Another of Alexandra’s supporters here was the Grand Duke Alexander. He despised Rasputin and decried his association with the tsarina, but Sandro recorded that where Alexandra was concerned, “I must admit that she was far above all her contemporaries in fervent Russian patriotism. Raised by her father, the Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt, to hate the Kaiser, she dreamed all her life to see the day of Prussia’s debacle, and next to Russia her admiration lay on the side of Great Britain.”16 And to her husband, the tsarina proclaimed that “yes, I am more Russian than many another,” adding that she was motivated to speak her mind, and so “I wont [sic] keep quiet.”17
Even Alexander Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government which came to power later, after the overthrow of Nicholas II, would admit that there was no evidence to back up the assertion that the tsarina was a German spy. The British ambassador to St. Petersburg, Sir George Buchanan, wrote that Keren-sky “once told me that not a single compromising document had been found to show that either she or the Emperor had ever contemplated making a separate peace with Germany.” And Kerensky recalled Alexandra’s spirited defense when she told him after the 1917 Revolution, “I am English and not German, and I have always been true to Russia.”18 But the accusation that Alexandra was a spy and a traitor to Russia was potent, and it had devastating consequences.
The stories of her alleged traitorous actions against Russia were not confined to Petrograd. An English nurse accompanying the Russian forces heard of the rumors swirling about the tsarina, nothing that “in certain cliques she is referred to openly as the Nemka [German woman].”19 Maurice Paléologue recorded that a friend arriving from Moscow reported, “the public there is furious with the Empress. In drawing-rooms, shops and cafés, it is being openly said the Niemka, the ‘German Woman,’ is about to ruin Russia and must be put away as a lunatic.”20
The abuses hurled at Alexandra were not enough to still her in her quest to get Nicholas II to fight for the throne. On the contrary, the tsarina believed that her own ability to be “strong” was in large part to blame for her unpopularity. She wrote to Nicholas in December 1916:
Why do people hate me? Because they know I have a strong will, and when convinced that a thing is right do not change my mind. Those who are afraid of me, who don’t look me in the eyes, or who are up to some wrong, never like me.…But those who are good and devoted to you honestly and purely, they love me—look at the simple people and military. The good and bad clergy, it’s all so clear, and that is why it no longer hurts me as when I was younger.21
While he was away in Stavka at Mogilev, hardly a day went by when the tsar was not greeted by a letter or telegram from his beloved “Wify” or “Sunny” at Tsarskoe Selo. Some may interpret this as nothing short of hectoring. But in plying her husband with comments, opinions, and advice, Alexandra was certainly taking to heart what her grandmother had always advocated: “a good & sensible wife shld. Always tell her Husband what she thinks right or wrong & try & be a real helpmate to him.”22
As Russia hurtled toward implosion, Romania was in pandemonium. The incredible strain placed on the town of Jassy, plus the brutally painful fact that three quarters of Romania lay under German occupation, made it appear as if all was lost. To some, it seemed as if siding with the Entente had brought nothing but misery. Queen Marie recalled years later the anguish of that time: “The remembrance I keep of those days is of a suffering so great that it almost blinded me…black waves seemed to be rushing in upon me threatening to drown me,yet I was quite calm and continued living and working as though my heart had not been torn from my breast.”23 Like her beleaguered cousins in Petrograd and Athens, Marie of Romania was trying desperately to keep her head high.
Though Romania seemed all but defeated, the queen was determined not to ease up on her goal of sustaining everyone’s morale, including King Ferdinand’s. Marie, the warrior queen, was undeterred in her quest to comfort the sick, the dying, and the defeatists, rallying all to Romania’s cause. The American ambassador was so impressed with everything Queen Marie accomplished during the country’s darkest hours that he wrote, “there is no doubt in my mind that if she could have led the soldiers, the Roumanian army would have been unconquerable.”24
Unbeknownst to many of her admirers, Queen Marie did actually sometimes feel privately overwhelmed by the immensity of the task before them. But she never let down her guard in public. There were moments when Marie found herself deeply depressed, writing of those dark times, “there is no suffering that my people have not been called upon to endure, no fear, no sorrow, no pain— every misery, both moral and physical, had to be borne at once.…And I, their Queen, suffered with them, struggled with them, wept with them, shared and understood their every grief.”25 Marie empathized with her people, consoling them in their grief, but always she put on a brave front, so that when they saw their queen, the Romanians could also see the face of hope.
