Author Topic: Tsar Peter II of Russia  (Read 42827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6651
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2007, 04:25:29 PM »
Charlotte was Protestant, was she not? They did not have  the same restrictions as Catholics. It took  a dispensation from the Pope, for Catholic, and they were few and far between.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2007, 04:40:07 PM »
That's interesting.  I didn't know about the need for Catholics to have a Papal dispensation and yes, I think Charlotte was Lutheran.  Presumably the catholic Hapsburgs didn't mind when a Protestant converted to Catholicism - as presumably Charlotte's sister had to convert from Protestantism when she married the Emperor Charles. 

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6651
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2007, 05:31:04 PM »
Yes, the other way around was fine. Prot. to Catholic.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2007, 10:05:01 AM »
It's doubtful she would have received dispensation, IMO.  Conversion from Catholicism was extremely rare especially in those circumstances.  Look at Helene of Orleans.  Threats of excommunication were hurled when faced with the same situation.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4609
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2007, 11:01:49 AM »
Doubtful that a Catholic Arcduchess would have been allowed to marry into  the Orthodox Russin Imperial Family. She could not convert.

Good point - and one I only thought of after I'd made my post!  That said, if such an alliance had been considered necessary I'm sure they would have found a way around it.  Also, Peter's mother, Charlotte of Brunswick, was allowed to keep her own religion when she married Alexis, rather than having to convert to the Orthodox Church.

As I've said in an earlier post, I just find it fascinating to speculate on what would have happened to Russia had Peter not caught smallpox but instead lived a long (and fertile!) life.

It is interesting to speculate- I think he would have been a '' in charge'' ruler later, not like his grandfather perhaps, but even so young, he seems to have had a distinctive character, good or bad. There probably wouldn't have been a Catherine the Great had he lived, since she only came in because she married Peter III, who would have had a much happier life home in Holstein. Elizabeth wouldn't have reigned, but might have been happy enough with her lifestyle anyway, I don't think it was bad during his reign. I don't think Anna Ivanovna would have ruled either, certainly no great loss for Russia. It is hard to know what direction his reign would have propelled Russia into- but his court would have been a very decadent one, basically like that of Elizabeth or even Anna Ivavnova , however I believe he would have been VERY interested in ruling. But, these are speculations about a boy who died at about 15.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 11:08:08 AM by imperial angel »

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2007, 09:25:56 PM »
I have a question about Peter II.
Is it accurate to state that Peter became Tsar because of the last will of Catherine the Great? And if so, was there any controversy surrounding that will?
Thank you,
Lexi
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4609
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2007, 12:22:30 AM »
I think you mean Peter the Great.. I can't remember, I would have to look that up. I think he started the right to choose your own succesor, not follow any line of sucession- and he was on his death bed, naming his successor, when he died. His wife Catherine I seemed a logical successor, so she ruled a few years, after which Peter II came to the throne. It could be supposed at least at one time that Peter started the new type of succession precisely to avoid his son Alexei 's descendants coming to the throne, whom he disliked for reasons probably known to everyone here. Peter II was the the son of Tsarvitch Alexei, and I think became Czar at the time because he was the only male heir around, really. I hope someone answers your question directly though- I will if I have the time.

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2007, 07:52:40 AM »
Yes, that's right: Peter the Great changed the succession laws and gave the Tsar the right to name his own successor, rather than the throne passing from eldest son to eldest son...  However, just to complicate things, Peter then died without naming a successor!  Though most of the nobility were in favour of the succession of the rightful heir in dynastic terms - his grandson, the future Peter II, son of Peter's only son, Alexis - a powerful minority, headed by Peter the Great's best friend, Alexander Menshikov, manouevered to have Peter's widow, Catherine, declared Tsaritsa instead.

Catherine only ruled for two years and, I believe, named Peter II as her successor.  Menshikov, who was essentially ruling the country at this point, pushed her to do so as 1) he was the popular choice of the nobility and people, and 2) because he was only 11 and so could be governed by a regent - namely Menshikov ihimself!    Unfortunately for Menshikov, this child of 11 turned out to a much stronger personality than expected and within a few months Menshikov found himself exchanging his St Petersburg palace for a hovel in Siberia!!

