Author Topic: Paul I and Catherine the Great  (Read 9482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

investigator

  • Guest
Paul I and Catherine the Great
« on: February 07, 2004, 07:16:44 AM »
What sort of relationship did Paul I have with his mother?  It is common knowledge that they did not get along with each other.  Was Paul I a good ruler?

Artti

  • Guest
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2004, 01:55:56 AM »
Lets put it this way, Paul I had such hatred for his mother, Catherine II, that he made it illegal for any woman to hold the Russian court. It cannot be said that he was a bad ruler because he was never really put to the test too much, not much happened during his reign. I speculate however, had he been tsar a reign later, in the times of his son Alexander I, during the Napoleonic Wars scenario, he would have snapped. He might have been responsible for the fall of the empire and the Romanov dynasty itself. There are also reports that he was mentally ill. This only adds to him being an ineffective ruler.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 10:01:12 PM by Alixz »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2004, 09:17:14 PM »
First of all, it's not true that no woman could rule under the Pauline Laws - which is what I presume the second poster was saying. The semi-Salic system was not something Paul just dreamed up - it was in use in other countries and did allow for female sucession - after failure of the male line.

I think it could be argued that the uncertainty, however, that the uncertainty about his own succussion that Paul had to live under for most of his mother's reign was an underlying reason for the Law making it abolutely certain who the heir was. Also, for making it illegal for someone else (such as a parent) to sign away an heir's rights.

As to Catherine and Paul's relationship, it was not one of Hallmark moments. Paul was necessary to Catherine but it is unlikely she loved him. Paul was kept from his mother at a young age and she never gave him much reason to harbor any loving feelings towards her. Yet, she was his sovereign for much of his life, and so he had to interact with her somewhat and was very dependent on her, at least materially.

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2004, 07:53:52 AM »
I think it's important, too, to point out that quite a bit of the anti-Paul stories come from two main sources-Catherine herself, and those surrounding her-and from those elements in Petersburg Society who either conspired against him (and thus had reason to justify their actions) or who wanted him off the throne (he made a number of reforms in his short reign-along with the well-known assortment of repressive measures-that threatened the aristocracy's hold on power and their prerogatives).  A lot of the more recent scholarship on Paul has focused on these lesser-known aspects of his life and reign and in examining and exploding a lot of the well-known mythology about him.

It's much the same with Peter III-who of course Catherine painted in the broadest possible terms as completely out of control and insane to help justify her coup.

Greg King

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Paul I and Catherine the GreatIt is very very
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2004, 03:11:24 PM »
It is very very difficult to find any data about Paul I that hasn't been tainted by Catherine II "the Great's" or Alexander I's  devoted family and friends.  

Also, it is too bad that we can't go back into time and discover who the "real" father of Paul I was through DNA.

Yes, I know whom Catherine II claimed was the father.  But, was he?  There were a number of others who could have been.....  Perhaps, just this knowledge would help us understand the anger Paul I had toward his mother.

AGRBear

"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline londo954

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Live Long and Prosper
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2004, 12:43:40 AM »
More Specifically was the Paul changed the Laws of Succession passing the throne to the eldest male. Before the birth of the Tsarevich Alexi Nicholas II's Brother Michael was heir to the throne. Pauls Laws of Succession did not allow for females to rule because of his hatred for his mother. Prior to this the monarch was able to name his or her successor( under Peter I's laws of Succession) Hence Elizabeth was able to name Peter III as her successor.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 10:03:12 PM by Alixz »

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2004, 08:34:47 AM »
I have often wondered why Nicholas, as Tsar Autocrat, did not change the law of succession.   It does not seem Paul encountered problems when he did so.  

Of course both Nicholas and Alexandra hoped Alexei would survive to rule, and refused to acknowledge, publicly at least, that anything was amiss with the Tsarevich's health.  

There does not appear to be any evidence that Nicholas ever contemplated the possibility of changing the Law of Succession.   The family disharmony which ensued at the time of his brother Tsavevich George's death and Nicholas' outright refusal to name his remaining brother Michael, tsarevich lends testimony to this.   He did, of course name Michael 'heir' until the birth of Alexei in 1904.   Grand Duchess Olga Nicholaevna, for example, could have made an outstanding Empress.

Could someone please explain how is it impossible to find material regarding Paul I which has not been 'tainted' by Catherine the Great, Alexander I, their family or associates?   Who is the arbiter on what is 'tainted' and what is not?   Primary sources are, by definition, subjective.  

tsaria

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2004, 10:11:13 PM »
I don't know if I would characterize a source as "tainted"  -  perhaps some are biased - and there are certainly primary sources that are not subjective (such as legal documents). All sources need to be carefully evaluated and weighed by students of history. Some writers are certainly more sympathetic to Paul than others - and he had his own accomplishments.

We are mostly aware today of his instituting the semi-Salic system of succession to the Russian throne - which is often confused with the Salic system, under which women have no succession rights. The comment of one poster about him hating his mother, thus depriving women entirely of the succession is incorrect. Paul may have hated CTG, but there is no evidence that he instituted Succession Laws which specified no female succession until the male line was extinct as a means of getting back at Mom.

Finally, Nicholas did modify the Pauline Laws. Agnates who were not grand dukes or duchesses were relieved of the requirement to marry equally, only being required to marry persons "of good character". It is interesting to speculate what if anything Nicholas II would have done to accommodate the desires of his daughters to remain in Russia.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by LisaDavidson »

Offline Mike

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
    • View Profile
    • Erast Fandorin Museum
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2004, 01:48:29 PM »
I wonder if somebody here has seen a recent Russian movie Poor, poor Pavel? Those who haven't may find some information here.

kenmore3233

  • Guest
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2005, 12:11:11 PM »
Quote
What sort of relationship did Paul I have with his mother?  It is common knowledge that they did not get along with each other.  Was Paul I a good ruler?


