The world of politics was one that was traditionally forbidden to the Tsarina.  While she made a good social impression, her husband ran the government.  In spite of this ideal, the Tsarina did exert influence over her husband.  Her methods proved to be an important factor in how this affected her husband’s reign.  Any influence that Marie had over Alexander III was kept quiet.  By the time Nicholas ascended the throne, her influence was welcome.  Her advice fell within the acceptable range of advice from a mother to a son.  Alexandra, on the other hand, was not expected to give her husband advice.  Therefore, she was condemned for any influence that society believed she had over Nicholas.

            To fully understand the influence that Marie had over her son it is necessary to understand some of the political events that led up to Nicholas II’s reign.  Nicholas’s father, Alexander III, came to the throne in 1881 after his father, Alexander II, known as the Tsar-Liberator, was assassinated.  Alexander II had worked for reforms throughout his reign.  He had emancipated the serfs and, the morning of his assassination, had signed a constitution that ended autocracy in Russia.[1]  Alexander III chose not to recognize this document and two months after becoming tsar, issued a proclamation stating his strong belief in autocracy.[2]  The success of Alexander III’s reign was based largely on his strong personality.

            Perhaps the most important factor in understanding Marie’s influence over her son is that Nicholas received virtually no training for his future role as tsar.  In 1892 Nicholas was nominated as a member to the Finance Committee. His knowledge of government affairs is illustrated through his comments on his nomination, “A great honor, but not much pleasure...I admit that I never suspected its [the finance committee’s] existence.”[3]  Alexander III died unexpectedly in 1894.  This cut Nicholas’s education drastically short.  The tsar had always been healthy and expected a long reign.  For this reason, he felt that he could postpone Nicholas’s education.[4]  As a result, Nicholas came to the throne almost completely ignorant of the workings of the government. 

            Marie saw giving advice to her son as the natural position for her to take.  She had been an observer of the inner workings of the government for the thirteen years of her husband’s reign and therefore knew more about the government than did her son.  Yet she did not believe that she was actually involved in the political process.  “I have nothing to do with these things.  I never meddle in politics,” she once told W.T. Stead.  Any advice she gave her son she considered to be out of love and duty. “My heart bleeds to have to write you all these painful things, but if I don’t tell you the truth, who will?” she wrote Nicholas in 1902.  “You must understand that it is my great love and devotion to you that alone could make me do it.”[5]  Sometimes Nicholas accepted his mother’s advice.  Others he did not.  What is important is that she did offer advice, and therefore played a role in shaping the events of Nicholas’s reign.

            Marie’s political advice began early in Nicholas’s reign.  On 3 August 1895 Marie wrote Nicholas concerning a loan for Princess Lopoukhin-Demidov.  The Princess had come to see Nicholas, but had been turned away as he did not receive ladies.  So instead she visited Marie.  The Princess had come to ask Nicholas to forgive the interest that she owed on a loan that Alexander II gave her family in 1875.  The loan had been paid back, but the Princess’s family had fallen on hard times, crops were bad and her husband was ill.  They could not afford the interest. In addition, she asked for a loan of one million rubles.  Marie believed that “the nobility must be assisted as long as it is possible to do so and before it becomes too late.”[6]  She explains it was a difficult time for the nobility and landowners and that the new tsar must be sure to win their favor early in his reign. 

            An interesting feature of this letter is how Marie chooses to open it.  “My Dear, Darling Nicky, This is going to be a very boring letter, but I have to write it.”  This opening emphasizes how unprepared Nicholas was for being tsar and how necessary Marie believed it was to help him.

            Nicholas’s response is interesting as well.  He turns down the request.  He is insulted that the Princess would ask this of him.  “I should have liked to see how she would have dared to even hint at such a thing to Papa,” he writes.[7]  He suggests that canceling the interest on the loan is a possibility; but it would be impossible to loan her the million rubles.  He bases his opinions on what he believes his father would have done.

