The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Imperial Family of Russia (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/)
-   -   Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/tsar-nicholas-ii-1868-1918-and-empress-alexandra-feodorovna-alix-1872-1918-a-8643.html)

gaoshan1021 12-04-2002 08:37 AM

Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix) (1872-1918)
 
6 Attachment(s)
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Empress Aleksandra 01-02-2004 01:08 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Alexandra Feodorovna
1872-1918, last Russian czarina, consort of Nicholas II ; she was a Hessian princess and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Neurotic and superstitious, she was easily dominated by Rasputin , who seemingly was able to check the hemophilia of her son. During World War I, when Nicholas took command (Sept., 1915) of the forces at the front, Alexandra Feodorovna assumed control in St. Petersburg and prevailed upon her husband to replace independent and liberal ministers with those favored by Rasputin. Her great unpopularity was increased by widespread suspicions that she was pro-German. With her husband and children, she was shot by the Bolsheviks.

HIM Empress Aleksandra Fyodorovna

lizichitao 03-16-2006 06:49 AM

It seems that Nicolas II is a good father but not a good leader of a country.

Leslie2006 04-03-2006 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizichitao
It seems that Nicolas II is a good father but not a good leader of a country.

Yep, he was. He loved his children, but payed no attention the needs of his subjects. So as a result, he lost the throne and his life. Although, I don't think the family deserved to die. I think the Bolsheviks should have just gotten him off the throne and sent the family into exile, like what happenend in Greece (twice). They would have at least lived that way.

Vanesa 05-04-2006 01:07 AM

There is people who exploses with hate when other people -like myself, for example :p - states that they love and admires the Romanovs as martyrs and Cross Bearers.

No matter. Those who loves and admires them, will love and admire them FOREVER. You may shout, insult, become mad, etc...You are in your right to do so. And we are in our right to do otherwise as well. This is democracy...Isn't it? That all people can think what she/he wants. Republicans are always speaking about freedom, but sometimes (not all of them but most of them) don't let people to think that they want.

Romanovs had lots of faults...as almost all people I know has faults as well. If Saints themselves has faults, it's not rare that most of people has faults. God is the only Being without faults and sins, as far as I know.

The truth comes ALWAYS to the surface. And it will come again. As ever did.

Vanesa.:o

Vanesa 05-04-2006 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaoshan1021
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna

Tsarista Alexandra was a beatiful woman...But did you notice what a sad face she almost always has when photographed? There was only some pics where you may see her smiling. I think she was a woman with a very tragic sense of life...

Vanesa.

Ritka 05-04-2006 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie2006
Yep, he was. He loved his children, but payed no attention the needs of his subjects. So as a result, he lost the throne and his life. Although, I don't think the family deserved to die. I think the Bolsheviks should have just gotten him off the throne and sent the family into exile, like what happenend in Greece (twice). They would have at least lived that way.

I agree. It's such a tragedy that the Bolsheviks felt they had to eliminate the whole dynasty.

CasiraghiTrio 08-04-2006 11:58 AM

Objective view of the Last Tsar
 
Everyone on this forum seems to be enamored of "Nicky and Alix" to the point of being blind to the fact that Nicholas II just was not a good ruler. He was incompetent with a capital I and certainly had something of a dark side. First of all, his brutal response to the 1905 "revolution" (really, a peaceful protest of workers; after all, none were armed) only turned the tide even more against him. He ordered the army to unleash violence against these unarmed working-class citizens. Secondly, one of his last acts shows that he was not very bright. In exile in the Urals, he received a letter from someone claiming to be a supporter offering to help him and his family escape. He immediately replied to this letter with enthusiastic gratitude, not thinking for a second that it could be a trap. That gave the Bolsheviks the perfect excuse they needed to assasinate the family and be done with them once and for all.
Now, in all fairness, Nicky never wanted to be Tsar. He was born in a position that made it ultimately unavoidable, but he never would have chosen it.
It just goes to show that monarchy as a form of government does not work effectively, because those who are "born to rule" are not necessarily those who should rule.

BeatrixFan 08-06-2006 07:34 AM

Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have. Alexandra has become my personal Saint and when I'm chrismated, I'm taking the name Alexis as a male version of her name so I do have a strict devotion to her but I'm not blind to the fact that Nicholas wasn't a good ruler. But I'd say that he was a good Tsar because he did have the loyalty of alot of Russians at the start of his reign and even at the end. I think there were two major factors in his reign that made his life impossible and those were his family and as you rightly say CasiraghiTrio, he never wanted to be Tsar.

Alexandra was good for Nicholas because she loved him and adored him but her religious views, whilst I personally agree with them, influenced Nicholas in a way that was quite harmful. When Nicholas said, "I must listen to the Duma", Alexandra would tell him that he was their God given Tsar and he should ignore them. Now whilst I agree with her, when Russia was calling out for a parliament, Nicholas could have given it to them.

To me, it seems Nicholas had two sides to his beliefs about his role. On the one hand he saw himself as a servant to the people, a diplomat and someone who felt that the people should have a Duma and a system like the British. But then he'd change completely and would take on a more autocratic stance. He was the Tsar and what he said was law and that was that.

I do disagree with your last statement, because I think monarchy can work as a form of Government but it has to have a safety net and in Russia's case, the Duma was the that safety net. When it was removed, Nicholas had no idea what to do with the aftermath. I believe that he was so scared when riots happened etc that the answer was to just silence it. If he couldn't see it, it wasn't happening. And in the beginning it worked. He could pop off to Livadia or Spala and be with his family and riots in St Petersburg were a million miles away. But later on, it became harder and shooting the rioters did the job but it painted him as a tyrant rather than as a man who was devoted to Russia but suffered at the hands of demanding politicians, a domineering wife and mother and a 17th century country trying to survive in a 20th century world.

I will just point out though that Nicholas didn't order the shooting of those who marched towards the palace in 1905. He was blamed for it but it's well documented that the commanding officer on duty panicked when he saw the crowds coming rather quickly and ordered the shooting himself. Nicholas was then called Bloody Nicholas and called brutal and a tyrant but he didn't know about it until it had happened.

I think that you bring up an interesting point that people do have blind loyalty but I think that for non-religious people, it's the fact that such a horrific murder could take place and the killers never brought to trial. It's as if the affection somehow makes up for it. Of course, the religious position is very very different because Nicholas and Alexandra are given a special place in Russian Orthodoxy and the entire Romanov dynasty is treated with a reverance and a deference that hasn't changed. I do think there is a danger of people becoming carried away with the romanticism of it all but by keeping things in context there's alot to be learned from Nicholas and Alexandra.

branchg 08-06-2006 12:20 PM

The truth is the Russian Tsarist Empire was on life support long before Nicholas II came to the throne. The poverty, famines and fundamental disorder of the provinces due to nationalist pressures were too great to overcome, even with a Duma and democratic government. When World War I broke out, it was the final blow.

The Communists succeeded where the Tsars had failed because they were willing to be brutal and kill millions of their own people in prison camps. But eventually this system failed too.

Russia still has many challenges ahead and the iron-fisted ways of the Imperial Presidency are still very much the reality.

Tinika 08-06-2006 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
In the meantime, Penny Wilson and Greg King have recently written an excellent book titled the Fate of the Romanovs. They've gone through previously unavailable archived material and conducted dozens of interviews etc. Marlene Koenig gave their book an excellent review and said (IIRC) that it was the definitive work on the subject and that it would set a new standard hereinafter. I would highly recommend it to those interested in the subject.

Penny Wilson is an acquaintance of mine and I can attest to the fact that she and Greg King put an unbelievably exhaustive amount of time and research into this book. It's an absolute must-read for anyone interested in the Romanovs, for sure.

CasiraghiTrio 09-04-2006 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have. Alexandra has become my personal Saint and when I'm chrismated, I'm taking the name Alexis as a male version of her name so I do have a strict devotion to her but I'm not blind to the fact that Nicholas wasn't a good ruler. But I'd say that he was a good Tsar because he did have the loyalty of alot of Russians at the start of his reign and even at the end. I think there were two major factors in his reign that made his life impossible and those were his family and as you rightly say CasiraghiTrio, he never wanted to be Tsar.