Paul was seriously mistreated by his mother as he was growing up. They rarely saw each other, in fact, as Catherine preferred to keep Paul tucked away in some distant castle.

Paul also grew up with the burden of knowing that his mother was complicit in the murder of his father, Peter III.

That Catherine was motivated to treat Paul so badly is powerful evidence that Peter III was indeed Paul's father. There is really no other way of explaining Catherine's attitude toward her son. This fact is often overlooked by those who claim that Paul's father was someone other than Peter III.

Probably as a result of these early life stresses, Paul developed serious psychoemotional problems. He was mentally unstable in an extreme way, although not insane or psychotic as many historians and diarists from the era have made him out to be.

According to today's psychological nomenclature, Paul would be regarded as an "obsessive-compulsive".

As to Paul's intellectual ability, he was definitely of above-average intelligence, and if he hadn't been burdened with such heavy psychological damage, he probably would have proven to be a very capable ruler.

As to how well Paul actually did rule, the answer is that he didn't do a good job. Paul made many irrational, reckless decisions regarding matters of state.

At first the influential nobles and men of state surrounding the throne tolerated Paul's whims and erratic behavior. After several years, though, when it became clear that Russia's best interests were being threatened by Paul, St. Petersburg's leading citizens formed a committee to remove him from power.


Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2009, 10:10:29 PM »
According to Catherine's own memoirs, Elizabeth took Paul away from Catherine on the day he was born.  Catherine wanted to see her son and have some input into how he was raised, but Elizabeth took over as if her was her own son.

Elizabeth put Peter III in the line of succession because he was the son of her beloved sister.  Elizabeth took Paul as her own because she didn't have any children.

It is said that Elizabeth herself encouraged Catherine to have a child "any" child to ensure the succession.  No one will ever know if Paul was Peter III's son because at about the time he was conceived, Peter had surgery to correct a malformation and he began to have normal matrimonial relations with Catherine as well as many affaires de coure with ladies.

However, it seems that he had no illegitimate children with any of the ladies, so who knows if Paul truly was his son or the son of Catherine's lover.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2009, 04:09:30 PM »
According to Catherine's own memoirs, Elizabeth took Paul away from Catherine on the day he was born.  Catherine wanted to see her son and have some input into how he was raised, but Elizabeth took over as if her was her own son.

Elizabeth put Peter III in the line of succession because he was the son of her beloved sister.  Elizabeth took Paul as her own because she didn't have any children.

It is said that Elizabeth herself encouraged Catherine to have a child "any" child to ensure the succession.  No one will ever know if Paul was Peter III's son because at about the time he was conceived, Peter had surgery to correct a malformation and he began to have normal matrimonial relations with Catherine as well as many affaires de coure with ladies.

However, it seems that he had no illegitimate children with any of the ladies, so who knows if Paul truly was his son or the son of Catherine's lover.

I've always suspected that Peter III was Paul's father for a myriad of reasons. But, this could be proven or disproven with DNA testing if we could get everyone exhumed and samples obtained that had viable DNA. Another way would be to get the male line DNA tested from Peter III - if there are any descendants who would match.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2009, 04:23:17 PM »
I've been reading  Elizabeth and Catherine by Robert Coughlan.

I know that I saw something about Paul beginning to look like Peter III as he grew and that he began to act more like Peter III as well in the mental department.

I am going to look it up and quote it as soon as I can find it again.

Offline DNAgenie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2009, 06:31:28 PM »
Quote
I've always suspected that Peter III was Paul's father for a myriad of reasons. But, this could be proven or disproven with DNA testing if we could get everyone exhumed and samples obtained that had viable DNA. Another way would be to get the male line DNA tested from Peter III - if there are any descendants who would match.

The recent publication of details of the Y-DNA (male line) signature of Tsar Nicholas II brings the possibility of a confirmatory DNA test a little closer.

Does anyone know if there are living direct-line male descendants of Peter III other than those from Paul I who might be testable? However there is another scenario that could be tested.

If Paul was the son of Peter III, and if other accepted paternities along the line are also true, then Nicholas II (and Paul I) is a direct-line male descendant of King Frederick I of Denmark (1471-1533). If the Y-DNA signature could be shown to be similar to that of other living descendants of Frederick I the descent in both lines would be confirmed. 

The best-known of such present living descendants are probably Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, his son Prince Charles and grandsons William and Harry.

The problem comes in (a) getting such people to take a Y-DNA test, and (b) what conclusions to draw if the tests DON’T match.  That would simply mean that there was a non-paternal link somewhere along the chain but it wouldn’t tell us where this had occurred. The Peter-Paul link might appear to be the most doubtful, but in lineages of 13 generation between Nicholas II and Frederick (up one line) and 16 generations between Frederick and Prince William (down another line) there must be some scope for doubt at other links in the chain as well.

Offline mcdnab

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2009, 07:31:47 PM »
In fairness to Paul he had the most appalling set of circumstances from birth - his parents were deprived of him by Elizabeth from birth, his presumed father was deposed by his mother (who was also complicit in his murder) and he spent most of his life under his mother's thumb and was kept from a throne that many believed was rightfully his, his mother deprived him and his wife of custody of their children and he must have known that his ageing mother was seriously considering removing him from the succession and bequething the throne to his son Alexander instead. Also to be fair to Catherine she wasn't such a bad mother and intially after her coup treated Paul with fondness and certainly included him in the political structure of her court it was only later that she started to deliberately exclude him.
You can hardly blame the man for his subsequent actions even if some of them are particularly distasteful (particularly the reburial of his father with Catherine) regularising the succession rules was sensible and its hardly his fault if subsequent Emperors chose not to revise them as society changed.