believe, that it was a fault of Nicky II., to not have given the Empire a constitution and by that to have guided the necessary reforms into a legal framework.

But we see, what happened: First there was a bourgoise revolution and then the communists took over - violently. These communists never wanted to play by the rules, anyway - the wanted to take over at any price.

There were so many mishaps, but the outcome justified the outmost conservatisms from before the end of the Romanov rule. So, what is left: An eternal shame for Russia to have fallen for the nonsense of communism without any really credible resistance.

Just imho... In the end this is all history and in the past, a bygone era...
 
There where actually some talks about Nicholas marrying Maud of Wales (Future Queen of Norway) in the early 1890s.
 
Back
Top Bottom