In rallying her husband to fight for autocracy, Tsarina Alexandra was animated by the imprimatur of Rasputin. Reform by way of more power to the people was, in the tsarina’s eyes, not something that Russia was prepared to embrace at this point. Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism were the principles that needed to be kept intact. As Alexandra pointed out in March 1916, “for Baby’s sake we must be firm as otherwise his [Alexei’s] inheritance will be awful, as with his [mild?] c[h]aracter [we must see that] he wont [sic] bow down to others but be his own master, as one must in Russia whilst people are still so uneducated.”2 In an earlier letter to her husband, she wrote, “it is the beginning of the glory of yr. reign, He [Rasputin] said so & I absolutely believe it. Your Sun is rising—& to-day it shines so brightly.” “My very own beloved one,” she noted optimistically: “I fully believe in our Friend’s words that the glory of your reign is coming.”27
By the fall of 1916, she was writing to the tsar: “I feel cruel worrying you, my sweet, patient Angel—but all my trust lies in our Friend, who only thinks of you, Baby & Russia.—And guided by Him we shall get through this heavy time. It will be hard fighting, but a Man of God’s is near to guard yr. boat safely through the reefs—& little Sunny is standing as a rock behind you, firm & unwavering with decision, faith & love to fight for her darlings & our country”28
In her obsession to uphold the tsar’s autocratic powers, Alexandra Feodor-ovna may have seemed completely out of touch. She was, however, not alone in her desire to preserve autocracy for the sake of Russia. One of the national newspapers, Grazhdanin, devoted pages to expounding this view:
[Russian autocracy was] represented as being different from the monarchies of Western Europe; it was pointed out that its greatest strength lay in the loyal devotion of the Russian people, all of whom believed that the Tsar was the sole author of Russia’s greatness. This understanding and relationship between Tsar and people, it argued, must be preserved in close union, and any forces that tended to threaten this union must be destroyed.29
Even Sir George Buchanan, the British ambassador at St. Petersburg from 1910 to 1918, conceded that Alexandra may not have been completely incorrect in thinking this way: “she believed—and in principle, as subsequent events have shown, she was not altogether wrong—that the autocracy was the only régime that could hold the Empire together.”30
Nicholas II shared her views on his role as tsar. For Nicholas, the concept of preserving autocracy did not stem from any personal desire to hold on to power. On the contrary, the mild-mannered tsar was always a reluctant emperor, who held to his prerogatives only because he promised to do so before God at the coronation.
When one of Nicholas II’s generals insisted in 1917 to the tsar that he must concede more powers to Russia’s parliament, Nicholas explained that “this formula was incomprehensible to him and that he would need to have been differently educated, to be born again…once more he stressed that he was not personally hanging on to power but only that he could not take decisions which were against his conscience and, having shed responsibility for t
he course of events before people, he still could not consider that he was not responsible before God.”31
But a diminution in the tsar’s powers had already occurred with the October Manifesto of 1905, which paved the way for the creation of the Duma. When he had to address this issue, Nicholas II was tortured by the thought that the armor of autocracy was being sacrilegiously chipped away. He told his ministers, “The question still torments me: do I have the right to change the form of that authority which my ancestors bequeathed to me?”32 Further erosions of the imperial power must be avoided at all costs. To abrogate more powers, especially because of some subversive elements in society, would be a desecration of his vows at the coronation. In this, Alexandra concurred wholeheartedly.