            The importance of these letters lies in more than just the individual stories that they tell.  They set a precedent for Marie giving advice to her son.  Though, for the most part, he turns down her request it is obvious that he sees some good in her advice, as he agrees that canceling the debt is a wise idea.  Nicholas also shows that he is concerned with his mother’s opinion of him.  “I am sure, darling Mama,” he writes, “that you understand me, and will not be angry with me for having told you this quite frankly.”[8]

            Marie showed a great deal of interest in the 1897 conflict between Greece and Turkey.  This is easy to understand; her brother was king of Greece.  Marie first wrote Nicholas concerning this on 26 March 1897.  She asks for information on the situation as she is in Copenhagen and has only received information through the newspapers.  All that Marie knows is that war seems inevitable.  In his reply Nicholas wonders why she is so concerned.  He is clearly not favorable towards the Greeks.  “What, may I ask, are they fighting for?  They wished to take Crete from the Turks without declaring war and they are the first to shout about it!”[9]  Marie, not satisfied with her son’s response, again intervenes on behalf of the Greeks.  “The voice of Russia must make itself heard…you must insist that the Turkish troops be immediately withdrawn from Greek territory.”[10]  Apparently Nicholas listened to her advice, as he mediated in the conflict.  The result was favorable towards the Greeks, who received Crete.[11] 

            The Boer War demonstrates Marie’s influence, not because Nicholas agrees with her, but rather because he does not.  Marie is clearly sympathetic to the English.  “The losses of the English are terrible, and the position they’re in is most depressing,” she wrote Nicholas.[12]  On 9 November 1899 Nicholas wrote to his mother that, “I wish all possible success to those poor people [the Boers] in this unequal and unjust war.  Almost unbelievable sympathy is shown all over Europe to the Boers, even ordinary folk take the greatest interest in their fate.”[13]  This comes almost as an afterward to a letter describing his time spent with the Kaiser in Germany.  Marie was alone in sympathizing with the English.  Grand Duchess Xenia wrote to her brother that “We [Xenia and her husband, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich] are terribly interested in the war in the Transvaal, and are right behind the Boers.  I think there can be no one (except the English!) who isn’t on their side.”[14]  Nicholas replied, telling Xenia that he agreed with her, “Each day I read every detail in the English papers...and then discuss them with others at the table.  I am glad that Alix thinks about everything as I do.”[15]

            In addition to Marie offering advice there are also instances of Nicholas simply updating his mother on political situations.  This is the case with the Boxer Rebellion.  “The glad news has just arrived that our forces have taken Mukden, the capital of Manchuria.”[16]  Even though he does not ask for his mother’s advice, he keeps her updated, which suggests that Nicholas did feel it important to keep her informed.  His letter following Queen Victoria’s death in January 1901 shows that he is concerned with having Marie’s approval for his actions.   He is having difficulty deciding what public functions he should and should not attend.  “Am I going out too much already,” he asks after describing his activities of the past few days.  “The Queen has not yet been laid to rest—she was my wife’s grandmother after all.”[17]  He tells his mother that “one word from you will ease my mind.”  This is a clear indication that he not only respects, but desires, her opinion.

            The policy on which  Marie was most vocal was Nicholas’s handling of Finland.  Finland, though it was a Grand Duchy of Russia, had enjoyed a good deal of independence until Alexander III started the policy of Russification with hopes of making Finland a province.  Nicholas continued this policy, appointing General Bobrikov Governor General and issuing a manifesto that restricted Finnish nationalistic practices.[18]  Marie strongly disagreed with her son’s policies. Marie’s desire to tell her son the truth is one of the motives behind her advice.  Likely, she also sympathizes with Finland because of her Scandinavian background.  She tells Nicholas that Bobrikov has deceived him.  “The few Senators whom Bobrikov allowed you to see, were his creatures who lied to you, saying that everybody was happy and that it was only a small minority in Finland that was protesting.”[19]  She accuses Nicholas of going back on his word. 

“You promised me to write him yourself and to restrain his too great zeal…But since then he came to Petersburg himself and succeeded in changing your ideas completely.  You have repeatedly made it clear that your firm intention was to change nothing in that country – and now the opposite is happening!” 

She begs Nicholas not to go back on this promise.  She warns him that the current policies will only lead to revolution and warns him of Bobrikov’s plans to institute a military tribunal and increase his own power through martial law.  If Nicholas does not believe her, then he should believe Plehve (the minister of the interior), who has given Nicholas the same advice, according to Marie. 