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2007, 09:21:42 AM »
Actually, I meant Catherine.
Thank you Ivanushka. That cleared it up for me.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2007, 04:24:02 PM »
It is interesting to speculate- I think he would have been a '' in charge'' ruler later, not like his grandfather perhaps, but even so young, he seems to have had a distinctive character, good or bad. There probably wouldn't have been a Catherine the Great had he lived, since she only came in because she married Peter III, who would have had a much happier life home in Holstein. Elizabeth wouldn't have reigned, but might have been happy enough with her lifestyle anyway, I don't think it was bad during his reign. I don't think Anna Ivanovna would have ruled either, certainly no great loss for Russia. It is hard to know what direction his reign would have propelled Russia into- but his court would have been a very decadent one, basically like that of Elizabeth or even Anna Ivavnova , however I believe he would have been VERY interested in ruling. But, these are speculations about a boy who died at about 15.
[/quote]

Yes, that's right.  There never would have been a Catherine the Great - I wonder who she would have married and what sort of mark she would have made on history had Peter III not been available.  Perhaps she might have married him anyway - he was her second cousin and already heir to the throne of Sweden.  Her parents were angling for Catherine to marry him long before Elizabeth adopted him, and with Catherine at his side, perhaps Sweden would have regained some of its domination of Northern Europe.

I don't know how happy Elizabeth would have been if Peter had lived.  When he first became Tsar the two of them were very close and he was said to be in love with her.  However by the time he died he was engaged to Catherine Dolgorukova, and the Dolgoruvky family were doing their best to keep Elizabeth in the background.  She might have had a happy life living on her estates - apparently she loved the countryside and the people who lived there - or she might have ended up marrying some German Prince.

As you said, Anna Ivanovna not being Empress wouldn't have been much of a loss for Russia.  However, the one thing she did do was reestablish St Petersburg as the capital.  Peter, who hated the place, complaining that he had no wish to live somewhere surrounded by water (or words to that effect) had moved the capital back to Moscow and showed little interest in European affairs or Russa's place in them.  Having spent so many years in Courland, Anna had adapted to the European lifestyle and was keen that her court and subjects should consider themselves Europeans too.

One other consequence of Peter surviving is that poor Ivan VI would probably never have been born.  In light of the terrible way his life worked out that might have been a blessing.



Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2007, 10:22:01 AM »
Speculation is fun.
I find it hard to imagine Russia without Catherine the Great. Had he lived, he probably would have had an heir. Ivan V probably would not have been co-ruler. There would not have been an uprising in 1682 and maybe not a Nicholas II. It could have been a very different Russia.
Lexi
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • born a century too late
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2007, 03:01:21 AM »
It's doubtful she would have received dispensation, IMO.  Conversion from Catholicism was extremely rare especially in those circumstances.  Look at Helene of Orleans.  Threats of excommunication were hurled when faced with the same situation.

It wouldn't have been impossible. Orthodoxy was viewed as schismatic, not necessarily heretical. Its sacraments were never viewed as invalid. The Apostolic Succession was never broken, as happened with the Protestant sects.

If the right Pope & the right Catholic monarch saw an advantage to placing a protege in the Kremlin, they could've made it happen.
The only real possession you'll ever have is your character.
Tom Wolfe
US author & journalist (1931 - )

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4609
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2007, 08:04:41 PM »
One Catholic Orthodox match, although the other way around was the marriage of Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, daughter of Paul I to a Hapsburg Archduke. It was pretty rare though. She ended up dying young in childbirth not long after the marriage, and the child didn't survive, so nothing came of it, but it did happen. Perhaps a Catholic bride marrying into the Romanov dynasty would have been harder though. Anyway, that's a subject for a whole thread on its own- back to Peter II.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6651
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2007, 03:27:37 AM »
IA- in the case you cite, the difference was that the bride was not required to convert. Marrying the heir to the throne of Russia required  the bride to become Orthodox.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline Ex-Princess Lisa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2007, 11:09:24 AM »
IA- in the case you cite, the difference was that the bride was not required to convert. Marrying the heir to the throne of Russia required  the bride to become Orthodox.

I thought the emphasis was on the mother to the heir to the Russian throne had to be Orthodox. That is why the bride had to be Orthodox.

I'll put it another way. I thought the emphasis of the law was that the woman who gave birth to the heir to the throne must be Orthodox at the time of the birth.
In practical terms the woman always converted before she got married.