Discussions about Russian History > Imperial Russian History
Safer to be an Empress?
starik:
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!
Sanochka:
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.
Kalafrana:
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
starik:
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.
DNAgenie:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version