'The Romanov Sisters' examines the lives of the royal siblings before their early deaths

Helen Rappaport brings out the character of each of the four daughters of Russian Czar Nicholas II and does it neatly.

The Romanov Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra, by Helen Rappaport, St. Martin's Press, 512 pp.

An experienced biographer of British and Russian royals, Helen Rappaport presents us with the short, happy lives of the daughters of Russian Czar Nicholas II – four sheltered, earnest girls who never harmed a fly. Their little brother, Alexey, next in line to be czar, was the only other child the girls ever really knew: “The extraordinary closeness and self-sufficiency that was the mark of the four Romanov sisters persisted, as too their touchingly childlike innocence about the world.

But it was a strange hothouse atmosphere in which to grow up,” writes Rappaport in The Romanov Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra.

Because assassinations of Russian government officials were not uncommon during Nicholas’s reign, which began in 1894, security was tight, and the czar and his family retreated from the public: “As a result, the Russian people, as one London paper observed, had absolutely no sense of the ‘sweet family life’ of their tsar and tsaritsa.’ ”

In their time, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia were depicted in international accounts as a cute, indistinguishable quartet. But Rappaport brings out each one’s character and does it neatly, with a fine touch. The only occasionally unsympathetic member of the czar’s family is Czarina Alexandra, who, though a loving and engaged mother, seems to have been a hypochondriac who spent long periods in bed.

Nicholas was stubborn about maintaining his power but apparently not skillful at using it. Rappaport’s focus, however, is on the arena in which he excelled: “History may have condemned him many times over for being a weak and reactionary tsar, but he was, without doubt, the most exemplary of royal fathers.”  (Rappaport is mum, for the most part, about the frustration and anger that Nicholas’s repressive measures created, preferring that we blame wily charlatan Rasputin.)

While we know that the family’s fate will be tragic, the girls don’t, and Rappaport, with a light hand and admiring eyes, allows the four Grand Duchesses to grow on us as they grow up. When World War I erupted in 1914, the two eldest girls, Olga and Tatiana (then 19 and 17, respectively), took up nursing: “The Romanov sisters and their mother were not spared any of the shock of their first confrontation with the suffering of the wounded.... [T]hey were thrown in at the deep end, dealing with men who arrived ‘dirty, bloodstained and suffering’ ” and yet they took it well.

Variably rambunctious, moody, cute, and hardy, the girls invited the sympathy of those who met them, particularly after the family was taken captive and stripped of their privileges in 1917.  “‘The family is bearing everything with great sangfroid and courage,’ ” reported an aide of Nicholas’s in Tobolsk, where they spent several months: “ ‘They apparently adapt to circumstances easily, or at least pretend to, and do not complain after all their previous luxury.’ ”

An engineer in Ekaterinburg, the family’s final stop in captivity, had hated the sisters for their position, yet relented when he saw them in person: “ ‘It felt that my eyes met those of the three unfortunate young women [Maria was captive elsewhere in town, accompanying her parents] just for a moment and that when they did I reached into the depths of their martyred souls, as it were, and I was overwhelmed by pity for them – me, a confirmed revolutionary.’ ”

When White Army forces began making a move toward Ekaterinberg, the Red revolutionaries there had the ex-czar and his family murdered on July 17, 1918, in the name of order and in the spirit of vengeance.

Bob Blaisdell reviews books on Russian history and literature.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.