No Haemophilia for Alexei Romanov?

[Tongera]

Alexei Romanov was born with the disease Haemophilia, which stops the body from clotting blood effectively, what if he was born without the disease?

For starters, without the disease Rasputin most likely wouldn't come to the attention of his parents and his parents wouldn't be constantly worried by his affliction.

 

[Anaxagoras]

It would have greatly impacted the psychological state of both Nicholas II and his wife. Having a child with a disease can cause a person to develop a hyper-sensitivity to being in control; combine that with the fact that you're responsible for the well-being of an entire empire and a sense of inadequacy stemming from being the son of Alexander III and you have the mind of the Nicholas II.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

It would have greatly impacted the psychological state of both Nicholas II and his wife. Having a child with a disease can cause a person to develop a hyper-sensitivity to being in control; combine that with the fact that you're responsible for the well-being of an entire empire and a sense of inadequacy stemming from being the son of Alexander III and you have the mind of the Nicholas II.

Nicholas could be a right bastard, but it's not hard to feel sorry for him.

 

[assasin]

Wouldn't that be fairly ASB. Though I guess you could say that the POD was that a different ova was released during ovulation. But then he wouldn't be Alexei Romanov since he'd have different DNA.

 

[Cook]

Wouldn't that be fairly ASB.

No, it was a coin toss. Haemophilia is the result of a defective gene in the X chromosome. Since women have two X chromosomes, they will not develop haemophilia unless both of their X chromosomes have the defective gene, the likelihood of which is extremely rare - hence the commonly held belief that women can't be haemophiliacs; they can be, but it is extremely rare. A woman with one defective X chromosome will not develop haemophilia - because the other X chromosome provides the gene for the blood clotting agents - but will be a carrier and can potentially pass that gene on to her children. She has X chromosomes, but will pass only one of them on to her offspring. Her female children will receive another X chromosome from the make parent, but her male children will only have one X chromosome, from her. Since she has two, the probability of a male child receiving the defective chromosome is exactly 50%. So there is nothing ASB about a potentially healthy Tsarevitch. For this scenario we are assuming that all other factors are the same except that particular chromosome; it is an infinitesimal point of departure.

 

[NKVD]

Wouldn't that be fairly ASB. Though I guess you could say that the POD was that a different ova was released during ovulation. But then he wouldn't be Alexei Romanov since he'd have different DNA.

No, it was a coin toss. Haemophilia is the result of a defective gene in the X chromosome. Since women have two X chromosomes, they will not develop haemophilia unless both of their X chromosomes have the defective gene, the likelihood of which is extremely rare - hence the commonly held belief that women can't be haemophiliacs; they can be, but it is extremely rare. A woman with one defective X chromosome will not develop haemophilia - because the other X chromosome provides the gene for the blood clotting agents - but will be a carrier and can potentially pass that gene on to her children. She has X chromosomes, but will pass only one of them on to her offspring. Her female children will receive another X chromosome from the make parent, but her male children will only have one X chromosome, from her. Since she has two, the probability of a male child receiving the defective chromosome is exactly 50%. So there is nothing ASB about a potentially healthy Tsarevitch. For this scenario we are assuming that all other factors are the same except that particular chromosome; it is an infinitesimal point of departure.

Haemophilia is a recessive disease, IIRC. So there's only a one in four chance of the kid being a haemophiliac if both parents are carriers.

 

[Cook]

Haemophilia is a recessive disease, IIRC. So there's only a one in four chance of the kid being a haemophiliac if both parents are carriers.

Haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome; in the case of male offspring this is inherited only from the mother. A father can pass haemophilia down to his daughter, who will then be a carrier, but he cannot pass it down to his son because he only provides a Y chromosome. And yes, it is recessive: for a female to suffer from haemophilia, as opposed to just carrying the disease, both of her parents need to have provided her with defective X chromosomes.

Alexi inherited his haemophilia from his mother, Alexandra, who had inherited it from her mother, Princess Alice, third child of Queen Victoria.

 

[NKVD]

Haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome; in the case of male offspring this is inherited only from the mother. A father can pass haemophilia down to his daughter, who will then be a carrier, but he cannot pass it down to his son because he only provides a Y chromosome.

Ah, yeah. I misremembered.

 

[MattII]

So leaving aside the genetics of the situation, a non-haemophiliac Alexei Romanov, good or bad for Tsar Nick?

 

[alpha]

Good as it would mean no Rasputin

 

[RichMill]

So leaving aside the genetics of the situation, a non-haemophiliac Alexei Romanov, good or bad for Tsar Nick?

