The Family Romanov Sparknotes

Misunderstandings happen in our everyday lives, but when is one misunderstanding one too many that can ultimately leave a country in ruins? The Family Romanov written by Candace Fleming is a nonfiction piece set in the time span of 1903 to 1918 filled with the experience of life in the Russian autocracy under the Romanov rule as a peasant, royal and rebel. This story tells us about the downfall of the once greatly praised Russian autocracy, Fleming takes the reader on a journey featuring the rise, but more so the downfall of their rule. After centuries of reign, the Romanov line has a final ruler, Nicholas II, decisions are made and blood is spilled. But, how far would the people of Russia go for a fair government and how oblivious is not

only a single ruler, but an entire family to the poor and neglected citizens? There are a number of misinterpretations that develop in Fleming’s novel that move the storyline along. Not only by Nicholas’ misunderstandings, but others, the plot is pushed leading to rebellion, death and the end of his rule and ultimately him and his family's life as well. Throughout the book, Fleming teaches the reader that misconceptions can create larger than life conflicts when people do not interpret a feeling or situation correctly.
Confusions regarding people and situations develop the plot into an out of hand struggle that permanently affected Russia’s view on Nicholas.

One example of this unraveled when the events of Bloody Sunday played out. A large majority of Russian citizens were under the impression the tsar was not the cause of their miserable lifestyles, when in reality he was somewhat to blame. They were convinced that their beloved leader did not know of their struggles or the immense masses of poverty they lived in. In turn they handed over a petition that requested protection for workers, a living wage, public education and reasonably priced housing. The Russian people often believed, “It wasn’t his fault… He lived so close to heaven, he didn’t know about his people’s suffering on earth” (Fleming, 61). Crowds gathered expecting the tsar to improve their conditions and protect their livelihood. What the people did not know was he would have nearly twelve thousand bayonets and rifles ready to fire after learning about the petition-signing event. In result, nearly two hundred were killed and hundreds were wounded, after that day there would be no misinterpretation about where Nicholas would stand with the people, “Now he was a ‘blood-stained creature’ and a ‘common murderer’” (62). Due to this misconception, the Russians in St. Petersburg had grown a boiling hatred for the tsar all because they held the false belief he was never to

blame.
Generally a false impression of something leads to conflict, but not always in the way or vastness that could be imagined.

In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in

jeopardy.
A final way, misunderstandings led to conflict in the Russian government was when Rasputin began manipulating Alexandra. Over time Nicholas’ cousin, Nikolasha, grew to despise Rasputin knowing he was beginning to gain influence and manipulation over the throne. Throughout the time of war in Russia, Rasputin attempted to return himself into the good graces of Nikolasha, but there was no doing so. In retaliation, he began to rouse false suspicion to Alexandra about Nicholas’ cousin. As quoted, “Rasputin seethed. Such a dangerous enemy had to be eliminated. Now, whenever he was with Alexandra, he began sowing seeds of doubt and suspicion” (142). She would then convey her concern to Nicholas, who was persuaded quite easily, leading into a domino effect of miscommunication through the royal couple and Rasputin. In result of this Nicholas took action by placing Alexandra in the position of Nikolasha, leaving the couple still clueless to Rasputin’s deceit as their faith in him continued to stand, “After all, she would not be alone. At her side, his ‘prayers arising day and night,’ would be their ‘Friend,’ Rasputin” (143). These misunderstandings and conflicts placed Rasputin in a position of power then in turn caused a brief period of time when ministers were frequently appointed and fired.
The consequences of misunderstanding have proved to be devastating in this particular novel Fleming has created, but an effective way to move the conflict and storyline along. Throughout The Family Romanov, struggles are magnified through the events of Bloody Sunday. All because the people had misconceptions about the tsar’s intentions. An additional problem that began through lack of communication was the war, lives were lost because of miscommunication between Nicholas and Vladimir Sukhomlinov. Lastly, conflicts arose in the government when Nicholas and Alexandra were being deceived and manipulated by Rasputin. As the story develops, more conflicts are introduced and become more complex. This complexity leads to misunderstandings in the Russian autocracy leading to examples of controversy in history reiterated by Fleming. By the end of the novel Fleming has shown that one misunderstanding truly is one too many and that misconceptions can begin a long journey of conflict.