Alexandra was good for Nicholas because she loved him and adored him but her religious views, whilst I personally agree with them, influenced Nicholas in a way that was quite harmful. When Nicholas said, "I must listen to the Duma", Alexandra would tell him that he was their God given Tsar and he should ignore them. Now whilst I agree with her, when Russia was calling out for a parliament, Nicholas could have given it to them.

I understand your feelings are very sentimental, so I will try to state my reply respectfully. It's difficult because fundamentally we come from very different perceptions of the same events. To me, it was not just loyalty that motivated Alexandra. At the risk of trying to put myself in her mind, I feel it was also extreme stupidity. Alexandra has a good heart. She loved her family. But she was a simpleton who was too easily persuaded by religion and charming, well-spoken courtiers. Alix was told what she wanted to hear, that everything would be fine, people would "see" the light, things would sort themselves out, and she believed this because it is what she wanted to believe. It is easy to have blind faith in your god when you are living in the utmost comfort and don't have the normal daily fears and stress of daily life (how to meet the rent, feed your children when you have been laid off from your factory job.) Meanwhile, Alix is praying in the palace chapel, and Lenin is traveling from Germany on a train, on his way to organize his band of brothers and capitalize with them on the feverish discontent of the masses. You can talk sentimentally, but a rational, methodical, pragmatic figure such as Lenin will outsmart your blind faith everytime. This overzealousness of religious faith and belief in the sentiment of the Tsar being "annointed by God" (a myth) had no chance against the pragmatic (nay, dogmatic) and ruthless Bolsheviki vanguard. One could argue that Alix and Nicky avoided the problems instead of trying to solve them. "Oh, let God handle it," seems to be their approach.
Quote:

To me, it seems Nicholas had two sides to his beliefs about his role. On the one hand he saw himself as a servant to the people, a diplomat and someone who felt that the people should have a Duma and a system like the British. But then he'd change completely and would take on a more autocratic stance. He was the Tsar and what he said was law and that was that.

I do disagree with your last statement, because I think monarchy can work as a form of Government but it has to have a safety net and in Russia's case, the Duma was the that safety net. When it was removed, Nicholas had no idea what to do with the aftermath. I believe that he was so scared when riots happened etc that the answer was to just silence it. If he couldn't see it, it wasn't happening. And in the beginning it worked. He could pop off to Livadia or Spala and be with his family and riots in St Petersburg were a million miles away. But later on, it became harder and shooting the rioters did the job but it painted him as a tyrant rather than as a man who was devoted to Russia but suffered at the hands of demanding politicians, a domineering wife and mother and a 17th century country trying to survive in a 20th century world.
I am as much enamored of royalty and all the traditions it preserves as anyone else on the forums. However, as a system of government? No.... I think it was never an effective system of government. Take Alix and Nicky's "faith" in God as a case in point. Any ruler who leaves problems to God to handle is a scary ruler, in my opinion. Leave it to God? You might as well have no government at all.
Quote:

I will just point out though that Nicholas didn't order the shooting of those who marched towards the palace in 1905. He was blamed for it but it's well documented that the commanding officer on duty panicked when he saw the crowds coming rather quickly and ordered the shooting himself. Nicholas was then called Bloody Nicholas and called brutal and a tyrant but he didn't know about it until it had happened.
Touche :flowers: I cannot argue with this.
Quote:

I think that you bring up an interesting point that people do have blind loyalty but I think that for non-religious people, it's the fact that such a horrific murder could take place and the killers never brought to trial. It's as if the affection somehow makes up for it. Of course, the religious position is very very different because Nicholas and Alexandra are given a special place in Russian Orthodoxy and the entire Romanov dynasty is treated with a reverance and a deference that hasn't changed. I do think there is a danger of people becoming carried away with the romanticism of it all but by keeping things in context there's alot to be learned from Nicholas and Alexandra.
Another good point. The murder was heinous, no person with a heart can argue that. But there are millions of heinous crimes that go unrepented, unpunished. This one captures us because it was committed against famous people, a ruling family. To raise them to sainthood????
I won't say anymore except that I don't agree with making them saints, but that's because I am not of Russian Orthodox persuasion, in case you hadn't noticed already....:tongue:
You Russian Orthodox, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox people can keep your saints, it's your right, but I have no part of that...hehe.
But I must add that I fully believe in honoring them, if for nothing else but their suffering. Anyone who suffers like that should be honored. I love the Romanovs. I hope my statements have not misled anyone to think otherwise.
I just like to be objective. It's good to discuss these matters. If I had not made my original post then I would not have been put in my place regarding the 1905 revolution. Am I wrong on the year? 1905? '02? For some reason, those years in Russian history blur in my memory. It's such an eventful phase, with so many dates....

Vanesa 09-05-2006 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Well, for me personally, I have a huge personal devotion to them because of the faith I have.

Don't worry about what people said, BeatrixFan. I share all of your opinions and I like very much how did you said them. I'm a little tired of the ones who , every time that knows that you admires someone said that this person is a "myth" and that she/he is not like you know she/he is. Then, you'll bring you a bunch of revisionist books where there is written that your admired one was not intelligent, sweet, devoted to the church, a great lover of his /her country, etc, etc, but a stupid traditionalist (as if being a traditionalist was a wrong thing), narrow-minded, racist and really an idiot and a selfish person...I read a lot of new books trying desperately to demonstrate how "wild" Nicholas and Alexandra 's children were, how hysterical the Tsaritsa was, how a tyrant and a repressor Nicholas was and even how the true devotion of each of the Tsar close family (I mean NAOTMAA) felt for each other was simply a myth.

These are the facts: Olga was a depressing young woman who felt oppressed by her mean mother./Tatiana had a bondary submissive-sick relationship with Alexandra/Maria and Anastasia felt unloved and begged to their cold mother to be accepted for she only loved her son Alexis deeply/Alexis was a wild manipulative child who liked to gave bleeding noses to their playmates, knowing that hey couldn't answer to him in the same way, since he was an hemophiliac...All the children were awfully bad behaved and none of them had a truly religious Faith...AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!! :bang: :mad: What more can I say?

I admire Nicholas and Alexandra and I know what mistakes they did, since I'm not blind. Saint people are sinner too, and commits lots of mistakes and they could act even badly. Only God is perfect. But I think it is no need to lie to demonstrate that NAOTMAA were not perfect. However, with all their defaults and bad actions (like ourselves...sadly we are all sinners and partly bad here :rolleyes: ) I still admire this family. I think they remains a symbol of a devoted family, a religious pious family destroyed by the brutality of a Century that even now is not ended. Their blood are the blood of all the victims of the Century.

Nowadays, Nicholas and Alexandra seems to have been revindicated. This is not true. They are only superficially revindicated. Their time is not ready yet. The world that killed them sadly, lasts . But I'm seeing how close the end of this nightmare is.

Please, BeatrixFan: pray to them for me. You seems to be a so nice person.:flowers:

Vanesa.

Furienna 11-17-2006 06:21 PM

I watched a Discovery Civilization documentary about the last tsar family today, and before that, I hadn't known, that Nikolai actually abdicated and wanted to give his brother Mikhail the thrown. Like Louie XVI and Marie Antoinette in 1790's France, Nikolai and Alexandra were the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 06:30 PM

Quote:

Please, BeatrixFan: pray to them for me. You seems to be a so nice person.
Thankyou Vanesa. Your post was great to read.

Quote:

I hadn't known, that Nikolai actually abdicated and wanted to give his brother Mikhail the throne
Indeed. Nicholas abdicated for him and for his son. Some have said that it was because he thought Alexis would be made a puppet of the revolutionaries and others have said that it was because he wanted the family to stay together. Personally I think that Nicholas was intelligent enough to know that he'd be imprisoned and didn't want Alexis to suffer as he had.

