Emperor Peter III, life and death

[lori_c]

Peter III was clueless in a lot of ways.  In others he was just dimwitted, imo.  He was smart enough at least in the beginning to realize his intellectual limitations and ran to Catherine quite a bit for advice and support.  Even though he would turn it around later and make the advice seem like his own idea.  Which makes him every bit the bully and brute Catherine perceived that he was. 

After Elizabeth's death however things had changed quite a bit, and I think you put it so well. He absolutely WOULD have done something about her had she not had the opportunity and foresight to act as she did.  He waited until Elizabeth died to even begin his open campaign against her which speaks volumes.

[Romanov_fan]

When they were young, and first married, Elizabeth was certainly the greatest force in their lives. This pretty much continued throughout all the years of their marriage. Perhaps without the pressure she put on them to get along, and especially to have a heir, their marriage might have worked better. Yet, still Peter was clueless and not all there, while Catherine was more intelligent than many women before or since in her position.

As soon as Elizabeth was gone, Peter and Catherine both took control of their own destinies, which fitted because they were such different people. In the end, I feel that Elizabeth would have been okay with what Catherine did, yet during her lifetime appearances of who was heir, and everything had to kept up, with little way of saying Catherine really was much more suited to rule Russian than Peter. Maybe in the back of her mind, it would not have surprised Elizabeth, what actually happened.

[lori_c]

In the end, I don't think it would have surprised Elizabeth at ALL.  She had already observed the sharp intellegence and saavy of her neice as well as calling Peter an absolute moron.

Catherine most certainly took control of her own destiny.  In some ways even before Elizabeth died.  But more importantly, though Peter did what he wanted as the new Tsar, there were forces behind him always controlling him yet making him think things were going as HE wanted them to. So in reality, he was never in control of his own destiny.  Pathetically, from the time of his birth the boy was a pawn on chessboard.

[Romanov_fan]

I have always thought even Peter's inexcusable actions in his marriage to Catherine have to be placed in the context of the fact he was forced to live a life as heir to the Russian throne for which he was not suited, and that he was very unhappy with. His mother died when he was young, and his father was not a positive figure in his life. Then again, Catherine was also forced into a position as his wife for which she was not suited to deal with, in terms of handling Peter. If he married at all, it should have been to a woman like Elizabeth V,later his mistress, who was much like him. Catherine was much more refined, and the marriage was a torment, but she made it out of the circumstances, whereas Peter just screwed up more and more in ever getting anywhere with his life. Circumstances used Peter, whereas Catherine used circumstances.

[lori_c]

Circumstances used Peter, whereas Catherine used circumstances.

Well put!!!!

[Romanov_fan]

In the end, I don't think it would have surprised Elizabeth at ALL.  She had already observed the sharp intellegence and saavy of her neice as well as calling Peter an absolute moron.

Catherine most certainly took control of her own destiny.  In some ways even before Elizabeth died.  But more importantly, though Peter did what he wanted as the new Tsar, there were forces behind him always controlling him yet making him think things were going as HE wanted them to. So in reality, he was never in control of his own destiny.  Pathetically, from the time of his birth the boy was a pawn on chessboard.

Indeed, it is what Elizabeth may have wanted, yet never felt she could make happen, she may have just not cared at the very end, because her life was obviously coming to it's close rather rapidly, she was so much in decline. She may have just thought to leave the problems of the future to the next generation. But, in the years before that, she would have even wanted it, that Catherine be more in charge than Peter. Peter the Great in Elizabeth's place might have wanted the throne passed to Catherine, if only as regent for Paul, but Elizabeth was not so assertive, or shrewd. Anyway, was the law about the monarch choosing their successor even in place then?