            Nicholas does not accept his mother’s advice.  He attempts to reassure her that the current Finnish policy is sound.  After receiving her letter Nicholas had the chance to speak to Bobrikov in person.  Bobrikov explained all of Marie’s complaints to Nicholas’s satisfaction.  Also, Nicholas wanted to follow through with his father’s policies.  “It is always dangerous to stop half-way,” he claims.  Still, this decision causes him much grief.  “Therefore, my dear Mama, though it is very hard for a son to say so to his dearly beloved mother, I cannot in duty bound agree with your views on the situation in Finland.”[20]

            A year after these letters were written Bobrikov was assassinated by a Finnish civil servant, Schauman.  It is important to note that Plehve was a strong Russian nationalist.[21]  The situation must have been less than favorable if he felt as Marie did.  Therefore Nicholas’s refusal of his mother’s advice takes on a new meaning.  It seems to be more of a desire to follow his father’s policies than to ignore what she is saying. 

            In 1902 Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovitch made an illegal marriage.  There were strict restrictions on marriages in the Romanov family.  Paul’s marriage was illegal on two counts.  He did not have the consent of the sovereign and morganatic marriages were forbidden.  Nicholas wrote his mother concerning this matter on 20 October.  “The nearer the relative who refuses to submit to our family statutes the graver must be his punishment.  Don’t you agree with me, dear Mama?”  He is greatly distressed over the embarrassment he feels this marriage will cause their family.  Marie is equally opposed.  “I did hope it could be avoided,” she writes, “that in the end he would not marry after all…he seems to have forgotten everything—his duty to his children, to his country, honor, all, all, have been sacrificed.”[22]  She reassures Nicholas that in punishing Paul he is making the right decision.

            In 1906 Nicholas’s brother, Michael, followed in the footsteps of his uncle.  He wished to make an unsuitable marriage to Natalia Cheremetevskaya, a twice divorced commoner.  Nicholas wrote to his mother concerning this marriage.  Michael had just asked Nicholas for his consent.  “I will of course never give my consent to such a marriage.”[23]  Again, Nicholas shows his commitment to his father’s laws.  “With all my being I feel that dear Papa would have done the same.”  Still, he begs for his mother’s assistance.  “Do help me, dear Mama, to restrain him!”[24]

Marie shows herself to be deeply distraught over Michael’s situation.  She is in agreement with Nicholas, yet it troubles her to see Michael so upset.  Her commitment to duty is illustrated as well.  “I try appealing to his sense of duty, his duty to his country, his obligations.”[25]

            The trouble with Michael went on for quite some time.  Michael and Natalia left Russia in 1910, had a son in July 1912 and married in October of that year.  Nicholas wanted to keep this a secret, but of course, this was impossible.[26]

These letters illustrate in detail a striking feature of Nicholas and Marie’s correspondence.  The personal and political are often impossible to separate.  The marriages of Paul and Michael, though personal matters, were political embarrassments to the tsar.  This blending of the personal and political would have a great impact on Nicholas’s reign.

            The year 1905 was a year of civil unrest in Russia.  Grand Duke Sergei was assassinated. On what would become known as Bloody Sunday, petitioners were shot outside the Winter Palace, leading to more demonstrations.  Russia was defeated in a war with Japan.  Strikes paralyzed the country.  Nicholas was required to issue a constitution.  In her letter of 16 October 1905 Marie pleads with Nicholas to seek her help.  “I am desperate when I do not have news of you every day.  Couldn’t you telegraph daily, if necessary in code — and don’t hide anything, it’s much better not to.”[27]  The following day Nicholas signed the manifesto that formed a constitutional government with the Duma as the governing body.  Nicholas, again, keeps Marie informed of the situation.  Also, he thanks her for the offer of advice.[28]  Marie responds to his letter and attempts to reassure him that he has done his best in this difficult situation.  She is upset that she cannot be with him but urges him to put his faith in Witte.  “It is essential for you to show him all your confidence now, and let him act according to his program.”[29]  If Marie could not be there, at least Nicholas could follow the advice of one of her favorite ministers. 