Furienna 11-17-2006 06:37 PM

According to this documentary, Nikolai didn't want to abdicate in favor of Alexis, because he wanted the boy to be able to stay with his family. And really, how could a thirteen-year-old haemophiliac not become a puppet?

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 06:40 PM

I agree. Lenin would have made him a total slave. But then again, did Lenin need Alexis? The British Government had sent a message (without George V knowing) to Lenin saying that the revolution was a "bold step for democracy" and France had also given their support. With the situation as it was, the Triple Entente parties would have kept Russia sweet so that it didn't pull out of the war. Lenin had a free reign so I don't really know whether Lenin would have used Alexis or not.

Furienna 11-17-2006 06:43 PM

Well, if they had needed him, they wouldn't have killed him. Of course they didn't need Alexis. And using him would go against the bolsjevik believes anyway. There was no longer any need for a tsar.

And yay, this is my 400th post!

BeatrixFan 11-17-2006 06:46 PM

Well, I've always believed that Lenin simply became a Tsar himself.

Blanch 11-18-2006 06:54 AM

That's right, if you consider that Lenin had an absolute power as well, and the people didn't live much better with him.

Katya 11-18-2006 09:22 AM

It is strange that you all mention Lenin in the same breath as you speak about the tsar's abdication. Lenin was not even in the picture when Nikolai II abdicated in February 1917. If Aleksei was going to be used by anyone it would have been by the Provisional Government (people like Miliutin and Kerensky), and I doubt that they had any intention of using him as a tool.

BeatrixFan 11-18-2006 03:32 PM

Yes I know Katya but in the long run the provisional government was just a regency for Lenin and he was very much in the picture at that time. His influence was wide-spread and that's why people like Miliutin and Kerensky ended up being ousted.

bbb 11-18-2006 04:54 PM

their story is one of the saddest, because when given a chance to escape the Tsarina wouldn't leave without the Tsar and there was no question the children go without them. how often did they wonder if it was the right decision, how many times was it a blessing they were able to stay a family and have that bond and strength. i'm facinated by the history and things we'll never know. i had never heard they were spoiled children, aside from living in a palace, slept in cot beds with cold water bathes and were unfailingly polite to all and until the very end, i believe loved by many people.

juliamontague 03-03-2007 08:38 AM

A nice postcard of the empress on E-bay eBay: RUSSIE.IMPERATRICE DE RUSSIE.CPA.SUP. (Artikel 200083369827 endet 04.03.07 20:22:53 MEZ)

BorisRom 04-26-2007 07:14 AM

Predictions and prophecies in the life of Nicholas II
 
I am glad to welcome your community!
Hello to everyone!I hope, that my theme will be interesting to many participants of your Forum.

Nicholas II:
EMPEROR WHO KNEW THE DESTINY
Predictions and prophecies in life and destiny of Nicholas II


PART 1.

___From the most ancient times and up to now a reign of many sovereigns (as well as of presidents) was accompanied sometimes by mysterious mystical events, predictions and prophecies.
___In Russia of XIX century AlexanderI was named "Tsar-mystic", but namely in reign of Nikolay II those main mystical revelations and prophecies on his reign and on the further tragical destiny of Russia which have been made during XIX century at first by monk Avel and then by St. Seraphim Sarovsky took place. Since April, 1891 and till July, 1903 Nikolay II has received some prophetical messages which foretold many main events of his reign and tragical destiny of Imperial Family and Russiaup to and after 1917. From the beginning the Japanese monk-hermit Terakuto and then English foreteller (astrologer) Louis Hamon have predicted him a tragical destiny:
___1891. Young Cesarevitch (Heir) Nikolay during round-the-world travel in April, 1891 in Japan at will of a case meets famous Japanese monk-hermit Terakuto. The old man predicts to him and to Russia a set of heavy tests at the next years and a threat for his life within the next few days. Next day the Japanese policeman makes attempt upon his life.
___1896. In five years (in September, 1896, soon after the marriage with Alix [grand-daughter of Queen Victoria] and Coronation), during official visit to the Great Britain, in the lock Balmoral (Scotland), Prince of Wales shows him a horoscope for date of his birth, made earlier at the request of prince by famous foreteller Louis Hamon (also going under the name of Cheiro) who has already had time to become famous in Europe for the exact forecastings to monarches, ministers, other well-known persons. The prediction for Nykolay spokes:
___«Whoever the man is that these numbers, birth dates, etc., represent, he will be haunted all his life by fears of war and bloodshed. He will do his utmost to prevent war, but his Destiny is so intimately associated with such things that his name will be bound up with two of the bloodiest wars in human history; at the end of the second he will lose all he loves most, his immediate family will be massacred, and he himself will meet a violent death».
___Nikolay is surprised and excited. Prince of Wales advises him to meet with Cheiro personally. In some days Nikolay, being in London, comes at office of Cheiro incognito and asks to check up once again this prediction. Cheiro completely confirms earlier written by him and names fatal years for him, including 1917, after which - loss of all and tragical destruction.
___1898. In connection with arms race increasing in Europe Nikolay recollects the prediction of Louis Hamon. After conversation with Alix, he makes a decision «to overcome a destiny»: to call on all world leaders and organize the world conference on disarmament for prevention of wars (the Hague peace conferences). He makes unprecedented decision to achieve convocation of the world conference. Despite of the skeptical relation of the governments and leaders of some countries to his initiatives, he nevertheless manages to achieve convocation and the Hague peace conference was in May, 1899.

__In 1901-1903 Nikolay II has received the letters-messages from the past, which were addressing personally to «the last emperor of Russia» - from monk Avel and St. Seraphim Sarovsky, which died many years ago:
___1901. In Imperial family three daughters are born. Empress Alexandra is pregnant the fourth child. They hope, that a boy, the Heir of Russian throne this time will be born.
___Meanwhile, in March, 1901 there are 100 years from the date of murder of emperor Paul I. Nikolay knows, that in Gatchino’s palace (the favourite palace of emperor Paul, in suburb of Saint Petersburg) is stored the sealed envelope with his inscription: «Open up to our Descendant in centenary day of my death». Being pleased with an unusual adventure, Nikolay and Alexandra go in Gatchino’s palace. Nikolay opens seales on an envelope and reads the big letter: it is the predictions of monk Avel which lived in those years (1757-1841) and has made predictions for all future Russian tsars, up to Nikolay II and further for Russia. All predictions up to 1901 already precisely had happened (had taken place): monk Avel has predicted all events, including names of Russian tsars (Nikolay's ancestors) with surprising accuracy. A prediction of the monk for Nikolay are gloomy: two wars, two revolutions, destruction of Imperial family in 1918 and accession above Russia of "a godless yoke» (Bolshevism). Nikolay and Alexandra are shocked. Alexandra does not want to believe in it.
___In June, 1901 Alexandra gives birth to a girl (Anastasia). French occultist Phillip Vashon predicts to the child an unusual destiny. Anxious with absence of the Successor, the Imperial family searches for a heavenly patron who would implore God for a birth of boy. Known priest John Kronshtadtsky advises them to address with prayers to sacred Serafim Sarovsky (years of a life 1759-1833).
___Meanwhile the life of Imperial family takes its normal course. Nikolay is engaged in current affairs of internal and foreign policy, including «the Big game» in Asia, on the Far East, entering in the conflict to interests of Japan and the Great Britain.

Boris Romanov
___P.S. I am sorry for my imperfect English.

