By: Alexis Dantin
When individuals in America today hear about the Romanov family that once ruled Russia, many recall stories of the great legacy they left behind and the grueling deaths they suffered at the hand of the Communist revolutionaries. Others may recall the 1997 20th Century Fox Animated movie of Anastasia Romanov, or the earlier movie or musical the more recent movie was based on. The stories surrounding the Romanovs, such as the supposed surviving Anastasia and the mystical monk Rasputin, have all changed the narrative of who the Romanov family truly was. Looking at the perception of the general public today, the following question arises: How have the perspectives and ideas of the Romanov family been shifted from a failing empire into the romanticized tragedy we see them as today?
The answers to this question can be found in various primary sources, such as the diary of Nicholas II as well as more recent research relating to the finding of the Romanov remains. It is clear that Nicholas II was not a beloved leader, yet we still find the family’s death and legacy romanticized. Some would say that this romanticization occurred because it is simply the way the history of the family was presented to us, and while that is plausible, it does not show the entire picture. Throughout time, historical figures and events lose pieces of their story and the Romanovs were no exception. Over the last century, the legacy of the Romanov royal family has shifted from incompetent rulers to innocent martyrs. The romanticization of the Romanov family has spread throughout the world as stories of their individual lives and deaths have been voided of negative traits.
The Romanovs ruled Russia for over three centuries until Nicholas II abdicated in 1917. The Great Russian Empire had its fair share of strong leaders, such as Peter the Great and his daughter, Elizabeth of Russia, as well as weak leaders, such as Ivan the Terrible. Regardless of the strength of the tsars and tsarinas, the Romanovs were able to continue their reign, unbroken until Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894, becoming the last emperor of Russia. Before he would become the tsar, Nicholas II first watched as his father and grandfather ruled. However, Nicholas II was disinterested in politics and the tasks that came with ruling a country. An analysis of Nicholas II states,
“…Nicholas resumed his few functions at court and his attendance at meetings of the committee of ministers and the State Council. He took little interest in these activities, and his father did not bother to involve him further in government affairs. Although he was twenty-four years old, Nicholas was young for his age. Believing that he would reign for many years, Alexander may have been waiting for him to mature. But he did not even keep him informed on subjects of major national interest” (Grey 2016).
When Alexander III died in 1894, Nicholas II had little time to grow up and assume responsibility. Nicholas II was bestowed the title of Emperor of Russia and married Alexandra Fedorovna the same year that his father died. While Alexandra was not from Russia, she quickly became a significant member of the Russian government. Fearful of her husband’s lack of experience, she guided him in many of his governmental decisions. While she was of good intentions, she unknowingly played a major part in their family’s downfall (Grey 2016).
At the age of 26, Nicholas II became emperor of all of Russia. On the day of his ascension, surrounded by lavish decor and Russian clergymen, Nicholas II crowned himself and the new tsarina, declaring their place on the throne as autocrats of Russia (The Valentine Democrat, 4 Jun. 1896, 3). Unwilling to modernize his country and relinquish any power he held, Nicholas II was not as beloved as he first believed he would be. His subjects were facing famine and a failing economy. They would soon turn to a revolution in order to escape the autocratic system they were unhappy with. The day after his coronation, there was a stampede at Khodynka Field, killing thousands (Grey 2016). This stood as a bad omen to the future of the Russian autocracy.
Russia quickly began to fall apart with no strong leader to repair the damage. Nicholas II attempted to grow his empire; however, his attempt proved unsuccessful as Russia lost in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Revolutionary demonstrations worsened and as the number of dead began to rise, so did the growing resentment toward Nicholas II and his family. In an attempt to satisfy his subjects, Nicholas II published his October Manifesto, promising civil liberties to Russian citizens, a Duma, which would be elected by the people, and limiting the power of the Russian autocracy. However, this would not be enough to stop the growing revolution as the Duma failed and World War I began.