            By the outbreak of World War I Marie’s influence seems to have declined.  Nicholas spent most of his time commanding the troops at the front.  Therefore he was away from Petersburg quite frequently.  Alexandra stayed behind and updated him on political events.  From this point on Alexandra’s influence seems to overshadow that of Marie.  His correspondence with Marie takes on a more personal note.  This is not to say that her influence has completely ended.  On 6 December 1916 Marie writes him, begging him not to sign a separate peace with Germany.  But ten days later, Rasputin was murdered.  This murder signaled a change in the tsar’s policy.  When given a petition from the imperial family asking him to pardon Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich for his part in the murder he replied, “I do not permit anyone to give me advice.”[30]

These letters and situations demonstrate that even though as tsarina Marie had no official role in the government, she still had a role in the decisions of the tsar.  This seems to have been especially true in the case of Nicholas II.  Marie gave virtually no advice to her husband, Alexander III.  In 1884 Count Paul Vassili made the comment, “The Empress Marie Fedorovna did not exercise any influence over her husband in political affairs…The Emperor keeps carefully the affairs of government away from her.”[31]  Though we now know that the second half of this statement is untrue, and that Alexander often spoke of the political situation with Marie,[32] what is important is that the people believed she had no role in the government of Russia. 

This changed with the ascension of Nicholas II.  W.T. Stead talks of this influence in his interview with Marie.  Recalling a conversation that he had with the tsar he says, “I remember telling him that the only fault people found with him was that he was so devoted to you that he did everything you told him.”[33]  Count Witte confirmed this opinion saying that, “The Emperor was entirely under the influence of his mother.”[34]  The influence of the empress seems to have been well known and respected.  In the early days of Nicholas’s reign, it was common for his ministers to ask for Marie’s opinion on important issues.[35]  Marie’s relations with Nicholas’s ministers added to her influence.  She was also used as a channel to get information to her son.  It is obvious that Nicholas respected her opinions, so ministers would sometimes come to her so that their influence would be heard.  Such was the case when Witte wanted to attempt to prevent war with Japan.[36]  She requested that the ministers keep her informed as well.  They would visit her abroad whenever possible. 

Marie’s influence came to public attention in 1905, when the Danish newspaper Dannebrog published stories telling of Marie’s interventions on behalf of Finland.  That her influence was known was also made evident through petitioners who came to see her.  This is illustrated when Stolypin, the Minister of the Interior, desired to close many Polish schools, as he felt they were spreading anti-Russian Catholic propaganda.  Women from the Polish aristocracy came to see Marie; she intervened on their behalf, and the schools remained open.[37]  Marie’s interview with W.T. Stead also suggests that her political influence was well known.  Stead questions Marie about her positions on  specific events.  Their discussion about politics suggests that Stead is familiar with her political leanings and ideas.

            Not all opinions on the empress were as high as these.  In 1905 Carl Joubert, an English journalist, published a book entitled The Truth About the Tsar.  He agrees that Nicholas is under the influence of his mother,[38] but he does not agree that this is a favorable influence.

Joubert tells the story of a friend of his, a painter, who had been commissioned to paint a portrait of the tsar and his family.  His friend, who was currently in the hospital, claimed to have received his injuries from a being struck by a flying paper weight during a fight between Nicholas and Marie.  The painter tells the following story.  He was doing his job, painting the imperial family, when Marie entered the room.  It was pleasant enough at first; Marie gave him rubles struck from the plates that he had engraved, but then the name Pobedonostev was mentioned.  Nicholas suggested replacing him.  This infuriated Marie.  Nicholas said, “Who is the tsar in Russia – you or I?  Am I to rule or be ruled?”  Then, his palettes, canvases, easel and paint started flying.  The paper weight hit him and he collapsed.  Nicholas was injured slightly by a falling canvas.[39]

This is not the only unpleasant incident that Joubert describes between Nicholas and his mother.  He quotes Marie on the day of Nicholas’s wedding.  “I wish that you had been brought back from your wedding as your grandfather was brought back from the Winter Palace!”[40]  This was a reference to the assassination of Alexander II. 