___You can see also my article “New book about Nicholas II”:
https://www.petroprognoz.spb.ru/articles/12apr7-NicholasII.html

BorisRom 04-26-2007 07:20 AM

Predictions and prophecies in the life of Nicholas II. Part II
 
Predictions and prophecies in life and destiny of Nicholas II


PART II

___1903. In July the Imperial family together with children and the retinue arrives in Sarov (small town) for the celebrations devoted to church canonization (glorification) of Serafim Sarovsky. At station in Sarov the Minister of Internal Affairs (Pleve) hands over to Nikolay the letter with predictions of Serafim which he has transferred in 1824 to Russian emperor Alexander I. This letter was stored in archives of Department of police. People enthusiastically meets Imperial family on road in town. In the evening Nikolay and Alexandra read this letter: the predictions for Nikolay are looking very favorably, however, to some attributes, Alexandra starts to suspect, that the second part of this letter (with favorable predictions) is forged in police.
___Next day (on July, 20) celebrations in Sarov go on. Nikolay and Alexandra meet old woman, Elena Motovilova, the widow of secretary of Serafim Sarovsky. She tells that sacred Serafim shortly before the death has given her a package sealed by a grain crumb, with words: «When in many years the Imperial family will arrive in Sarov to glorify my name, you will hand it to them». In the evening Nikolay and Alexandra read this message of Serafim. A predictionsfor Nikolay's reign are gloomy and in many respects coincide with those predictions which he has received earlier from Japanese hermit Terakuto, from English foreteller Louis Hamon and in the first «letter from the past» from monk Avel. Again 1917 rises thefatal events and 1918 threatens them with fatal destruction. Alexandra is in shock and faints. She does not want to trust in these gloomy predictions. The Imperial family carries out the days which have stayed in Sarov in prays, Alexandra bathes in a sacred source (in a pond); she believes, that all this will help her to give birth to a boy, the successor of a throne.
___In one year after these events (summer of 1904), in Imperial family the boy, Alexey is born.

___In 1907 Nikolay II once again met with Louis Hamon in Peterhof and had with him a long conversation - about destinies of Imperial family and Russia. It is known, that after 1904 in critical situations he some times spoke, that till 1918 he is not afraid forown life, but that he is ready to sacrifice own life to rescue Russia from shocks threatening to homeland and nation.
___Probably, in all history he was the unique Emperor who knew own destiny and knew the year of own death (and destructions of all family). He tried to overcome the destiny decisively in March, 1905, but could not. All second half of his reign (after March, 1905) has passed under a sign of humility to destinyinvisible more by nobody (except of empress Aleksandra Fedorovna) . Namely this mystical knowledge, - not «weakness» - had determined many facts of his reign and a life of Imperial Family. They made all that should make for Russia, but they knew what will be with them and with Russia!

***

___In October 2006 well-known Russian publishing houses («OLMA Media Groups» and "Neva") have published my book «Fatal predictions of Russia» which first part («Emperor Who Knew the Destiny») is devoted to the little-known facts of a life of last Russian emperor NikolayII.The presentation of my book had been organized on November, 29 2006 in agency of ITAR-TASS. Information about this press-conference has been published in several Russian newspapers and many Russian Internet sites.

___Many books are written about Nikolay II, including such known authors as Robert K. Massie, Oldenburg, Edward Radzinsky, Victor Kobylin, Greg King, Peter Kurth and others. It would seem, the biography of last Tsar is investigated and described "up and down". However, I systematized the little-known facts of his biography and have built these facts in one time line - in result the surprising picture has been opened which allow completely by new eyes (perfectlyby new eyes is not exaggeration!) to look at a history of his reign, on his character, on his life and destiny. Probably, he was unique Emperor who knew own destiny and knew the year of the destruction (and destructions of all his family). He tried to overcome destiny decisively in 1897-1898 and then in March, 1905, but he could not.
___This book shows a history of his reign and a history of Russia through a prism of these predictions and, simultaneously, by eyes of main heroes - Emperor Nikolay II and Empresses Aleksandra Feodorovna.

___#i#Absolutely all lines of the book are created on a documentary basis.#/i#
___The script of a feature film (and TV Drama Serial) "Emperor who knew the destiny" is written by me by present time also.
___Synopsis«Emperor who knew the destiny» had been published in Russian-speaking magazine "Synopsis" (n.9, 2006).

Boris Romanov
Saint Petersburg
Russia
___P.S. I am sorry for my imperfect English.

___You can see also my article “New book about Nicholas II”:

https://www.petroprognoz.spb.ru/articles/12apr7-NicholasII.html

___and MUCH MORE DETAILS in my article “Emperor who knew the destiny” (in Russian):

https://www.petroprognoz.spb.ru/articles/Imperator-11-10-2006.html

___In Russian you can read also my article (the short script) "Nikolay's II Abdication":

https://www.petroprognoz.spb.ru/articles/8feb-Otrechenie.html

BorisRom 04-28-2007 03:43 PM

References
 
Well, I think, it is expedient to give here the list of the literature (references) on this theme which I used at work on this message (post I and II). All these books are used by me also at work on the book Fatal Predictions of Russia[2].Unfortunately, only the bookof Louis Hamon[1] is issued in English. All other books and magazines are issued only in Russian. However, probably, the reference [13] is issued in Englishalso.

1. Louis Hamon. Fate in the Making Revelations of a Lifetime. N-Y, London, 1931
2. Boris Romanov. Fatal Predictions of Russia. - М., SPb: OLMA Media groups, 2006.
3. A Life of Saint Avel-divinator. – Edition of The New Golutvin Convent, 1995.
4. The foreteller monk Avel // Magazine "Russian olden time", 1875, Т.1, n. 1-4. In the same place his own a note «A Life and suffering of the monk Avel».
5. Divinator Avel. New original data on his destiny:Police Record about the peasant Vasily Vasiliev (of an ancestral lands of Lev Aleksandrovich Naryshkin), taking place in the Kostroma province in Babaevsky monastery under a name of monk Adam, and then named as Avel, and about the book composed by him on 67 sheets. It is started March of 17-th 1796 // Magazine "Russian archive", 1878, Book.2.
6. Sergey Nilus. On a coast of God’s river (from the diaries of 1909). M.: Edition of Sretensky monastery, 2003.
7. Russia before the Second Coming (compos by Fomin S.). М., 1998.
8. Roscius J. Kassandra’s Syndrom. М., 1996.
9. Kiribeevitch (P.N.Shabelskij-Bork). Prophetic monk. The historical legend // Magazine “Szemshina”, 1991, n. 28 (45); 1992, n. 67. (First edition - Berlin, 1931).
10. Vitte S. Vospominanija (Memoirs). М., 1960, Т.2.
11. Saint Serafim Sarovsky. Edition of Russian St. Andrey’s Monastery on Athos, 1903, the Reprint - 1990.
12. Diveevskie legends. М., 1992.
13. Magazine of Valaam’s society of America «Russian pilgrim», 1990.
14. Metropolitan St.-Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snichev). - CathedralRussia // Magazine “Our contemporary”, n.2, 1995.

Boris

BorisRom 05-02-2007 12:32 PM

Mystical events of the life of Imperial Family
 
I think, two more themes concern mystical events of a life of Imperial family and Russia in 1916-1917:
___1. In 1916 when about the future tragedy of Russia already many famous politicians spoke, the surprising sign from above (literally - from above) has been shown to emperor and Russia: Russian pilots have seen on mountain Ararat a legendary Noah Ark - and Nikolay II has ordered to organize an expedition which has found this Noah Ark in a surprising good condition. It was the last sign for Tsar and Russia before their tragedy …
___2. There is a version, that already after the October revolution of 1917 in Tobolsk Nikolay II has found out about surprising prophecies on the future destiny of Russia and the world in XX century which were open by Virgin Maria to three small children on the other end of Europe, in Portugal, in village Fatima.
___In the book «The Emperor who knew own destiny» I consistently and in detail tells about the certificates of these surprising events based on the documentary facts.

Boris

indian princess 08-12-2007 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaoshan1021 (Post 62330)
Her Imperial Majesty Tzarina Alexandra Feodorovna with Their Imperial Highnesses the Grand Duchesses Olga Alexandrovna, Tatiana, Marie and Anastasia

i thought tatiana was suposed to be very tall but in this pic she looks as tall as anastasia who was very short.

charlottestreasures 08-28-2007 05:20 PM

Alberta woman's father protected the last czar - Nicolas II - and his family
 
ST. PAUL -- For years, retired nurse Joanell Alden searched high and low for stories about the last Russian czar's guards.
She had good reason to be curious - her father was one of them. Her father, John Solowoniuk, who died in 1978 at the age of 90, was one the men charged with protecting Nicholas II and his family.