With the surplus of issues overcoming the country and World War I draining Russia of people and resources, the Russian people grew tired of the futile attempts of Nicholas II. Making matters worse, Nicholas II had left his throne to fight on the front lines of the war, leaving tsarina Alexandra and Grigori Rasputin to run the government. Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks began to formulate their plan to overtake the Russian autocratic government. Years of civil unrest in Russia, along with growing famine, poor working conditions, and a heavy part in a grueling World War led to the success of the Bolsheviks. Lenin and his associates had not put this revolution together in a matter of months. Instead, it had been brewing for years, perhaps before Nicholas II even ascended the throne (Pipes and Pipes 1995, 112-113). On March 15, 1917, Nicholas II wrote in his diary, “My abdication is required…The gist of them is that in order to save Russia and keep the army at the front quiet, such a step must be taken. I have agreed…All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit” (Romanov 1917). Overwhelmed and unhappy with the loss of his power and empire, Nicholas II was reunited with his family in Tsarskoe Selo at the Alexander Palace.
It was there that the Romanovs would be held for five months until they were moved further away from the capital in fear for their safety. They were then sent to Tobolsk where they were given more freedom. However, this did not last for long. When the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed in March 1918, Lenin and the Bolsheviks feared a return of the monarchy. Therefore, they moved the imperial family to a highly secured house in Yekaterinburg, filed and surrounded by Soviet guards who were to watch their every move. On July 17, 1918, around 12 a.m., Commander Yurovsky, the leader of the Bolshevik troops that guarded the house, had told a servant of the Romanovs to wake them up due to the threat of approaching White Army forces. The servant obeyed and rushed to wake the Romanovs in fear that they would be caught in the crossfire.
At approximately 2 a.m., the Romanov royal family was executed. The family, along with a few servants, were lined up in the basement of the house in Yekaterinburg and shot multiple times due to the ricocheting of bullets, disorganization of the Soviet military men, and the jewels sewn into the clothes of the women. The bodies were then brought to a secure location and burned to hide the evidence from the public (Pipes and Pipes 1995, 211-215). One of the executioners, Yurovsky, retold his experience on that night almost two decades later. He recalled, “The bones were buried, the land was leveled…At 5 – 6 o’clock in the morning, I assembled everybody and stated the importance of the work completed. I warned everybody to forget the things they saw and never speak about them with anybody” (Yurovsky 1934). The brutal killing of the Romanov family was covered up by the Bolsheviks for over half a century. Many did not know what had happened to the family, and thus, rumors and speculations began to arise and spread throughout the world.
With the Romanovs dead and the Bolsheviks controlling Russia, many Russian citizens, as well as the rest of the world, were concerned about where the Russian country was headed. Propaganda spread rapidly throughout the years and it was difficult to tell what was fact or false due to the concealment of information and falsification of documents by the Bolsheviks. Due to the unorganized killings of the Romanovs, rumors began to spread about the whereabouts of the imperial family. The public was made aware of the fate of the fallen tsar; however, it was said that the tsarina and the Romanov children were moved to a secure location in order to keep from antagonizing the public in regard to the assassination of the family. To the luck of the new Russian government, the citizens did not show much concern for the death of a leader who had failed them (Pipes and Pipes, 215-216). After all, who had time to worry about a dead emperor while your country was recovering from war?
However, this did not last for long as many in Russia and around the world began to speculate about what had happened to the family. While the people of Russia could not demand answers from the new Communist government, that did not stop individuals from digging for the truth. As the years passed, individuals began to claim they were the lost Grand Duchess Anastasia. It was speculated that Anastasia survived the shooting, thanks to the diamonds sewn into her corset protecting her from the bullets. In 1920, a woman was placed in a mental institution in Germany for attempting suicide. The woman refused to give her name and therefore the workers at the hospital called her “Fraulein Unbekannt” or “Miss Unknown.” After two years of being kept in the mental institution, Miss Unknown finally answered a staff member that her name was none other than Anastasia (Kurth 1986, 4-28). For years the self-proclaimed Anastasia was believed to be the true Grand Duchess of Russia. It was not until 1927 that the claims put forward by the woman were found to be falsified. Instead, the woman was identified as Anna Anderson, someone who had no relation to the Romanov royal family.