[lori_c]

Indeed, it is what Elizabeth may have wanted, yet never felt she could make happen, she may have just not cared at the very end, because her life was obviously coming to it's close rather rapidly, she was so much in decline. She may have just thought to leave the problems of the future to the next generation. But, in the years before that, she would have even wanted it, that Catherine be more in charge than Peter. Peter the Great in Elizabeth's place might have wanted the throne passed to Catherine, if only as regent for Paul, but Elizabeth was not so assertive, or shrewd. Anyway, was the law about the monarch choosing their successor even in place then?

The law of succession by birth began with Paul (Pauline Law) so I am assuming that the Monarch chose their own successor until Paul.  In essence that was why the throne was always unstable upon the death of the Monarch and how Elizabeth was able to achieve her coup.  In addition to keeping the descendants of Peter's half brother Ivan prisoner, she also chose to bring Peter III to Russia as the legitimate (??) heir of her sister Anna.  And grandson of Peter the Great.  And as far as Peter I goes, he truly loved his offspring from his second wife Catherine I.  So I would imagine he would have chosen the same if given the opportunity and Peter III may have been raised differently because of it.  But in true Russian fickleness, he COULD have done the exact opposite.  After all, he did have his own son killed for less.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, the fact of his son certainly points to how he regarded the succession. Elizabeth in contrast was more comfortable with the status quo, although she herself didn't come to the throne by strictly natural means, which supports the theory that she might have wanted what was best for Russia, and not just dynastically correct. Peter was sadly not suited by personality or upbringing to fulfill his dynastic obligations besides continuing the dynasty, by the birth of his son, so Catherine stepped in, although who knows what might have happened had he had a weaker wife. Things would have been worse.

[James1941]

Peter III is a perfect example of the dangers of hereditary monarchy. You are stuck with the character and physical attributes of the legal heir, no matter what they may be. Russia would have been better served if the reigning monarch could choose his heir, and even better if there was a consultative body (a Senate or whatever composed of the wisest men in the empire) to advise him/her on who to choose. And Paul restricted the gene pool even further by instituting the agnatic rule.
Or have a consitutional monarchy in which it really doesn't matter what the heir or the sovereign is like as they have no power to do much of anything. Bavaria is a perfect example. Otto, Ludwig II's successor and brother, was mad as a march hare, yet ruled until 1913 as king, some twenty odd years.

[ilyala]

Peter III is a perfect example of the dangers of hereditary monarchy. You are stuck with the character and physical attributes of the legal heir, no matter what they may be. Russia would have been better served if the reigning monarch could choose his heir, and even better if there was a consultative body (a Senate or whatever composed of the wisest men in the empire) to advise him/her on who to choose. And Paul restricted the gene pool even further by instituting the agnatic rule.
Or have a consitutional monarchy in which it really doesn't matter what the heir or the sovereign is like as they have no power to do much of anything. Bavaria is a perfect example. Otto, Ludwig II's successor and brother, was mad as a march hare, yet ruled until 1913 as king, some twenty odd years.

but the monarch could choose his heir. elizabeth chose peter. not a good choice, but a choice.

in those times, a monarch chose his successor: that's why we had catherine 1st, a lithuanian peasant turned into a reigning monarch and not peter 2nd right after peter the great's death. that's why we had ivan 6th succeed ana as tsar, when his mother had a better right.

[Romanov_fan]

Peter III is a perfect example of the dangers of hereditary monarchy. You are stuck with the character and physical attributes of the legal heir, no matter what they may be. Russia would have been better served if the reigning monarch could choose his heir, and even better if there was a consultative body (a Senate or whatever composed of the wisest men in the empire) to advise him/her on who to choose. And Paul restricted the gene pool even further by instituting the agnatic rule.
Or have a consitutional monarchy in which it really doesn't matter what the heir or the sovereign is like as they have no power to do much of anything. Bavaria is a perfect example. Otto, Ludwig II's successor and brother, was mad as a march hare, yet ruled until 1913 as king, some twenty odd years.