            Joubert also portrays Marie as being against any ideas that Nicholas has.  She suppresses any advice that Alexandra may have for her husband.  Joubert claims that Marie would rather see her son dead than have him change any of the policies of his father.[41] 

            He continues to give Marie credit for virtually everything that has gone wrong in Russia.  He blames her for the massacres of the Jews at Kishineff and Gomel.[42]  She has attempted to take charge of the events of both State and Church.  This is too much for one woman to handle.  Perhaps his strongest claim in emphasizing her influence is the claim that she has the newspaper Novoye Vremya under her influence.  Therefore she can have her opinions printed and show them to the tsar as fact.[43]

            Though this information is clearly questionable, it is important because it was available to the public.  Marie herself had read this book.  In her interview with W.T. Stead she dismisses the book as being untruthful.  “Just think the man actually says that on the Coronation Day at Moscow I was in such a fury with my son that I said it him ‘I wish to see you brought back a corpse as your grandfather was brought back to the Winter Palace.’ What a horror to accuse me of saying that.”[44]  This is the only issue Joubert raises that she addresses directly, but the implication is there that the rest of the book is untruthful as well.

            Overall, Marie’s influence was positive.  She was a connection to the more prosperous times under Alexander III. Her political knowledge seems to have been well known.  Especially in the early days of Nicholas’s reign, when both her influence and his inexperience were greatest, her presence must have been reassuring.  Perhaps most importantly, she understood the rules of her position as tsarina.  She did not violate them by interfering with her husband’s government.  Her place was in the realm of society.  It was not until her son became tsar that she became free to offer advice.

On 12 April 1918, when the Imperial family were prisoners in Tobolsk, Alexandra wrote in her diary, “After luncheon the Com. Yakovlev came as I wanted to arrange about the walk to Church for Passion week.  Instead of that he announced by the order of his government (Bolsheviks) that he has to take us all away (to where?) Seeing Baby [Alexei] is too ill wished to take Nicholas alone (if not willing then obliged to use force)  I had to decide to stay with ill Baby or accompany him.  Settled to accompany him as can be of more need and too risky not knowing where and for what.  (we imagine Moscow)  Horrible suffering.”[45]  Their destination was not Moscow, as Alexandra suspected, but the revolutionary city of Yekaterinburg in the Urals. 

Alexandra’s diary entry illustrates some of the key elements of her political influence.  Political decisions were often dictated by personal matters.  Also, she felt that Nicholas needed her.  Her decision to accompany Nicholas was not an easy one.  Pierre Gilliard, the children’s tutor who accompanied the Imperial family into captivity, recalls a discussion that he had with Alexandra concerning the matter of leaving her son.  “I can’t let the Tsar go alone.  They want to separate him from his family as they did before,” she told Gilliard.  “They’re going to try to force his hand by making him anxious about his family...Together we shall be in a better position to resist them.”[46]  Yevgeny Kobylinsky, the commander of the guards in Tobolsk, recalled a similar statement by the Tsarina.  “Without me there they’ll force him to do something again--that’s exactly what they’ve done already.”[47]  Alexandra is alluding to Nicholas’s abdication.  She seems to believe that, had she been with him, Nicholas would not have abdicated.  Still, the decision was difficult for her. “For the first time in my life I don’t know what I ought to do,” she told Gilliard.[48]  In the end her political duty outweighed her personal duty and she decided to join Nicholas instead of staying with her sick son.  On 13 April 1918, Nicholas, Alexandra and their daughter, Marie, left for Yekaterinburg.  Alexei, Olga, Tatiana, and Anastasia joined them on 10 May.