However, Anderson was not the only one to make claims that she was the lost Grand Duchess. A man by the name of Gleb Botkin claimed to be a lifelong friend of Anastasia who was in exile with her in Tobolsk. After several years, Botkin heard numerous reports of women claiming to be Anastasia. He had even received a letter from an anonymous writer, asking if Madame Tschaikovsky, later known as Anna Anderson, was indeed Anastasia. Botkin threw the letter out and laughed at the thought. However, once he and his sister met Madame Tschaikovsky in the flesh, they instantly believed her to be Anastasia. For years Botkin believed Madame Tschaikovsky to be Anastasia. It was not until the end of the investigation before the 1930s that he admitted to her not being the true Anastasia. However, he claimed that Madame Tschaikovsky’s demeanor and attitude were one of an Anastasia, determined and hard-headed, unwilling to feel the need to prove herself (Botkin 1930, 193-199). Dozens of women claimed to be Anastasia for years, although it was never proven that any of them were indeed her. These claims brought rise to movies and plays based on the story of Grand Duchess Anastasia. The most famous of these being the 1997 20th Century Fox Animated movie, Anastasia, which was loosely based on Anna Anderson’s claims.
Many individuals gained fame and money from claiming to be Anastasia and word of her story, regardless of the lack of historical evidence, created a new narrative of who Anastasia was. The story of a young girl who escaped the Russian communists spread throughout the world and captivated people with a romanticized hope of her survival. With no evidence, the media took hold of the stories and changed Anastasia’s entire narrative. To this day, there are still individuals who believe Anastasia to have survived the assassination of her family, regardless of the evidence of her death we have today.
Another fascinating point of the Romanov lives that many tend to cling to is that of the tsarina, Alexandra, the tsarevich, Alexei, and the mystical monk, Grigori Rasputin. Alexei was the youngest of all the Romanov children and the only boy; therefore he was the true heir to the Romanov throne before it was abdicated. Alexei, however, was born with hemophilia. The disease prevented his blood from clotting and put it at serious risk for internal bleeding as well as bleeding outwards uncontrollably if he were cut by even the smallest object. It was not until a few years later that the tsar and tsarina would be given some hope for the future of their son. Alexei had fallen very ill and was hemorrhaging despite the efforts of medical help. It was not until the tsarina received a man by the name of Grigori Rasputin that the hemorrhaging came to a stop.
Grigori Rasputin was a man of mystery to all who met him. Women were often enchanted by his words and mannerisms and Alexandra and other higher-ups of the Russian empire were no exception. In late 1906, Rasputin asked for a meeting with the tsar, and it was there that he healed Alexei for the first time. The meeting is recalled as such: “In the half-light of Alexei’s room illuminated by the lamps in front of the icons, their ‘Little One’, their ‘Sunbeam’, had not been able to fall asleep, tormented as he was by his latest attack. And the strange peasant [Rasputin] went over to his crib. And his huge crooked shadow bent over the boy in prayer. And before their eyes the boy grew calmer and quietly fell asleep. To wake up healthy the next morning” (Radzinskii 2001, 76-77).
From then on out, Rasputin became a part of the Romanov legacy. Although he was not of the same blood as them, he would live amongst them and become a personal healer for the family and a confidant to both Nicholas II and Alexandra.
Rasputin was no normal man. Scandals circulated him everywhere he went. Stories of extreme sexual experiences from both women and men that included Rasputin created a scandal for the Romanovs. The press continually accused Rasputin of being a false holy man and a drunkard who only sought out the power the Romanovs obtained. To have such a man stay in their palace only made matters worse for their image. Therefore, Nicholas II decided to send Rasputin away from the Alexander Palace, regardless of his unexplainable ability to help Alexei’s condition (Smith 2016, 168-176, 200-203). This did not last long as Alexandra begged for him to come back only after a few short months and Nicholas II allowed it.
