The Last Romanovs

heyang · Sep 4, 2004

BTW, the Windsors aren't very British either. Nikolai and George were cousins. I remember seeing side by side pictures and there was a remarkable resemblance. The Windsor name was taken to disassociate themselves.

I believe Prince Phillip was not happy when his wife did not use his name since it isn't 'British' enough.

anya_angie · Sep 4, 2004

Of course the Romanovs and Windsors are not blood-defined Russian/British. Just like none of us are American. But we still consider ourselves so. Why? Interesting question.

Alix was indeed German, but her heart was Russian, she swore so to the end of her life.

JaneEyre5381 · Sep 4, 2004

I believe Prince Philip was of Greek origin, and his family changed the name of Mountbatten. Elizabeth and their children didn't use the name because Philip wasn't the King. I really hope that I'm giving correct info here. I got it from A&E's "Meet The Royals" series last year..lol. Yes, I'm a nerd and proud of it.

As for Nicky and George looking alike, they were first cousins, because their mothers Dagmar (Empress Maria Fiodorovna of Russia), and Alexandra the wife of Edward VI (I hope the number is right) were Danish princesses. The two men looked so much alike, that when Nicky came to George's wedding in 1893, people got them confused. At one instance someone asked George if he came to Britain just for the wedding or for political reasons as well, and Nicky got congratulated on getting married. If one looks at photos, the resemblence is quiet strong. Due to my vision condition, I have a hard time telling the two men apart when they're pictured together.

As for Alix being "Russian", I think it's worth noting that she loved her adopted country. I think she was more devout in the Orthodox faith then many who were born into it, and practiced it all their lives. I think her devotion came from the fact that she loved her husband to no end. When one is devoted to his/her spouse/significant other, their joys and sarrows become one's own. Perhaps she felt that Russia is her home, since it's the home of her beloved.

Dasha

mariana · Sep 4, 2004

BronzeisGolden said:
Oh yeah, thanks Anya! I've been in American/European (non-Russian) history in college for far too long! I know it sounds terrible, but I really am not all that fascinated by American history. I'd much rather be taking courses on Russian history.

The same happends to me, I preffer european and asian history, but when it comes to Argentinian history well...I have fell asleep in class many times

Ptichka · Sep 4, 2004

Peter the Great is, indeed, a much more interesting topic than Nicolas II. However, his role in Russian history, while certainly defining, is rather ambiguous. There is no doubt that his reforms brought Russia into 18th century and into Europe. A big question, however, is: was it worth it? He largely stamped out the very traditional Russian religion, replacing it with a more Westernized version; while we can certainly sympathize with a fight against religious extremism, can we really say if such violation of people's religious rights is justified. Peter built one of the most beautiful cities in the world; its location was dictatated by tactical considerations; as a result, thousands of people died while creating a city that is basically built on a swamp; was it worth it?

Traditionally, Peter's sister Sophia was indeed portrayed as a monster. Of course, history is written by the victors. Lately, much has been written on how Sophia, too, wanted to introduce changes to Russia (such as founding the Academy), though much more slowly. Who knows, perhaps, if the changes were brought to Russia more gradually, its subsequent history would have been a touch less turbulent.

Please understand, I am not anti-Peter. He was without a doubt one of the most brilliant figures in World history. I am just trying to show a different point of view.

BTW, as to the succession. Peter's father had many children (mainly daughters) from his first marriage. Sophia, upon becoming the ruler, was very fearful of he little brother. The legend has it that he asked her to provide him with some men so he could train them to be basically clowns. The sister was all too happy to oblige since she thought it would keep him occupied. Peter then, with the help of some Dutch friends, turned the men into an elite fighting force that helped him overthrow the sis. He then imprisoned (sent to the monastery) most of his sisters, except for I believe 2. He did, though, get along quite well with his siblings from the same mother.

BronzeisGolden · Sep 5, 2004

Please understand, I am not anti-Peter. He was without a doubt one of the most brilliant figures in World history. I am just trying to show a different point of view.

Lol....someone has to be the devil's advocate in a history discussion....otherwise they have the tendency to become somewhat boring. I completely agree that this is indeed a very relevant question. Peter grabbed the reigns and forced his country in the direction HE wanted to go. Was it the right direction for Russia? Who can say for sure. He brought about swift and dramatic change nearly overnight (well, in historical terms) for his country. But, I think the most important aspect of that is that Peter was capable enough to control the situation and did a great job of guiding Russia through the transitions. But, those rulers that followed him were (for the most part...there are certainly some notable exceptions) not as well suited for the job.

I've always been so interested in Russia because it has never been a nation that you could neatly place in an "Eastern" or "Western" category. It is such a multi-faceted nation and I believe it could never completely be part of the East or West....it is Russia...in a category all by itself. It has a unique "soul" and always will....even the drab cloak of Communism couldn't conceal that for too long!

OwenEvans · Sep 5, 2004

BTW, the Windsors aren't very British either. Nikolai and George were cousins. I remember seeing side by side pictures and there was a remarkable resemblance. The Windsor name was taken to disassociate themselves.

The "Windsors" became such only during WW1 as a result of the anti-German feeling within Britain at the time - I think the English royals were still "Hannover" up until then, just as the Battenburgs had to change their name to Mountbatten. German Princes were considered best (such as QV's husband Prince Albert, from Duchy of Saxe-Coburg - Saxe-Coburg Princes were considered the "studs of Europe") as were German Princesses valued highly for thier practicality, energy and childbearing abilities. Catherine the Great was born a very minor German Princess. QV in particular, being 3/4 German herself, loved any and all things German and it would have been interesting to see her reaction to WW1 renaming.