Rest of article here:

edmontonsun.com - Alberta - Peeking into Russia's royal past

acdc1 09-01-2007 02:56 PM

Wasn't Alexandra called by her real name, Alix, from Nicholas all her life?

Russophile 10-19-2007 08:24 PM

Her real name was Victoria Alix Helena Louise Beatrice and nicknamed "Aliky" as in Nicky and Aliky. Or Sunny.

Lady Marmalade 11-06-2007 03:32 PM

One of the most tragic of royal families who have seen much suffering and violent deaths.

COUNTESS 11-06-2007 07:58 PM

They were often responsible for creating an atomosphere for violent attacks. Not that one should justify murder. Alexander II, was actually trying to reduce suffering of his people, but by that time, anger had welled to a great proportion. Nicholas and Alexandra were unrealistic, weak and dreadful monarchs. That still does not justify their murder and certainly that of their children. Those under them suffered far more than they.

BorisRom 11-07-2007 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 689614)
They were often responsible for creating an atomosphere for violent attacks. Not that one should justify murder. Alexander II, was actually trying to reduce suffering of his people, but by that time, anger had welled to a great proportion. Nicholas and Alexandra were unrealistic, weak and dreadful monarchs. That still does not justify their murder and certainly that of their children. Those under them suffered far more than they.

Countess,
Let me to repeat here my post from other theme (August of this year, "Does Russia...")
I think, many at this forum will agree that Nicholas II has been defamed (by "an irreconcilable opposition") else at time of his life and that false myths about him have been hundredfold increased by the Soviet historians and that many of these wrong stamps are alive even till now.
I think the following seven theses are most needing in objective consideration:
__1. Nicholas II was a man of weak will.
__2. Positive achievements of Russia in 1894-1914 have been made by famous clever ministers of his government (by Vitte and Stolypin) - and Nicholas II has prevented from their reforms more likely, than helped them.
__3. Nicholas II aspired to «small victorious war» against Japan.
__4. Nicholas II is guilty of awful events of "Bloody Sunday» on January, 9, 1905.
__5. Nicholas II has made a mistake, having headed Russian army in August, 1915 owing to what Russia has ostensibly lost the war by 1917 and revolution began.
__6. Nicholas II has not undertaken sufficient efforts for prevention and suppression of revolt in Petrograd in February, 1917.
__7. Rasputin has strongly and negatively influenced on an acceptance of political decisions in Imperial family through empress Alexandra.
I think, these seven are the main false myths about Nicholas II. There are still other wrong stamps, but these seven are main, I think.
Certainly, I don’t think that Nicholas II was «the ideal ruler» of Russia. He made mistakes and had some wrong ideas (for example, he was the anti-semite always; and other things), but I am going to expose these seven main false myths here.

You can read detailed discussion of the theme " False miths about Nicholas II " on my topic at the other forum:
https://www.kingandwilson.com/forum/read.php?51,6232,6232#msg-6232

In addition to the theme of "false myths", - I have found out recently, that the President of USA Taft (? – I don’t know English transcription of his name) in 1912 has told about Nicholas II:
"Russian emperor has created such perfect working legislation of what any democratic state till now cannot brag".
Really, the social status of workers in Russia those years was rather good (relatively Europe and USA). Nicholas conducted active social policy for improvement of position of city workers at factories. Whether you know, that till 1905 the police frequently acted on the side of workers in their conflicts against employers (during strikes)? It was Nicholas's internal policy.
Boris

COUNTESS 11-07-2007 06:14 PM

Nicholas II, was a man who governed with little passion and without any clear idea as to what his people fully needed. He was indifferent to poverty, nor did he really understand it. He seemed to be incapble of formulating a coherent politcal stance on his own. Russia at that time was struggling to adapt to the modernity of the western world and still trying to remain Russian. Out of his profound religious and politcal conviction he was very committed to autocracy and not to any great democratic change. His wife was no help, as she was so myopic to their situation, which was bad enough, but prevented him from seeing his country's problems over his personal ones. He wasn't a stupid man. He knew change was coming, yet he tried to hang on to the old ways. Russia is a vast nation with many different regional ethnicities. Perhaps, this placed the country in a vortex of confusion on how they were to proceed. In 1914, Russia was in pretty good shape. The economic revolution had started to bear fruit and some political reforms had started to change the nation for the better. Nicholas II was not a bad man, by any standard. I do think he had little poltical acumen and, obviously, had no good sight on how to proceed during WWI. I agree that by the time he "took over" running the army, all was lost. Secondly, he could not effect change fast enough or did he try, to stem the oncoming revolution. He was not a leader. He was cursed by his position in life. He could have been a good and able employee and a wonderful family man. Had he been a constitutional monarch, where his presence would have been mostly ceremonial, he would have been a big success.

royalone3 11-18-2007 10:03 PM

I recently read a book about Nicholas and Alexandra,very sad how it all went so terribly wrong.

Russophile 11-19-2007 12:36 PM

Yes, it is. And to think they had a lot of power to ensure that it didn't go wrong and they didn't do anything to prevent it. . .

Furienna 11-19-2007 05:55 PM

I guess they just didn't think anything like that could happen. There had been tsars in Russia for centuries, and they were more powerful than many kings and emperors in Western Europe. Even thinking that a tsar family would be not only dethrowned but also assasinated was beyond them until it was too late.

Russophile 11-19-2007 07:43 PM

Which means they surely didn't do their homework on their ancestors! Peter III was assassinated , Paul I was assassinated , Alexander II was assassinated, Alexander III had attempts. . .

royalone3 11-20-2007 10:52 PM

Ignorance was not bliss in their case.

Russophile 11-21-2007 05:19 PM

They weren't quite ignorant. Rasputin's "warning" letter tipped them off. But they seemed to just "give up" after that. Crazy.

lexi4 02-01-2008 12:04 PM

And might I add that he and his misquided wife were blinded by the belief that Nicholas was ordained by God to rule Russia.
Lexi

Furienna 02-01-2008 12:26 PM

They were the Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette of Russia. They weren't excactly evil people, but they kept on living in the luxury and power of past times, while the commoners were getting it worse and worse. They denied or ignored the problems, if they even knew of all the problems. It was hard for royals those days to understand how ordinary people lived. And their executions lead to communist dictatures.

lexi4 02-01-2008 01:55 PM

I find it difficult to compare Alexandra to Marie Antoinette, although I am aware that many do. It would make for an intereseting discussion.

Russophile 02-01-2008 07:28 PM

That would be interesting, as, I'll bet a topic on their female ancestors compare/contrast (Victoria and Empress Maria Theresa).

lexi4 02-02-2008 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 689614)
They were often responsible for creating an atomosphere for violent attacks. Not that one should justify murder. Alexander II, was actually trying to reduce suffering of his people, but by that time, anger had welled to a great proportion. Nicholas and Alexandra were unrealistic, weak and dreadful monarchs. That still does not justify their murder and certainly that of their children. Those under them suffered far more than they.


Countess,
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Nicholas and Alexandra. I think part of the problem was that they both believed feverantly that Nicholas was predistined by God to rule Russia. This belief was instilled in both of them I think that is one of the reason reform came so hard for Nicholas. That belief totally disabled him from being able to compromise or bring about reform. Recall the failed attempts of others to convince Nicholas to establish the Duma. He could not do it and Alex supported him every time. Personally, I think Alex should not have been so concerned with Russian politics, it was something she could not understand. She didn't grow up in Russia and had no understanding of the vastness of the country or the spirit of the Russian people. She meddled way to much and she was obsessed that the Russian throne remain in tact for her son.
Lexi

Russophile 02-02-2008 02:39 PM

Lexi, didn't Greg King and Penny Wilson in FOTR mention that Alexandra was exposed to weak men (her mother with her father, a minor princeling, grandmother, Victoria and Albert) and just slid into her role as dominating? So that's one of the reasons why she was so meddling?

lexi4 02-02-2008 02:45 PM

I think that is right Russo. And she married a weak man. You know, his parents were opposed to the marriage. I've always wondered who they would have chosen for his bride. Alex wouldn't have even made the 5th runner up list.