Alexandra’s influence over her husband was evident from the beginning of his reign.  On 30 January 1895 Nicholas made a speech that shocked many who hoped he would not be as committed to a strong autocracy as his father, saying that he would “maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my dead father.”[49]  Pobedonostev, the tsar’s former tutor, speaking to Princess Catherine Radziwill (who later wrote criticisms of the tsarist government under the pseudonym Paul Vasilli) credited this position to the tsarina.  Alexandra, strangely considering her somewhat liberal background, seems to have embraced autocracy from the start.  The roots of this can be seen in 1894 when her brother-in-law, the Grand Duke Sergei, tutored her in the principles of the autocracy.  She came to feel that a strong autocracy was the only way to rule Russia.[50]

For the most part Alexandra remained occupied with her children during the early part of her husband’s reign.  The Dowager Empress had more influence over her son at this point.  Even so, some of Alexandra’s earliest criticism came in these first years of the reign.  In 1899, a manifesto was issued declaring Nicholas’s brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch, next in line for the throne but not giving him the titles of Heir and Tsarevitch.  Alexandra was blamed for this.  On 23 July, Nicholas’s sister, the Grand Duchess Xenia, spoke with the Dowager Empress Marie’s maid-of-honor, Princess Alexandra Obolenskaya, and wrote in her diary that, “She [Obolenskaya] is horrified (as she told me) by what is being said, and in general by the speculation aroused by the manifesto!  God alone knows what is being said, and poor Alix is being accused of not wanting Misha to be made; or called the Heir.”[51]  Marie disagreed with the manifesto, she did not feel that Michael should be called Tsarevitch, but she did believe that he deserved the title of Heir. 

Much of Alexandra’s early influence seems to be in the form of urging her husband to be strong.  On 22 July 1902, she wrote Nicholas, who was visiting Kaiser Wilhelm,  telling him to “be friendly and severe, [so] that he realizes he dare not joke with you and that he learns to respect you and be afraid of you.”  She was not interested in intervening in political matters.  It was only with much difficulty that Count Fredericks persuaded her to speak to the tsar on a political matter in 1905 and she burst into tears when he asked her for a second favor.  It was not until Nicholas personally asked for her help that she became a major force in the government.[52]

The year 1905 marked a great change for the autocratic system.  On 22 January thousands of workers marched to the Winter Palace and brought their petitions to the tsar.  The Imperial Guards were informed that the petitioners intended to murder the imperial family, and as a result they fired into the crowd.  The incident came to be known as Bloody Sunday.  In a letter to her sister Victoria, Alexandra shows that by this point she has taken an interest in the government.  She states her disapproval of Nicholas’s ministers, citing a lack of “real men” in the government.  She believed that “reforms can only be made gently and with the greatest care and fore-thought.”  Her wish was not granted.  A few weeks later, on 17 February, the Grand Duke Sergei was assassinated.  The country, upset with Bloody Sunday and the recent Russo-Japanese war, in which Russia was soundly defeated, soon erupted into strikes and protests.  On 30 October, the tsar issued the October Manifesto, which established the Duma and, for the most part, ended autocratic rule in Russia. 

Alexandra’s belief in autocracy lasted throughout Nicholas’s reign, even after the creation of the Duma.  In 1903 Nicholas had ordered the canonization of Serafim of Sarov.  Pobedonostev said that canonization was not done by Imperial order, to which Alexandra replied,

“The Emperor can do anything.”[53]  She encouraged Nicholas to take advantage of his position as autocrat.  “They must learn to tremble before you,” she wrote on 10 June 1915 “...You must simply order things to be done, not asking if they are possible (you will never ask anything unreasonable or a folly).  Where there is a will there is a way and they must all realize that you insist upon your wish being speedily fulfilled only don’t ask, but order straight off, be energetic for your country’s sake!”[54]

  In spite of the events of the past decade, especially 1905, Alexandra had not changed her views on autocracy.  If anything, her belief in this system had strengthened.

            Even though she showed some interest in politics, Alexandra did not greatly influence her husband until the outbreak of war in 1914.   Their early letters are almost entirely personal.  Nicholas and Alexandra’s first separation after their marriage came on 20 September 1898, when Nicholas went to his grandmother, Queen Louise of Denmark’s, funeral.  Alexandra wrote Nicholas a letter before his departure, and he read it as he traveled. “I cannot bear to think what will become of me without you,” she wrote.  “You who are my one and all, who make up all my life.”  Nicholas’s reply came just two days later “How sad I am not to see your sweet beloved face--I cannot tell you.  It is true, we are so accustomed to being constantly together, that now we are separated I feel lost.”[55]  The mood of their letters had not changed much in 1905, when Alexandra wrote, “You will find this note when you are on your way already...God bless and keep you, my own sweetest Treasure and bring you back safely to me and your little ones.”  “I thank you from all my heart for your sweet letter,” replied Nicholas,  “It touched me deeply, I read it before bed and it did me such good.”[56]