I doubt Tsar Nicholas is "good" by any definition here; he would most likely still be extremely autocratic, reactionary, militarily inept and fearful of all things slightly "progressive". Rasputin was not the only nail in the coffin, but was more like another hole in the sinking ship Romanov, so I doubt there would be such enormous change in the lead up to the government being overthrown. With Alexei having no haemophilia in this timeline, the revolution with most likely happen in any case, but not exactly the same way or by the same circumstances.

 

[MattII]

I never said he was good (nor did I even ask if he was), I just asked if Alexei not having haemophilia would be good for him.

 

[RichMill]

I never said he was good (nor did I even ask if he was), I just asked if Alexei not having haemophilia would be good for him.

Well, that was pretty idiotic of me.

Anyway, I think it probably goes without saying that most fathers would probably have a better time in life if one of their children didn't have a life threatening genetic disorder. In any case, Alexandra would probably be the one who "gains" the most in TTL, because if I recall, she became pretty aloof and unpopular among most circles after the whole Rasputin incident.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

No Rasputin

 

[MonaroLS]

No Rasputin

And no Boney M song

 

[Anaxagoras]

Nicholas could be a right bastard, but it's not hard to feel sorry for him.

Yeah, reading Robert K. Massie's account of the execution of the Romanov is pretty gut-wrenching.

 

[Cook]

So leaving aside the genetics of the situation, a non-haemophiliac Alexei Romanov, good or bad for Tsar Nick?

Undoubtedly good; how could parent not having to constantly fear for his son with a life threatening disease be considered anything but?

Without the Tsarevitch suffering from haemophilia, as everyone else has already pointed out, Rasputin would never have made it anywhere near the court in St. Petersburg. However, Nicholas II would still have been a rather well-meaning but dim individual completely dominated by his overbearing wife. Rumours concerning Rasputin’s control over the court only started circulating after the personal prestige of the Tsar had already been badly damaged by the poor handling of the war effort.

In all likelihood the Tsar would have been forced to abdicate at some stage in early 1917, and here is where things get more interesting; when Nicholas abdicated, he initially did so in favour of his son (who was then twelve years old), with the expectation that Grand-Duke Michael would act as regent until Alexi reached maturity, but when his doctors advised him that his son would not be likely to live long separated from them, he amended his abdication to include his son as well. Without the haemophilia, the incompetent reign of Nicholas II might have been replaced by a regency period of the extremely competent Grand-Duck Michael, with whose help the Provisional Government might have been able to bring about a more general stability and stave off Lenin’s coup.

 

[mcdnab]

Alexandra was interested In mysticism long before Alexei was born in part by her failure to produce a male heir and she was introduced to Rasputin by relatives who would probably still do so knowing her interest in such things. Rasputins actual influence on the imperial couple was not as strong as many imply and whilst he damaged them both he was not really responsible for both their failings which were well established before the revolution. Her influence over Nicholas was already pretty strong and their disconnect from his family and society at large was also pretty well established. Their joint shame and concern for their son made that worse but doesn't mean a healthy heir sees them repairing the damage.
One problem in 1916/17 was that even the most traditional aristocrats and members of the romanov family had lost faith with the emperor whilst sticking to their oaths and not trying to remove him.

Given that their one redeeming quality was their devotion to each other and their children though it was by our terms probably a bit extreme a healthy son doesn't necessarily alter Nicholas's abdication but it was generally viewed that Alexei despite his illness would succeed with him placed in his grandmothers care and his uncle as regent .... Either way it might have been possible to maintain the monarchy with reform because a child tsar was a much harder target to attack and Michael and the dowager empress were much more pragmatic characters than Nicholas and Alexandra.
Michaels wife also had a very good relationship with many members of the Duma.

 

[eltf177]

Undoubtedly good; how could parent not having to constantly fear for his son with a life threatening disease be considered anything but?

Without the Tsarevitch suffering from haemophilia, as everyone else has already pointed out, Rasputin would never have made it anywhere near the court in St. Petersburg. However, Nicholas II would still have been a rather well-meaning but dim individual completely dominated by his overbearing wife. Rumours concerning Rasputin’s control over the court only started circulating after the personal prestige of the Tsar had already been badly damaged by the poor handling of the war effort.

In all likelihood the Tsar would have been forced to abdicate at some stage in early 1917, and here is where things get more interesting; when Nicholas abdicated, he initially did so in favour of his son (who was then twelve years old), with the expectation that Grand-Duke Michael would act as regent until Alexi reached maturity, but when his doctors advised him that his son would not be likely to live long separated from them, he amended his abdication to include his son as well. Without the haemophilia, the incompetent reign of Nicholas II might have been replaced by a regency period of the extremely competent Grand-Duck Michael, with whose help the Provisional Government might have been able to bring about a more general stability and stave off Lenin’s coup.

I have to go with this, although even if Grand-Duke Michael gets into power I still don't see him able to do more than slow the upcoming train wreck...