Russophile 02-02-2008 02:51 PM

But it was a "love match" and Granny was happy with that.
That would be an interesting topic for discussion: Nicholas II choice of a bride.

ysbel 02-09-2008 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 690022)
He was cursed by his position in life. He could have been a good and able employee and a wonderful family man. Had he been a constitutional monarch, where his presence would have been mostly ceremonial, he would have been a big success.

I agree with that. Robert Massie in his book, Nicholas and Alexandra, points out the similarities between Nicholas II and George V and noted that George V was by all accounts seen as a success while Nicholas II was seen as a failure. I often wondered whether Nicholas got his perception of what a successful monarch does by watching others on his family visits to Denmark and England - two countries that by this time had constitutional monarchies. Nicholas often reminds me of the well-meaning but hapless Louis XV who thought he would save himself and his family by reading up on the follies of Charles I of England so that he wouldn't repeat Charles' mistakes. He didn't repeat Charles' mistakes but since his situation was different, he made quite a few of his own.

In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, he mentions the plight of Russia in the late eighteen hundreds. Russia for many years was seen as socially, politically, and intellectually backwards compared to Western Europe and despite Peter the Great's attempts to force Russia into the modern world, it was still considered backwards. In the eighteen hundreds, Russia superficially got some modern technologies (like the railroads) that seemed to exacerbate their problems rather than help them.

Conversely, one of the failings of the Russian system is that it couldn't get stuff moved around in a timely manner. There were stories of troops and rations being held up thousands of miles away from the front lines because there was no system of transport. The riots that ended with the abdication of Nicholas II started because bread shipments were so screwed up that the people of Moscow and St. Petersburg began rioting of their own accord.

In Massie's book, he goes into great detail about the inefficiencies of the Russian government at the time. All power was centered in the czar so much that a Moscow resident had to appeal directly to the Czar to get a divorce. Half of Nicholas' time was spent with foolish stuff like this. The push to get a Duma was less a push to give the people a voice in their government but rather a push to get some system of government that could deal with matters quickly and efficiently. Up until the bolsheviks took over, the Russians didn't have a system for anything so everything took an incredibly long time to complete. Everything was dependent on the person of the Czar and even if Nicholas had been the most competent and benevolent ruler on the planet there was no way that he could rule such a large and diverse country to the level of detail that was expected of a Czar.

The system itself was defective because there was no system - autocratic or democratic.

ysbel 02-09-2008 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lexi4 (Post 724829)
Countess,
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Nicholas and Alexandra. I think part of the problem was that they both believed feverantly that Nicholas was predistined by God to rule Russia. This belief was instilled in both of them I think that is one of the reason reform came so hard for Nicholas. That belief totally disabled him from being able to compromise or bring about reform. Recall the failed attempts of others to convince Nicholas to establish the Duma. He could not do it and Alex supported him every time. Personally, I think Alex should not have been so concerned with Russian politics, it was something she could not understand. She didn't grow up in Russia and had no understanding of the vastness of the country or the spirit of the Russian people. She meddled way to much and she was obsessed that the Russian throne remain in tact for her son.
Lexi

I think Nicholas feared being overthrown by one of his uncles or his popular cousin Nicholas Nicolaevich if he gave up too much power. I also thought the Romanovs suffered because Alexander II and his wife Marie of Hesse sacrificed the education and upbringing of their younger children in favor of their heir Nixa and when Nixa died their hopes died with him. If you look at the termperaments of Sasha and his younger brothers, there seems to be an element of Neanderthal about them.

Nicholas' uncles (who were the younger sons of Alexander II and the younger brothers of Nixa and Sasha) seemed really intimidating and intolerable and favored autocratic rule.

Now if Nixa had stayed alive and Marie had married him and Nicholas had been their son, I think he might have had a chance but the Russians needed to get a working system of government first.

Russophile 02-10-2008 02:20 AM

Massie also talked a lot about the graft. When Nicholas Nicholievich was asking for provisions sent to the front, his cousins had lined their pockets by short shifting the army. Who was it? Boris? Brother of Andrei and Cyril that was in charge of clothing and totally shorted the army.

lexi4 02-13-2008 10:22 PM

I think a lot of things would have been different for Russia had Nixa lived. I think Nixa would have carried on his father's reforms. Alexander III was pretty ruthless and abolished all changes made by his father.

COUNTESS 02-17-2008 08:49 PM

You are all correct. Everything was put into Nixa. Man plans and God laughs. So, they were then faced with the uneducated Alexander III. Yet, if you think about it Alexander was strong and decisive, not right many times, but forceful. Marie held her ground, too. Yet Nicky vacillated and had no real strength behind him. His mother was a better politician than he. Unfortunately, Alix drew him away from her counsel. They were sucked into the vortex of revolution, as they never allowed themselves to see the real unhappiness and inherent problems. The 1905 Revolution could have opened gates to excellent reform, but, of course, they didn't. Grand Duke Sergei's demise, certainly, put them on alert. But only to their own safety, not what caused the problems.

lexi4 02-18-2008 12:22 PM

I don't think Nicholas had it in him to make the reforms necessary to stave the revolution. Unlike his grandfather, Alexander II, Nicholas was very short sighted. Alix''s counsel didn't help. She really knew nothing of the spirit of the Russian people or their culture.
Lexi

Carminha Stalker 02-18-2008 01:18 PM

I have read almost all the books written about this tragic family. None, has justified to me the massacre of a whole family, including their servants. If Nicholas II was a tyrant or monster, the Russian people surely didn´t gain by the atrocity commited in Ekaterinburg. For the real monsters and tyrants would come afterwards and certainly creating many more victims than the Tsar ever would. Or anybody thinks that those Bolsheviks were saints? Russia paid and paid dearly, for believing those lies.
Nicholas II was not a saint, nor was his wife, but he is a man I respect and love. His religious beliefs, as well as those of his family remained true to the end. He was much abused during his imprisonment, but never complained.
I am not of the Orthodox faith, but I was very happy when they were procclaimed martyrs.

Russophile 02-18-2008 01:29 PM

I don't think so either, Lex. Russia was so vast and he didn't trust his advisor's any. Pity, because he could have broken it down into sections and ruled it that way. But then again, hindsight IS 20/20. . . :biggrin:

lexi4 02-18-2008 03:32 PM

No he didn't Russo and that was part of his downfall.
Lexi

ysbel 02-18-2008 04:02 PM

One viewpoint was that Sasha put a Band-Aid on the problems of Russia which was like a gaping wound that was growing and festering even as he ruled. This viewpoint maintains that the effect of Sasha's rule was that the problems while growing ever larger were even hidden more than before and when Nicholas came to the throne, he didn't have the ability to make the Band-Aid stay.

If you take a look at some of the articles in the Mark Twain thread, you can see that in contemporary American literature of the time, several Americans were being exposed to some of the policies in Sasha's Russian including the treatment of prisoners in Siberia. Perhaps they overdramatised as literary figures often do, but the reception they received bespeaks to several perceived injustices of the Russian system that were noted during Alexander III's reign.