After the outbreak of war in 1914 Nicholas spent much of his time at Stavka (the Russian army’s headquarters) leaving Alexandra at home, where she took control over many aspects of the government.  This was not a surprising decision.  According to Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, “When the Emperor went to war, of course his wife governend instead of him.”[57]  For the first time their correspondence became political as well as personal, with Alexandra showing a desire to help her husband.  The year 1914 also showed a lessened influence of the Dowager Empress, due to her disapproval of Rasputin.[58]  On 23 September 1916, Nicholas wrote Alexandra from Mogilev, telling her to “be my eye and ear there – near the capital, while I have to stick here.  That is just the part for you to keep the ministers going hand and hand and like this you are rendering me and our country enormous use.  Oh! You precious Sunny, I am so happy you have at last found the right work for yourself.”  Instead of keeping the ministers “going hand in hand” as Nicholas suggested, ministers were fired so frequently under Alexandra’s influence that the hiring and firing of ministers became known as “ministerial leapfrog.”[59]

Alexandra disapproved of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicolaievich (known in the family as Nikolasha), the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies.  Alexandra had never liked Nikolasha; she felt that he wanted to take power from her husband.  Also, he made his hatred of Rasputin public.[60]  The subject of Nikolasha appeared frequently in her letters to Nicholas.  She disliked how “Nikolasha words his telegrams, answers to governors, etc. in your style--his ought to be more simple and humble and other things.”[61]  Later she wrote to Nicholas that, “I have absolutely no faith in Nikolasha--know him to be far from clever and having gone against a man of God’s, his work can’t be blessed, nor his advice be good.”[62]  Alexandra finally persuaded her husband to remove Nikolasha from command of the armies and place himself in charge.  This was a fatal mistake on Nicholas’s part.  From this point on he became personally responsible in the minds of the people for the failures of the Russian armies.  Also, this move went against the advice of all of his ministers, except Interior Minister Goremykin, whose belief in autocracy was great.  Eight of Nicholas’s thirteen ministers resigned in protest of this move.[63]  They were told that they could not resign until replacements had been found.  It was in the appointments of ministers that Alexandra exerted her greatest influence. 

Alexandra’s main qualification for a minister was that he should be favorable towards Rasputin.  As the mood of the country was generally against Rasputin, this narrowed the field considerably.  Alexandra’s opinions on the importance of these officials are quite interesting.  “I do hope Goremykin will agree to your choice of Khvostov,” she wrote Nicholas on 22 August 1915.  “You need an energetic minister of the interior--should he be the wrong man he can later be changed--no harm in that, at such times--but if energetic he may help splendidly and then the Old Man [affectionate name for Goremykin] does not matter.”[64]  She felt that ministers were only of marginal importance.  If they proved to be unsuccessful it was not a problem to replace them.  If they were successful it would give the government a pleasant boost.  Alexandra worked to find ministers to replace the ones who attempted to resign and filled their positions with inefficient replacements.  From 1915 to 1917 there were four prime ministers, five ministers of the interior, four ministers of agriculture and three ministers of war.[65]  This constant changing of officials appeared to be a direct display of the tsar’s autocratic power and his unwillingness to cooperate with the Duma or initiate reforms.

Many of Alexandra’s political decisions were, in reality personal ones.  Her desire to protect Rasputin was actually a desire to protect Alexei.  Rasputin’s motives in giving advice are not as important as Alexandra’s motives for taking it.  His goal was preservation of his position, and he was in a society that was highly critical of him.  Rasputin supported ministers because they supported him, not for their abilities.  In his memoirs, Prince Felix Yusupov, one of Rasputin’s murderers, wrote, “Each of my visits to Rasputin convinced me more and more that he was the cause of Russia’s disasters, and that if he disappeared the diabolical spell cast over our Tsar and Tsarina would vanish with him.”[66]  Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Nicholas’s brother-in-law, described Rasputin’s influence over the Empress in his memoirs.  “I knew Alix would see in Rasputin’s assassination a thrust at herself and at her policies.  Suspicious and hysterical, she would crave revenge and would fight harder than ever for the ministers put in their positions by the alleged ‘savior’ of her son.”[67]

