Author Topic: Safer to be an Empress?  (Read 2848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Safer to be an Empress?
« on: April 03, 2016, 10:04:07 AM »
Interesting to note that the Empresses died of natural causes. Anyone ever figure out the odds of male rulers of Russia dying from violence compared to women? Seems like as soon as a man came back to the throne (Peter III or Paul I), they couldn't kill him fast enough. Just for their protection, Catherine the Great should have decreed only women could inherit the throne! It was even safer to be Peter the Great's throne-stealing sister than his son!

Offline Sanochka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2016, 08:44:01 PM »
Given the heavy security surrounding both tsars and empresses, I would say both were always at great risk of assassination.  Perhaps it seems that tsars were more at risk than empresses because there more of them.

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2863
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2016, 06:13:21 AM »
There is still more reluctance to kill women (and children) than men, and it is seen as more shocking when it happens. If Nicholas II alone had been shot in Ekaterinburg, would there now be much concern? Who now thinks of Kirill of Bulgaria, shot by the Communists when regent for his nephew, King Simeon. Even the Communists shrank from killing the eight-year-old Simeon.

Sophia Alexeyevna was merely sent to a convent. Had she been a man Peter the Great would have had her executed, I think.

The only reason Ivan VI was not murdered when he was deposed was that he was still an infant. The surprising thing is that no means was found of organising a childish ailment or accident to carry him off.

Ann   

Offline starik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2016, 10:08:01 AM »
I'm not sure about the security surrounding the Tsars prior to the assassination of Alexander II. Sort of like the security surrounding Abraham Lincoln. But I also think Empresses were more likely to be simply deposed than assassinated. Also, all rulers face the threat of the madman or lone assassin, but a dedicated revolutionary movement was a more modern development with an extreme threat level.

But I think that had Catherine the Great had a daughter instead of a son, she would have died in bed as an Empress.

Offline DNAgenie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2016, 05:55:10 PM »
Quote
Also, all rulers face the threat of the madman or lone assassin, but a dedicated revolutionary movement was a more modern development with an extreme threat level.

I can't agree that dedicated revolutionary movements are a modern invention.  What about William the Conqueror (1066), Wars of the Roses (15th century), the English Civil War (17th century) or the Jacobite Rebellions (1715 and 1745). Or the so-called Indian Mutiny of 1857 or the wars in Afghanistan. Those are just British examples but any change of dynasty anywhere in the world was the result of revolutionary force more often than not.

Offline starik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2016, 08:25:59 PM »
The word "revolution" or "revolutionary" has different meanings and contexts. Here, I used it only for Russia. My meaning and context was a complete, total and absolute destruction of not just the regime or government, but all institutions as well. Everything, from top to bottom. Government, laws, church, organizations, calendar, forms of address - everything. Replacing a regime with a similar regime (maintains institutions, etc.) - just different people, falls a little short of "revolution" and seems more like a "change/adjustment." For me, a change in masters is not, in itself, a "revolution." The modern revolutionary wanted (and wants) to change the poor existing nature of society/humanity often (or always) through forced "enlightenment." The loftiest of goals. There are, for me, very few true "Revolutions." The French and Russian being the greatest and truest.

Revolutionaries would kill an Empress with little hesitation.

Offline Превед

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 947
  • Мой Великий Север
    • View Profile
    • Type Russian Without a Keyboard
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2016, 03:00:55 PM »
Yes, the Jacobite Rebellions were more like reactions (reactionary movements) to the political and economical evolutions in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution.
Березы севера мне милы,
Их грустный, опущённый вид,
Как речь безмолвная могилы,
Горячку сердца холодит.

(Афанасий Фет: Ивы и березы, 1843 / 1856)

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
    • View Profile
    • Rex and Hannah Chronicles Wikia
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2016, 01:52:43 PM »
Quote
Safer to be an Empress?

Alix might disagree with that assessment.

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2863
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2016, 02:35:06 PM »
Alexandra was an Empress Consort, not Empress Regnant.

Ann

Offline NicolasG

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2016, 04:29:58 PM »
The modern revolutionary wanted (and wants) to change the poor existing nature of society/humanity often (or always) through forced "enlightenment." The loftiest of goals. There are, for me, very few true "Revolutions." The French and Russian being the greatest and truest.

The loftiest of words, the most horrible and brutal of deeds. I suppose that when you describe the French and Russian as the "greatest" revolutions, what you mean is that they shed the greatest ammount of blood.

Offline Превед

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 947
  • Мой Великий Север
    • View Profile
    • Type Russian Without a Keyboard
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2016, 05:04:03 PM »
The "Great Revolution" with its genocide was the left's response to the right's "Great War" (WW1) with its noble aims and multicidal results. Both projects great follies. Both Nicholas II and Lenin should have been shot together for their crimes.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 05:15:05 PM by Превед »
Березы севера мне милы,
Их грустный, опущённый вид,
Как речь безмолвная могилы,
Горячку сердца холодит.

(Афанасий Фет: Ивы и березы, 1843 / 1856)

Offline NicolasG

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2016, 05:21:04 AM »
The "Great Revolution" with its genocide was the left's response to the right's "Great War" (WW1) with its noble aims and multicidal results. Both projects great follies. Both Nicholas II and Lenin should have been shot together for their crimes.

Well, I'm just a new member here, but this is not the "Occupy Wall Street" forum, so I do not suppose that you will find much simpathy for your views. If the blame for World War I had to be pin on someone, it would have to be on Serbia, which was what nowadays is called a "rogue state". We know how reluctantly Nicholas II gave the order for mobilization. People who write here have read enough about the Romanovs to know that Nicholas II was a loving husband and father, the gentlest of men, deeply religious and a patriot who strived to do what he considered best for his country (that was the reason why he abdicated in March 1917, whereas he might have tried to supress by force what was a military mutiny in war time). So I do not believe that many of the members of this forum think of him as a "criminal that should have been shot". 

On the other hand, Lenin, who had already welcomed the 1891-92 famine in Russia and had refused to take part in relief activity to help the starving peasants (He even asked to have his rent on the farming land paid in time and in full. Lenin was a landowner) was hoping for a war that gave him the chance to launch his bloody revolution. Lenin wrote to Gorky in 1913: "War between Austria and Russia would be a very useful thing for the revolution (in the whole of eastern Europe), but it's scarcely likely that Franz Joseph [the Hapsburg Emperor] and Nicolasha [Nicholas II] would grant us this pleasure." So, a year before WWI broke up Lenin was hoping for European carnage that gave him and his supporters the possibility of killing even more people.

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
    • View Profile
    • Rex and Hannah Chronicles Wikia
Re: Safer to be an Empress?
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2016, 07:27:35 AM »
Quote
On the other hand, Lenin, who had already welcomed the 1891-92 famine in Russia and had refused to take part in relief activity to help the starving peasants (He even asked to have his rent on the farming land paid in time and in full. Lenin was a landowner) was hoping for a war that gave him the chance to launch his bloody revolution. Lenin wrote to Gorky in 1913: "War between Austria and Russia would be a very useful thing for the revolution (in the whole of eastern Europe), but it's scarcely likely that Franz Joseph [the Hapsburg Emperor] and Nicolasha [Nicholas II] would grant us this pleasure." So, a year before WWI broke up Lenin was hoping for European carnage that gave him and his supporters the possibility of killing even more people.

Well, Lenin got his wish and millions died in the horror story called the Soviet Union.   I hope they kept Hell hot for him.