Upon his return to the Russian state, Rasputin continued to be the royal family’s healer. He also gained power as he became a significant part of the Russian government following World War I. Before the outbreak of World War I, Rasputin had warned Nicholas II to not play a part in the issue (Rasputin [date unknown]). However, Nicholas II still chose to go to war alongside Russia’s allies. When Nicholas II left to join the front line of the war, he left the tsarina in charge of his governmental duties. Unable to gain the trust of Russian citizens due to her German heritage and overwhelmed with running a nation that was on the verge of revolution, Alexandra turned to Rasputin for help. The pinnacle of the Rasputin rumors was that of the supposed affair he had with the tsarina. The media got hold of related stories of the royal family and unwilling to pass up the opportunity for a play on words, articles started circulating in Russia stating “The Tsarina with Grigory” (Smith 2016, 428-435). From here, rumors spiraled of a supposed affair between the tsarina and Rasputin. However, there was no evidence ever found to confirm the allegations. Regardless, the popularity of both the tsarina and Rasputin plummeted.
This was not the end of the mystery of Rasputin. It is reported that there were several attempts to assassinate the unpopular monk. It was not until 1916 that Rasputin was brutally killed and thrown into the Neva River. A group of Russian conservatives, who grew tired of Rasputin’s use of power, carried out the assassination. Once word got out of his murder, Alexandra was stricken with grief over his death. However, she carried on her duties as best she could until her husband could return home (Smith 2016, 590-614). The scandal that surrounded Rasputin had further damaged the reputation of the Romanovs beyond repair. Alexei had fallen ill multiple times since Rasputin’s death and by the time of the execution, Alexei was unable to walk due to his disease.
The mystery of Rasputin’s abilities and the scandals that he was involved in puts him in the spotlight as a major cause of the Romanov downfall. Many today think of Rasputin as an evil that lurked over the Romanov house and “hypnotized” the royal family into doing his bidding. The media played a large part in this narrative as books were published and movies created to show how he led the Romanovs straight into their downfall. We can still see this today in movies such as Anastasia and The King’s Man. Rasputin is displayed as someone who has unexplainable abilities and strange mannerisms. He, therefore, became a scapegoat for many of the negative traits of the Romanovs. Instead of blaming the inadequate ability of both Nicholas II and Alexandra to pull Russia from famine, war, and revolution, Rasputin has been blamed for controlling the Russian monarchy for its last few years, tying the noose for the innocent Romanov family.
Years went on since the death of the Romanov family. Two world wars had passed as well as the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and more. With every passing year, the narrative of the royal family shifted. The people of Russia suffered for years under the rule of Lenin, Stalin, and other communist leaders. Perhaps they longed for life to go back to the way it used to be. Perhaps that is why they were holding out for the story of Anastasia to become true or were pinning the blame of a failed monarchy on a strange, mystical monk. These are answers we will never be sure of, but we can confirm that the narrative of the Romanovs has changed. It has become romanticized. Individuals today look at the story of the Romanovs and have compassion for the family as they were replaced by a brutal dictatorship. In turn, they seek to make the Romanov dynasty a time of prosperity and joy. While the argument can be made that the Romanovs were a better head of state than the Bolsheviks, their story cannot be romanticized to the point where we cannot learn from their mistakes. If historical narratives were consistently altered to dilute the bad aspects, then no one would ever learn from the mistakes of the past. While the fate of the Romanovs and the installment of the Bolshevik rule was full of bloodshed and hardship, we cannot cut and shape history to fit our wanted understanding.
After almost a century after the assassination, the last of the Romanov remains were found. A report on the findings of the remains as well as the evidence used to link the bones to the Romanovs was released in 2009. The report confirmed the finding of the last two Romanov children, Alexei and Anastasia, therefore confirming the authenticity of the bones found in the years before (Coble et al. 2009, 1-9). Once the bones were confirmed to be authentic, the Orthodox church presented the Romanovs as martyrs of the church due to their devoted faith and bravery during their captivity, adding to the positive traits of the family.