Alexandra Feodorovna was not by any means an unintelligent woman. She had a curious and able mind and was an avid reader. Her literary tastes were not confined to light novels; besides the numerous foreign newspapers and magazines she subscribed to, and read, the shelves at Tsarskoe Selo were always being replenished with books the tsarina had purchased. Among her favorite topics were the sciences and philosophy. The tsarina once complained to a friend how she wished she had more time to read: “Alas I have not much free time, but when I find a spare moment I sit down to read. I am so fond of ‘Boehme’ and many of the German & Dutch theosophists of the 15th & 16th cent:—there are such splendours & they help one on in life, & make everything so much easier to bear.”33 “Boehme” was Jakob Boehme (1575–1624), a pious German Lutheran who was moved by his religious visions. He spoke of placing the intellectual world within a person’s heart, but also of consciously experiencing everything as connected with the great beyond. Such works struck a deep chord in the tsarina’s intellect and soul.
Beyond her beloved world of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century philosophers and religious literature, Nicholas read to her in the evenings from Gogol, Tolstoy, or Turgenev, often in the original Russian. Tolstoy was a favorite, particularly War and Peace. So taken was the tsarina by this great work that she came to believe in its portrayals of the Russian people’s loyalty to the tsar, commenting, “this indeed is the true Russia.”34 Even at the height of the Great War, with all the anxieties around her, Tsarina Alexandra remained interested in literature and the arts. In March 1916, she wrote to tell her husband, “I had a collection of English ones [books] brought me to-day, but I fear there is nothing very interesting amongst them. No great authors already since a long time & in no other country either, nor celebrated artist, or composer—a strange lack.” Alexandra then went on to muse about the future: “One lives too quickly, impressions follow in rapid succession—machinery & money rule the world & crush all art; & those who think themselves gifted, have ill minds.—I do wonder what will be after this great war is over!”35
Russia’s last empress was therefore someone who possessed some degree of intelligence and whose tastes were certainly not philistine. However, her headstrong personality and propensity to brood served to overshadow her other fine qualities. Ultimately, these flaws prevented the tsarina from breaking free to meet head-on the challenges that had emerged the moment her life in Russia began.
In her defense of autocracy, Alexandra was following Queen Victoria, a monarch who believed firmly that the exercise of monarchical powers at hand was a privilege and a prerogative that needed to be flexed when necessary.
E. F. Benson, son of an Archbishop of Canterbury under Victoria’s reign, noted: “One entity…was that of Her Majesty the Queen of England, supreme (and determined to exercise her supremacy and to demand the due recognition of it) in all questions that concerned the welfare of her realm.” Benson cites an occasion when Victoria opposed moves to make one of her bishops give up his residence, commenting tartly, “If you begin giving up, they will go on grabbing till they get everything.”36
Tsarina Alexandra had effectively played into the hands of her enemies when she strongly supported government ministers who were notorious for their ineptitude and for their association with Rasputin. Two in particular, Alexander Protopopov, who became minister of the interior in October 1916, and Boris Stürmer, who, to the incredulity of many, became prime minister in February 1916 and foreign minister in July of that year, were particularly hated. Sir George Buchanan had scathing words for Stürmer, whom he described as possessing “a second-rate intelligence.” Furthermore, the inexperienced prime minister was “a sycophant, bent solely on the advancement of his own interests.”37 Protopopov was no better. The Duma and its president, Mikhail Rodzianko, a monarchist but a vocal critic of Rasputin, not only disliked Protopopov, they distrusted him. Rodzianko considered Protopopov highly eccentric and quite unsuited to the grave task of helping to govern Russia. One courtier even went so far to say that Protopopov was “a lunatic.”38
With unpopular and incompetent government leaders championed by the tsar and tsarina at the helm, the clamor for Nicholas and Alexandra to get rid of such ministers was rising. But by this time, Alexandra was impervious to anyone who dared to question her or Rasputin’s judgment. Once again, Alexandra refused to heed the warning signs. The embattled Stürmer was eventually removed from power in November 1916, but not without a fight from the tsarina. If people thought Stürmer’s removal might ease the situation, they were mistaken. His replacement, the more acceptable Alexander Trepov, was an implacable enemy of Rasputin. Thus, Trepov was in the tsarina’s bad books.
