Looks like they forgot the "shoulder" part of the epaulette and only focused on the big things.
Yes, you're definitely correct about the role of emphasis. However, it's a bit worse than just that. (Here comes a long rant by a Westerner with interest in art and history: feel free to skip if the specifics bore you.)
See, the shoulder strap either
goes above the epaulette (which is rare) or, most often, goes under, in which case, it gets some creases (
this photograph of Oscar II of Sweden shows this very well), unless the shoulder band is particularly narrow or the attached parts of the epaulette are particularly small (as in your first example). As for the bow, that was done far more attractively
with a very different, more elaborate type of bow; usually they used methods that your sword wouldn't catch on (sometimes they would
pin the thing, sometimes knot it (hard to see in portraits), typically
attach it to the belt). All of which makes sense, given that it's descended from the baldric — the sword is still a part of the official diplomatic or court uniform of some European countries (Sweden, Belgium, and the UK, for starters). Actually, Western formal/ceremonial garb for men is descended from armour and military clothing, so anything that would get in the way so much so pointlessly would be at most a brief fad.
Some other examples of European court dress (since I had a hard time choosing):
Belgian diplomatic uniform
Court uniform of the British Empire (current in the UK)
Tsarist Russian court uniform
For comparison to what the artist has put Alexandra in (and no, I'm not talking about necklines; I mean the decoration and the train, or rather, the lack thereof):
Female court dress of an American visiting the British and Russian courts
Female court dress from Tsarist Russia (minus the
kokoshnik, I couldn't find a good image that also included the kokoshnik and the train)
Another, but of an empress suo jure, Maria Theresa of Austria
I'd like to add, that the artists of these things love to add jewels to garments, which, aside from the
abysmal aesthetics, would be a good way to damage the clothing and waste perfectly good material (metal, jewel, cloth, and all). Where as, all of the pictures both of us have provided, show elaborate embroidery (obviously, all done by hand, since machine embroidery is a. modern, and b. very limited in what it can do, as convenient as some find it). I'm not asking for historical accuracy here, just looking at sensible references to come up with something half-way decent looking.