It is clear that Nicholas II was arguably a poor leader. He was unable to save Russia from famine, revolution, and war. As he tried to solve the issues before him, the situation worsened, and ultimately, the Bolsheviks won the battle. For a time, the people of Russia were happy. They were excited to receive the good life that was promised to be coming their way since the monarchy had fallen. However, this did not come true. Stories began to surface of Anastasia surviving the attack and many held on to hope that it was true, perhaps in effort to change the past and reverse the effects of the Communist revolution. However, it was never proven that Anastasia had survived the attack and the lack of evidence caused many to lose faith in the return of the young princess. Out of hope and becoming desperate, many began to point fingers at Rasputin instead of Nicholas II for the fall of the empire as they crave the nostalgia of the fallen empire. The legacy of the Romanov royal family has shifted from incompetent rulers to innocent martyrs with the telling of these stories, stories that have little to no evidence behind them.
The narrative of the Romanovs is one that is constantly changing. Political troubles, social upheavels, and other such factors consistently cause the narrative to shift. The facts of their story are that Nicholas II was unable to lead his empire, that Alexandra was unable to control the country on her own, that the Bolsheviks overtook Russia, forcing Nicholas II to abdicate the throne, and that the Romanovs were killed in Yekaterinburg. The death of the Romanovs was, in fact, brutal and arguably unnecessary. However, it does not negate the fact that the Romanovs were incompetent rulers of Russia. The fact is that the Romanovs fell from grace on their own accord. There were other factors, but it was the Romanovs who played the biggest role in sealing their fate. The story of the family has been romanticized over the years due to the gruesome death they succumbed to and the hardships of the Russian people for decades. While history should not be romanticized, it is understandable as to why the Romanov story has been altered in this manor. The Russian people had suffered famine, political instability, and war in the span of a few decades. They needed a strong leader and instead they got a Communist revolution that only made their situation worse. The story of the Romanovs is tragic and it is no surpirse that the Russian people have struggled with the facts of the story for this long. What we must ask now is what lessons have we learned from their story and have those lessons truly been taken to heart, or simply written in the history books to collect dust?
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Rasputin, Grigori. “Rasputin, Grigorii, to Emperor Nicholas II, Als.” Yale University Library. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/10926042. Romanov, Nicholas II Alexandrovich. “The Home of the Last Tsar – Romanov and Russian History.” Extracts from the 1917 Diary of Nicholas II. Bob Atchison. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/ndiaries1917.php.
Yurovsky. “The Home of the Last Tsar – Romanov and Russian History.” Murder of the Imperial Family – The executioner Yurovsky’s account. Bob Atchison. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.php.
“Crowned amid pomp.” The Valentine Democrat (Nebraska), June 4, 1896. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn95069778/1896-06-04/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1896 &index=19&rows=20&words=II+NICHOLAS&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state= &date2=1896&proxtext=Nicholas+II&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1.
Secondary Sources
Botkin, Gleb. “This Is Anastasia.” The North American Review 229, no. 2 (1930): 193–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25110949.
Coble, Michael D., Odile M. Loreille, Mark J. Wadhams, Suni M. Edson, Kerry Maynard, Carna E. Meyer, Harald Niederstätter, et al. “Mystery Solved: The Identification of the Two Missing Romanov Children Using DNA Analysis.” PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science, March 11, 2009. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004838.
Grey, Ian. The Romanovs. New Word City, Inc, 2016. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=nl ebk&AN=1358255&scope=site.
Kurth, Peter. Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. Little, Brown and Company, 1986.
Pipes, Richard, and Richard Pipes. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Archive.org. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00pipe/page/216/mode/2up.
Radzinskii, Edvard. The Rasputin File. Anchor Books, 2001.
Smith, Douglas. Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs. Picador / Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017.