Impervious to criticism, Alix exhorted Nicky to fight on:
My own dearest Angel,
Remember why I am disliked—shows it right to be firm and feared and you be the same…believe more in our Friend.…He lives for you and Russia.
And we must give a strong country to Baby, and dare not be weak for his sake, else he will have a yet harder reign.…Let our legacy be a lighter one for Alexei….
Be firm. I your wall, am behind you and won’t give way.…“Russia loves BELEAGUERED AND BETRAYED to feel the whip”—it’s their nature—tender love and then the iron hand to punish and guide.
How I wish I could pour my will into your veins.…I love you too deeply and cry over your faults and rejoice over every right step.
Wify39
Sandro, the tsar’s brother-in-law, tried to talk some sense into both Nicholas and Alexandra. But once the grand duke began to discuss the political instability consuming Petrograd, a look of “mistrust and coldness” came over the tsar’s eyes. “You do not seem to trust your friends any more, Nicky,” said his old friend. Looking past the grand duke, the Tsar “icily” replied: “I believe no one but my wife.”40
By the end of 1916, few were immune from the wrath of Alexandra. She had lost all patience with anyone, including close family members, who dared to cross her in areas she conceived as sacrosanct—and this meant the tsar’s rule, Rasputin, and her role in governing Russia.
What Alexandra failed to realize was that even after so many years in Russia, she still needed to work at being empress. The symbolic ceremony uniting her to the Russian people which had occurred at the coronation did not mean that Alexandra could ignore learning how to exercise her role as tsarina. It was not enough to be joined by God to the people; she also needed to help herself by earning her subjects’ love and respect. This was something Queen Marie of Romania intuitively grasped and it worked to the mutual advantage of the queen and her people.
Marie had revealed her concept of monarchy to Tsarina Alexandra’s mistress of the robes: “Things are different with us. In your country, the sovereigns are demigods, who may do anything they please. We have had to work to win the acknowledgment of our people, and I always teach my children: ‘Everyone bears the duties of his position. Our duty is to earn the love of our subjects, to be amiable and agreeable.’ “41 With such a level-headed attitude, small wonder that years later, Marie of Romania would have scathing words to say about Alexandra of Russia. In 1929, Marie wrote that “the Emperor Nicolas was lovable, utterly lovable. His wife was a fanatic and had the governess attitude t
owards all men and things; she was a pharisee.”42
“I cannot help feeling that in this Greek question we have allowed France too much to dictate a policy, and that as a Republic she may be somewhat intolerant of, if not anxious to abolish, the monarchy in Greece,”43 King George V wrote to the British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, in September 1916. King George would soon find his suspicions confirmed.
Two weeks after receiving this letter, Grey received a dispatch from the British minister at Athens, Sir Francis Elliot, with a similar message: “The King of Greece sent for Russian Minister yesterday and spoke to him more bitterly than ever of conduct of British and French military authorities and diplomatic representatives. His Majesty’s anger was greatest against the French.…He said he would never be induced to join by pressure; he must choose his own time and opportunity. He had now no army and it would take at least 2 months to form one.”44
With an intransigent king on its hands, the Allied propaganda machine was cranked up another notch. In October 1916, rumors had it that King Constan-tine was fortifying Tatoi in readiness for a military engagement. In order to allay British fears and assure them that no such thing was happening, the king invited the British minister in Athens to send his embassy’s military attachés to inspect Tatoi for themselves. An embarrassed Sir Francis Elliot replied that “His Majesty’s word was enough for me.”45 It seemed almost as if the British were trying to find ways of avoiding chances to confirm that the king was not against the Entente. But proof that the Allies were intent on seeing Sophie and Con-stantine overthrown is evident in the active efforts on the part of the French to replace the king with their own candidate. In a secret message to London in the summer of 1916, Sir Francis Elliot reported that the French “are concocting a scheme for overthrowing King Constantine and his dynasty and setting up Prince Louis Napoleon! It sounds like lunacy, but it is sober earnest on the part of the conspirators.”
Born to Rule: Five Reigning Consorts, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria Page 34