It is fascinating (and slightly creepish when one realises the incestuousness of it all) to have a look at the family tree of the European royals and realise how intermarried everyone was. Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark really should be called the Grandmother and Grandfather of royal Europe as their children ended up being rulers just about all of the place. No wonder so many of them were insane - talk about being interbred! This is why haeomophilia (sp) was a scourge amongst the royal families throughout the 19th century. Queen Victoria was a carrier (lost a son to it), passed it on to her daughters (all of whom gave it to at least one son of their own) which is why the Tsvarevich Alexis had it. His mother, Empress Alix was QV's granddaughter.

With the exception of the Prussian Kings after Frederick the Great and of course, the English, French was the language of choice at all the royal courts although most aristocrats and certainly most royals could speak several languages. Usually the native language was used only to speak to the servants. There are several cases where rulers spoke their own languages very poorly (Frederick the Great) or not at all (Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary - never learnt German, can u believe!!), preferring to speak French at all times. This all came about from the time of the Sun King, Louis XIV and everyone else falling over backwards at the beauty and fabulousness of all things at his court in Versailles.

I love history and especially Russian history.

cygnus · Sep 5, 2004

OwenEvans said:
BTW, the Windsors aren't very British either. Nikolai and George were cousins. I remember seeing side by side pictures and there was a remarkable resemblance. The Windsor name was taken to disassociate themselves.

The "Windsors" became such only during WW1 as a result of the anti-German feeling within Britain at the time - I think the English royals were still "Hannover" up until then, just as the Battenburgs had to change their name to Mountbatten. German Princes were considered best (such as QV's husband Prince Albert, from Duchy of Saxe-Coburg - Saxe-Coburg Princes were considered the "studs of Europe") as were German Princesses valued highly for thier practicality, energy and childbearing abilities. Catherine the Great was born a very minor German Princess. QV in particular, being 3/4 German herself, loved any and all things German and it would have been interesting to see her reaction to WW1 renaming.

It is fascinating (and slightly creepish when one realises the incestuousness of it all) to have a look at the family tree of the European royals and realise how intermarried everyone was. Queen Victoria and King Christian of Denmark really should be called the Grandmother and Grandfather of royal Europe as their children ended up being rulers just about all of the place. No wonder so many of them were insane - talk about being interbred! This is why haeomophilia (sp) was a scourge amongst the royal families throughout the 19th century. Queen Victoria was a carrier (lost a son to it), passed it on to her daughters (all of whom gave it to at least one son of their own) which is why the Tsvarevich Alexis had it. His mother, Empress Alix was QV's granddaughter.

With the exception of the Prussian Kings after Frederick the Great and of course, the English, French was the language of choice at all the royal courts although most aristocrats and certainly most royals could speak several languages. Usually the native language was used only to speak to the servants. There are several cases where rulers spoke their own languages very poorly (Frederick the Great) or not at all (Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary - never learnt German, can u believe!!), preferring to speak French at all times. This all came about from the time of the Sun King, Louis XIV and everyone else falling over backwards at the beauty and fabulousness of all things at his court in Versailles.

I love history and especially Russian history.

I'm not sure why royal inbreeding is any more "creepy " than any other. As an amatuer geneaologist, who has been researching my family origins, (mostly among poor famers in rural Finland), I have a database of over 40,000 names- a believe me- there is LOT of intermarriage. I descend from a particular gt-gt-more gts grandparents no less than 17 different ways! And I have given up on numbering "cousin" marriages in any special way- there are too many of them. If one thinks about it- the peasantry, who were generally not mobile would have been far more inbred than royalty up until the industrial revolution- their lines of descent were just less well documented! (Except in Finland, luckily for me!

And hemophilia was unfortunately brought into the royal family through Queen Victoria- but only 2 of her daughters were carriers- Alice- who through her daughter Alix brought it into the Russian RF, and Beatrice, who brought it into the Spanish RF. Vicky and Helena were NOT carriers- Louise had no children. It was not brought in through inbreeding, but probably by a spontaneous mutation in QV's genes. And insanity is no more common if royal families than any other- again it is just more documented (although I suppose the Hapsburgs overdid the marrying thing, with lots of uncle- neice marriages- now THAT is icky!)

OwenEvans · Sep 6, 2004

"I'm not sure why royal inbreeding is any more "creepy " than any other."

I'm not sure why either; I didn't intend to compare anything, just state my opinion in relation to 19th century royal marriage trends only.

"And hemophilia was unfortunately brought into the royal family through Queen Victoria.....It was not brought in through inbreeding, but probably by a spontaneous mutation in QV's genes."

Again, my apologies. I guess my point was vis a vis the extremely limited circles from which royals took their partners.

However, thank you for pointing out that "Vicky and Helena were NOT carriers- Louise had no children". While I'm not thrilled to be "shouted at", I am happy to admit that I stand corrected.

cygnus · Sep 6, 2004

OwenEvans However said:
Oops- sorry- I wasn't really shouting- it's just my style of typing- I overuse emphasis,(and I use too many brackets as well).

The Last Romanovs

heyang

anya_angie

JaneEyre5381

mariana

Ptichka

Forum translator

BronzeisGolden

OwenEvans

cygnus

OwenEvans

cygnus

Similar threads

Connect with us