The fall of a dynasty – the Romanovs

2013. Another 100 years…

100 years before, in 1913, there were luxurious celebrations, pageants, balls and other events to commemorate the then 300 years rule of the Romanov dynasty. Those were different times.

I was thinking a lot whether the fall of the Romanovs was a necessity or not. When I was younger I tend to put all the blame on the communists, specially Lenin, and I turned a closed eye to the faults of Tsar Nicholas II and the other family members. I said myself that the last Russian emperor was clearly a good man, a loving husband and a more loving father, therefore I could forgive him the mistakes he made during his reign.

Now, after becoming more mature and meeting more rulers and more dynastic falls, I still cannot blame him from the bottom of my heart, but I can admit that he was not competent as a ruler. He couldn’t keep his family matters under control and – this is the most serious guilt in my eyes – he couldn’t put the interests of his country above all else. I always search excuses for him, and I think his disability to rule a country was mostly due to his upbringing. His mother, the Empress Mariya Fyodorovna was an overbearing mother who wanted to manage her children’s life even when they were already grown up.

The other person whom I find partly guilty is Nicholas II’s wife, the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna. Though I admit that their love story is touching and moving and I used to sympathize with the German-born empress, I find her nature and role in the state matters no more likable. She couldn’t bear a healthy son, she couldn’t adapt to the Russian court, she couldn’t win the friendship of her mother-in-law and most of the Romanov-kinship and – probably the two most serious problems with her – she gave totally bad advices to the emperor and she couldn’t behave like an empress at all. Her subjects didn’t love her, and it was noone’s mistake but hers.

So, to go back to the origional question, was the fall of the Romanovs a necessity? I think the answer is no and yes at the same time. No, because though the whole regime was outdated, it could have been saved with reforms and with a good emperor. And yes, because the Romanov dynasty couldn’t produce this glorious tsar to save the empire. Neither Tsar Nicholas II, nor Alexandra Fyodorovna acted as right monarchs: they were parents firstly, spouses secondly, friends and relatives thirdly and only after these all they were rulers. But they shoud have been rulers firstly.

I like historical ’maybes’ and ’ifs’, because they make me think. So maybe if Russia hadn’t joined the First World War, the dynasty would have been able to survive. Without reforms only a few years, and with huge modifications… who knows? And the capable person who could have made those necessary steps that were required to save the monarchy? It’s just my personal opinion based on my own intuitions, but I think Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, the tsar’s eldest daughter had the qualities to become a great empress regnant.

by Alla