Given this, one may well doubt whether another czar of Sasha's character could have effectively kept a lid on things for another reign.

lexi4 02-18-2008 04:24 PM

Good points all Ysbel.
I do think had Nicholas II been more like his grandfather and willing to make some reforms it might have helped prevent/postpone the revolution. I think Bloody Sunday was one such missed opportunity. The Russian peasantry still thought of the Tsar as their "little father" and when they petitioned him, he bungled it badly. He waivered terribly on the issue of a constitutional government or Duma. Perhaps you are correct and nothing could have been done to turn the tide. But Nicholas sure didn't help the situation. When Nicholas, hoping to prevent revolution, issued the Imperial Manifest and Decree Kerensy wrote to his parents: The main aim of this Manifesto is to calm and silence the revolutionary movement that has just begun so that all the forces of the government can be consolidated for one purpose in the future: to prevent any of its promises from being delivered." (Figes, A People's Tragedy.)
The Manifest offered the people a way to direct grievances to Nicholas. And he received hundreds of petitions which Nicholas was unable to fulfill. I think Nicholas's problem was that he was unable to let go of belief that he was annoited by God to rule Russia. He believed deeply that he knew what was best for the Russian people and that they would stand by him. His calculations were terribly wrong and it cost him the his life and the lives of his family.

GlitteringTiaras 02-27-2008 08:22 PM

Speaking of books, articles, essays, and documents, the book Major Problems in the History of Imperial Russia edited by James Cracraft was a book that I was forced to read when I was an undergrad. I remember specifically two documents that were very interesting in regards to Nicholas II:

The October Manifesto of Nicholas II, 1905
Nicolas de Basily Recounts the Abdication of Nicholas II, 1917

If anyone has a chance to get their hands on this book and/or documents they are a fascinating read for all Russophiles.

lexi4 02-29-2008 12:27 AM

For anyone interested...
Here is a link to the October Manifesto
Manifesto of October 17

While the reforms promised in the manifest sound good, in reality it had very little effect because Nicholas used his veto power over the Duma. It was Count Sergei Witte who convinced Nicholas to issue the Manifesto. Witte also tried to convince Nicholas to stay our of WWI. His advice, of course, and no impact on Nicholas.

Ithil 03-07-2008 01:20 AM

Alexandra Feodorovna, the last Empress of Russia
 
It said somewhere that Alexandra was the favorite grandchild of Queen Victoria. I'm just wondering if this seems probable that she indeed was.

COUNTESS 03-07-2008 08:01 PM

She was very close to her grandmother, after her mother died. Victoria acted as her mother, so their was an intimacy that she did not share with some of her other grandchildren. Did he have an absolute favorite, who knows. Maybe, at certain times she favored some over others, but by and large she loved all her grandchildren, even Willy.

Ithil 03-11-2008 02:01 AM

I know that she was very close to her grandmother because her mother had died, when she was young, so her grandmother became a type of surrogate mother to her.

Avicenna 03-11-2008 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithil (Post 740458)
I know that she was very close to her grandmother because her mother had died, when she was young, so her grandmother became a type of surrogate mother to her.

6 years old in fact

Picmajik 03-14-2008 05:15 PM

I thought the same thing!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 264398)
what do they want then? Did anybody read 'Icon' by Frederick Forsyte. It is about russia in the middle 90-ties and in the end of the book the monarchy is restored under...Prince and Princess Michael of Kent!!!! Can you imagine HER being Tsarina?? When I read it I could not stop laughing out loud for several minutes.

I read on another thread where someone had suggested Prince Michael of Kent as the new Czar and the first thing that I though of was that's all the world needs as Czarina. Some people have posted that she is already convinced of her own self-importance. disclaimer-Of course, I am relying on second-hand reports as I do not know Princess Michael. :whistling:

Al_bina 03-14-2008 06:26 PM

Veering off the subject matter ...
 
Apart from personality traits, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have got a potential to become a glamourous royal couple. By the way, I am sure that Lady Gabriella will make a prefect princess... :smile:

tan_berry 08-04-2008 08:05 PM

In the movie The Lost Prince there is a scene that portrays Nicholas II as being unable to take any decission, even something so trivial like taking a photo of himself and George V, without the consent of his wife, who even did not answer back to his question, and then he interprets her silence like it was not an appropiate time for taking the photo: "yes, maybe it is that....." It seems she absolutely dominated him. She was the real tsar, then. And had she desired absolute power for her son, he would not been able to decide any reform even considering it necessary. I think that is why those deaths are so horrible, so many weak persons, such a good man as a person.

Avicenna 08-04-2008 08:33 PM

Quote "Russia from within" by Alexander Ular, published in 1905, William Heinemann, London

page 39 The chapter is on "The dynasty and the court"

"The influence of the empress

The serious consequences of such errors are sometimes so obvious that they cannot escape even the intermittent attention of the Sovereign. The bad effects of carelessness of this sort have engendered in the Tsar an indecision and a fear of voluntary action which have become engrafted on to his habitually vacillating character. Unfortunatly, Nicholas has no "Danish Partner" to furnish him with the needful degree of moral stability. ... etc"

Excellent book - from what I can judge. A scholar might come to another conclusion. The main value being that it reflect the mood of the time back then.

Russophile 08-05-2008 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christowilson (Post 807060)
I would be most grateful if anyone can recommend the best book or lengthy article which covers the life of the Russian royal family at their summer palace. Also if anyone knows of photographs of Tsar Nicholas II and his family holidaying there. Many thanks.

Its' hard to recommend just one book because they did move/travel from one palace to another, especially during the summer months.
Peter Kurth's: Tsar has a lot of lovely pictures in it from their travels.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-20-2008 09:09 AM

It was very sad when, Tsar Alexander III died. Nicholas was forced to rule. In his diary he wrote that he never wanted to rule and didn't even know what to do. That's why it's not a good to force someone to rule because they have 'royal blood'. Nicholas didn't have enough experience and he was too lenient. During the world war, and revlotion many people criticized that Nicholas wasn't ruling hard enough. I really think Alix did care for the wounded she took care of wounded Russian soilders in the World war so did, Olga and Tatiana. Rasputin had a big influence for Alexandra, because she had complete faith in him. He 'healed' Alexei. That's another reason why the Russian people didn't like Alix, because of Rasputin.

Russophile 08-20-2008 03:04 PM

I read in Massey Nicky thought GD George, his brother was better suited.
They always could have abdicated to the Vlad's. . . :biggrin:

Royal Fan 08-20-2008 03:38 PM

im sure they wouldve loved the Tsar doing that :P

Michael HR 08-20-2008 04:37 PM

I would have left the country if he had. Kyril as Tsar, nah!

AnastasiaEvidence 08-20-2008 05:02 PM

Either way, it depends on how Grand Duke George can handle such a big task.

COUNTESS 08-20-2008 05:25 PM

Alix was shy, neurotic and autocratic. Not a great combination. She was not unkind. Nicky was less than a leader should be and swayed with the wind. His wife had great control over him. They both failed to see the handwriting on the wall after 1905. There could have been changes.

Furienna 08-20-2008 05:37 PM

I once heard about an incident from when they were newlyweds, and they were having a ball. Several people were killed in a crowd, because too many people were at the same place at the same time. (I assume people had come there to have a look at the tsar and tsarina and their guests.) Nicholaus and Alexandra thought about having the ball end early in respect for these dead people, but some advisor told them to continue with their ball instead, as if nothing had happened. But in retrospect, many scholars now believe, that if they had ended the ball early instead of continuing with it, they wouldn't have gotten a bad reputation among the commoners, which eventually lead to their tragical fate.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-20-2008 05:45 PM

Yes, Alix actually trusted Rasputin so much. He was using her, to get to Nicholas since he was the autocratic ruler. It made it seem Alix was telling Nicholas how to run the govenment that eventually colasped. Many blamed Alix, for the cause of the revolution. I don't think she was to blame, it has a lot to do with the tsar lacks the power to control the govenment. Since Rasputin, stopped the bleeding of Alexei everytime; she had to trust him.Nicholas and Alix's children trusted Rasputin, of course because Alix wanted them to respect him. But, I honestly think OTMA had their personal strong opinions of Rasputin.There is alot of mystery for Rasputin. I myself, think of Rasputin as a fraud, he wasn't a real faith healer, he did sinful acts such as sex, and alcohal. Alix and Nicky considered him a 'man of god'. Many said, that he would use leeches to stop Alexei's pain. Somehow Rasputin, did something to stop Alexei's pain.