Nicholas’s reactions to Rasputin are difficult to read, but seem, like Alexandra’s, to have been motivated by personal feelings.  He is alleged to have said “Better one Rasputin than ten fits of hysterics a day,”[68] but Nicholas seems to have been accepting of Rasputin.  There are frequent references to Rasputin in Nicholas’s diary, “After dinner we had the joy of seeing Grigory”[69] and “We saw Grigory”[70] are typical of these entries.  In spite of his popularity with the Imperial couple Rasputin nearly fell out of their favor in 1915. Deputy Minister of the Interior Vladimir Dzhunkovsky, after being asked to intervene by Alexandra’s sister, Ella, gave Nicholas and Alexandra a report on Rasputin’s behavior in a Moscow nightclub.  Rasputin, while drunk, exposed himself and said that he acted in this manner around the tsar and had his way with the empress whenever he wanted.  Upon hearing this, Nicholas ordered Rasputin to leave the capital.  Rasputin did not return for several months, when he was called to Tsarskoe Selo to pray for Alexei.  While at Stavka with his father, Alexei caught a cold, began to sneeze uncontrollably, and began to bleed.  He was rushed back to Tsarskoe Selo, where it appeared that he may die.  Alexei immediately fell asleep and, by the following morning his nose had stopped bleeding and Rasputin found his way back into the family’s favor.  This incident demonstrates the personal nature of Rasputin’s influence over the Imperial family.[71]  He was able to help Alexei when the doctors were not.

            With the tsar at army headquarters it fell to Alexandra to report on the mood of the capital to Nicholas. She refused to listen to any criticism of the tsarist regime or the institution of autocracy, believing that these critics were not true Russians.  Nicholas shared this view.  On 9 September 1916, he wrote Alexandra.  “The proof--lots of telegrams I get from different parts and in the most touching expressions.  All this shows us clearly one thing--that the ministers living always in town  know extremely little of what goes on in the whole country.”  Alexandra merely complained to Nicholas about these attacks.[72]  Alexandra’s letters do not show the severity of the situation developing in the capital, likely she did not see it herself.  On 20 September 1916, Alexandra wrote of a solution she had for the distribution of food.  Weigh it out beforehand so the lines would not be so long.  Though Nicholas praised her efforts, it obviously was not enough.  Most of the tsar’s critics were afraid to act and it was not until the workers of Petersburg began to revolt that they felt able to do so.[73]  Alexandra, still distraught over the December murder of Rasputin, refused to believe that this was a serious situation, writing to Nicholas that it was merely a “hooligan movement, young boys and girls running about and screaming that they have no bread, only to excite.”[74]  Nicholas, like his wife, underestimating the situation sent a telegram to General Khabalov saying “I command you tomorrow to stop the disorders in the capital.”  The soldiers complied, but demonstrations continued.  Many soldiers then found themselves unable to follow the orders to suppress the crowds.[75]  The disorder in the capital had disastrous results for the tsar.  Even on 2 March 1917, the day of Nicholas’s abdication, Alexandra failed to comprehend the true situation.  In a letter to Nicholas she wrote, “Perhaps you will show yourself the troops at Pskov and beyond and get them around you.  If you are forced to concessions--you are never required to keep them, because the manner is beyond and below criticism.”[76]  Needless to say, her opinions were wrong.  The rule of the Romanov Tsars had ended in Russia.

The unwillingness of society to accept Alexandra had the unintended effect of causing Alexandra to ignore public opinion.  Had she been more aware, perhaps she would not have followed the course that she did.  Instead, her advice to her husband was usually contrary to public opinion, which had the effect of worsening the public’s view of their empress.  In the end, Alexandra’s political advice was based on what she considered best for the autocracy.  Even her dependence on Rasputin can be blamed on this, for she saw him as her son’s savior and it was only through her son that the autocracy would be preserved.