 Yes, hereditary monarchy led to Peter III, yet it also led to Catherine the Great. Yet, I suppose that could have happened only in Russia, because in most countries, Catherine could not have gained the throne because the principle of hereditary monarchy would have been more strictly enforced than in Russia. It wasn't even strictly hereditary in Russia, after Peter the Great, in a straight line, because the throne went from one royal relative to another, albeit they were royal, by blood or marriage. That is hereditary monarchy, but not strictly. I suppose Peter was the only choice available to Elizabeth, because the alternative was worse, that is Ivan VI, etc.

[ivanushka]

Shortly before he was himself deposed, Peter III met the deposed Emperor Ivan VI at the Schlusselburg fortress.  I saw a painting of this meeting once, but have no idea who the artist was.  Does anyone have any idea?

I have to say that Ivan VI must have had about the worst life of any monarch in history!  He became Emperor at the age of 2 months, was deposed at the age of 16 months, was separated from his parents and siblings at the age of 4 and spent the remaining twenty years of his life in solitary confinement before being stabbed to death by his guards to prevent a rescue attempt! 

It must be one of the great question marks of Russian history as to what would have happened if the Empress Elizabeth had not deposed him and he had been allowed to grow up and rule.  For a start there would have been no Catherine the Great.  Perhaps the revolution would have come much earlier, or, if change in government had happened earlier, perhaps no revolution at all.

[scarlett_riviera]

Ack, I agree. I can't believe they just let him waste away in a fortress, as though he weren't a human being! As for the painting, I haven't seen it. The only Ivan VI painting I saw was the one depicting his death and Mirovich's failed rescue attempt. Does anyone else have more info of him? According to this link: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan6/ivan6_bio.htm, First, Ivan was imprisoned in Siberia, but later he was placed under strong guard in an isolated casemate of the island fortress Schl�sselburg in the Newa River. In this confinement, separated from his family, Ivan experienced neither sunlight nor conversation. He was dressed in rags and often hungry, and his wardens, escaping their boredom in drinking bouts, often ill-treated him. He never matured emotionally or mentally.
By 1762, when Peter III (1728-1762), Elizabeth's unsuitable successor, visited him, Ivan had become - likely through psychosocial deprivation - an idiot, a human vegetable. Peter III interviewed Ivan, possibly with the objective of naming him as his heir. The visit, however, showed that the pretender was in no shape for such a role. Ivan confided to Peter that he was not really Ivan, the man who had once been Tsar of Russia, but another man, an imposter; the real Ivan had been in heaven for years. Then Peter III sadistically ordered that if Ivan misbehaved by calling himself a Prince or angered his wardens, he was to be put in chains and beaten.

But according to Wikipedia, Peter III was sympathetic towards Ivan, and that Ivan was taught and able to read the Bible. Can anyone clear this up?

[Yseult]

As far as I know, though instructions had been given to mantain the "nameless one" ignorant, he was taught to read and he was able to read the Bible. Not only Peter III wished to meet Ivan: empress Catherine II also went to the fortress to see the young who had courage enough to call himself "godusar". If I´m not wrong, Gina Knaus, in her bio on Catherine, states that Ivan was not an idiot or a insane man, althought the long years of seclusion had disturbed his equilibrium. Gina Knaus believed that if Catherine had found a fool and a mad man, she would be practical enough to release a poor man who never could have been a serious rival for the throne.

[Romanov_fan]

He was always a reminder of a past that once was, but never had much of a chance to be. He was dethroned as an infant, and grew up in conditions that no doubt later rendered him unable ever to rule Russia or fit into normal life. He was very naive about the world, and things he would have known about had he grown up as other Romanovs did. He wasn't insane or an idiot, agreed, but he  didn't act as he would have had he grown up differently. I think whatever current ruler there was liked to see him just to see the relic of a bygone age, and no doubt to test if he truly was a challenge to their throne. Sometimes they may have had ideas about the succession as well, if they didn't like who was in line for the throne next. Peter III most likely did this, and perhaps others.