Russophile 08-20-2008 08:03 PM

Well sex and alcohol aren't sinful acts per say. . . .:whistling:*ahem*
I don't believe Rasputin was "using" Alix to get to Nicky. For what purpose? He didn't care about possessions or money. I remember reading, I think it was in "Holy Devil" (Rene Fulop Muller, I believe, I could be wrong, feel free to correct me) I can't remember, but there were crowds of people standing at his flat in St. Petersburg hoping for this favor or that handout. He (Rasputin) would give them whatever he had and if he couldn't, he sent them to somebody he thought could help with a little note "Do this for X. -Grigory".
Also in that book there was speculation as to what sort of "powers" Rasputin had. Yussopov claimed he had hypnotic powers and used them to stop the bleeding of Alexis. My personal opinion is that he used a combination of some form of hypnosis and just relaxation techniques to staunch the blood. Lord knows what a basket case Alix was whenever one of these fits came on, I'm sure he helped calm her down, which in turn calmed the czarevitch down to help with the bleeding.

Furienna 08-20-2008 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 813999)
Well sex and alcohol aren't sinful acts per say. . . .:whistling:*ahem*

Except that he was supposed to be a holy man.

Russophile 08-20-2008 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna (Post 814008)
Except that he was supposed to be a holy man.

Some so called holy men engaged in orgies, which, unfortunately, was a religious sect in Russia in Rasputin's time. There has been much speculation if Rasputin was a follower of this religion given is base proclivities.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-20-2008 09:55 PM

Having sex with many different women would defiantly be a sin. Drinking is also a sin. His behavoir was defiantly not that of an ordinary monk. He was very mysterious.

I think Rasputin, was trying to get some control over the tsars government, since he had the full trust of Alexandra. Rasputin, generally was ready to offer advice, occasionally offered advice on Russian military strategy (during the revolution and world war). Sometimes he would give advice to Nicholas on how to run the government. Rasputin could have used leeches to remove most of Alexei's constant bleeding. He could have also gave him herbs and hypnotized him. Some believe that his prayers would heal him or that god gave him supernatural powers. These are five possible ways Rasputin may have successfully healed Alexei. I believe that Rasputin used herbs or leeches to stop Alexei's bleeding.

Russophile 08-21-2008 03:41 PM

I don't agree that he used herbs and leeches. Somebody would have a record of it somewhere. You can't hide a leech and herbs smell.
Drinking may be considered a sin in some places but it has medicinal purposes in small doses. Unfortunately, this Jack Mormon tends to horde those small doses into LARGE ones. . . :biggrin:

AnastasiaEvidence 08-21-2008 09:27 PM

Well, this is just my opinion it didn't have to be right or wrong. I just stated what I believed Rasputin used to healed Alexei with.

Russophile 08-22-2008 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence (Post 814494)
Well, this is just my opinion it didn't have to be right or wrong. I just stated what I believed Rasputin used to healed Alexei with.

And it's good to throw those ideas out there to be discussed. :flowers:
I don't think we'll ever get a clear picture of Rasputin and the powers he possessed.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-22-2008 04:00 PM

Quote:

And it's good to throw those ideas out there to be discussed. :flowers:
I don't think we'll ever get a clear picture of Rasputin and the powers he possessed.
I agree. All of us have so many questions about Rasputin. I think he's very mysterious.

Russophile 08-22-2008 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence (Post 814776)
I agree. All of us have so many questions about Rasputin. I think he's very mysterious.

Think he WANTED to be mysterious?

COUNTESS 08-22-2008 08:01 PM

You betcha. He may have been hypnotic, but passed that he just needed a willing dupe. Alexandra was calmed by him and, thus, calmed her son and the bleeding abated. It was a perfect setup. You have to have pity on Alexandra. This was her son. She would follow anyone who gave her this peace of mind.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-23-2008 12:10 AM

Quote:

Think he WANTED to be mysterious?
Yes, he didn't want to tell everyone about his privacy. Him healing Alexei is very mysterious. But, remember the peasants couldn't understand why Rasputin was close to the family. They didn't know Alexei had hemophilia. They were very confused.

Russophile 08-23-2008 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence (Post 814918)
Yes, he didn't want to tell everyone about his privacy. Him healing Alexei is very mysterious. But, remember the peasants couldn't understand why Rasputin was close to the family. They didn't know Alexei had hemophilia. They were very confused.

The peasants didn't know anything. They (N & A) had to hide the fact that Alexi was hemopheliac. I don't think the Vlads knew either. Did they? Anybody have any info. on that? They sure were waiting for the chance to rule. Still are. :whistling:

AnastasiaEvidence 08-23-2008 08:43 AM

Quote:

The peasants didn't know anything. They (N & A) had to hide the fact that Alexi was hemopheliac. I don't think the Vlads knew either. Did they? Anybody have any info. on that? They sure were waiting for the chance to rule. Still are. :whistling:
The peasants started to wonder why someone had to carry Alexei all the time. That's when they believed that the tsar was hiding something from them. Nicholas and Alexandra even told the four daughters to kept his illness a secret too, and they did.

Michael HR 08-23-2008 09:38 AM

The "Vlads" have always wanted to rule. But many have not forgotten or forgiven Kyrill's actions in 1917 and view him as a traitor to the Crown, Dynasty and Russia and hence he should have been de-barred from the line of succession. Of course there are other reasons why some do want want his line and it is only Maria who argues that she is head of the house and therefore Empress but gets on a lot of peoples nerves in doing so.

AnastasiaEvidence 08-27-2008 07:15 PM

Quote:

I understand. Throughout history some never got away with anything, even when things happened that were beyond their control. One could think that if Nicholas had married someone who was vivacious, more open, less shy that Alexandra, he could be more loved and forgiven by the Russian people. Even if he still reigned the way he did.
Well, I think the 'bloody sunday of 1905', Russian revolution and the world war I, had so much to do with the decline and of Nicholas II. So sad, how Nicholas eventually abdicated in 1917. Lenin and the bolsheviks made Russia even worse with dictatorship.

Russophile 08-27-2008 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence (Post 816382)
Well, I think the 'bloody sunday of 1905', Russian revolution and the world war I, had so much to do with the decline and of Nicholas II.

Do you think it's because Nicholas was not a forward thinker? He lived too much in the here and now and not preparing his country for the industrial revolution and other growing pains it was experiencing?

COUNTESS 08-27-2008 08:37 PM

Nicholas wasn't a thinker. He was highly influenced by the last person to whom he spoke. And, unfortunately, his wife had a great deal of influence, first or last and both were frozen in time and thought.

AnastasiaEvidence 09-04-2008 04:19 PM

Quote:

Do you think it's because Nicholas was not a forward thinker? He lived too much in the here and now and not preparing his country for the industrial revolution and other growing pains it was experiencing?
I agree, he wasn't hard enough, he was too lenient. He didn't have enough experience, it just wasn't the job for Nicholas to be a tsar. I think being a father, instead of a ruler would have been a good enough job for Nicholas. He lacks tough behavior.

AnastasiaEvidence 09-04-2008 04:28 PM

Quote:

I understand. Throughout history some never got away with anything, even when things happened that were beyond their control. One could think that if Nicholas had married someone who was vivacious, more open, less shy that Alexandra, he could be more loved and forgiven by the Russian people. Even if he still reigned the way he did.
I agree. But, the people in the Russian court disliked Alix because she was born in Germany and her original religion was Protestantism. I've read that, they would make fun of her and call her the woman in the shoe in french. I think it's understood that a shy person, who's not so social like, Alix wouldn't like the Russian court much. Alix really didn't like to go out, and talk. She didn't want to be around so much people. I understand how she felt, because this is exactly how I am, I'm not social at all. I don't think it's right, how they mistreated Alix becuase of her character.

COUNTESS 09-04-2008 04:51 PM

If she wanted to be a recluse, she should have married some minor German Prince. When you get the big bucks for the big job, you have to perform.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises