Young Catherine

[Annie]

I taped this off TV years ago and watched it again a coupled weeks ago. It was an A&E production (I think) and was pretty good IMO. Has anyone else ever seen this? It covers the life and times of Catherine the Great from a teenage princess brought to Russia through her seizing power in 1762.

But this movie leaves the impression that Paul was not the son of her husband Peter III, but the Orlov prince she had taken as a lover. Is there any chance this is true and the Romanov line actually ended back then? While it is supposedly true she had several children by lovers, wasn't Paul really a Romanov? How else could the trait of being extremely tall like Peter the Great have been carried through to the 20th century?

[Vive_HIH_Aleksey]

Oh the one with Catherine Zeta-Jones?

That's actually titled simply Catherine The Great. Young Catherine starred Julia Ormond and was made in the 1991. Catherine The Great was made in 1995, originally given the title Katharina die Große, and A&E has broadcasted it more than once. Young Catherine was broadcasted on The Hallmark Channel, I'm not quite sure what channel it aired on originally.

There are some excellent quotes in Catherine The Great. I had one of them for my e-mail signature.

Catherine: Advise me!
Lady in waiting (can't spell her name): Advise you?
Catherine: My dear, I am about to seize the throne of Russia. *opens watdrobe* What on earth shall I wear?

[Annie]

"Young Catherine"  was from 1991. It had Vanessa Redgrave as Empress Elizabeth.

[Lanie]

This is an excellent movie, I think.  Not all historically accurate, but good.  I ran the website for Laurie Holden (who played Princess Ekaterina Dashkova) for about five years and have been in contact with her sporadically since I was about 13.  Random factoid there.

[Louise]

I prefered Young Catherine with Julia Ormond. She is a flawless beauty, and I love to watch her act. I know before I watch most of these shows that they take liberty with historical facts, and I prepare myself for them.

Louise

[Janet_W.]

I so enjoyed the Julia Ormond version that when I had the opportunity to watch another dramatization starring Catherine Zeta-Jones I made special arrangements to stay home rather than go out. However, within minutes I was disappointed with what I perceived was either (1) a wooden performance by Zeta-Jones, or (2) a rather strange script. Yes, I suppose I could have stayed with it . . . but I preferred to take out my copy of the version starring Julia Ormond! Perhaps not entirely historically accurate, but excellent storytelling, with wonderful performances, a great script, fine editing, and terrific camera work!

And then I saw Chicago and . . . all is forgiven, Catherine Zeta-Jones, you were devastatingly good (or would that be evil?   ) and I'm happy you received the Oscar . . . for Velma, and not Catherine!  

[amy]

But this movie leaves the impression that Paul was not the son of her husband Peter III, but the Orlov prince she had taken as a lover. Is there any chance this is true and the Romanov line actually ended back then? While it is supposedly true she had several children by lovers, wasn't Paul really a Romanov? How else could the trait of being extremely tall like Peter the Great have been carried through to the 20th century?

I'm not sure anyone who is alive today will know the true answer to this question!

Since I'd read about this rumor on recent trip to St. Petersburg while wandering through Pavlovsk I took the opportunity to ask our guide if she had ever heard of this and if she had what she thought- I got a very interesting response!

She mentioned to me that Catherine herself may have been the person responsible for begining this rumor! My first reaction was somewhere along the line of, "What the heck! Why would a foreign princess who had vaulted her way to supreme rulership of a foreign nation court any shape or form of taint on the paternity of her children?"  Her answer was that since Catherine had a very contentious relationship with her son and was planning on passing the throne to her grandson Alexander, she began this rumor to lesson Paul's right to the gain the throne! Strange, I know.  Our guide went on to explain that Catherine  was responsible for many intrigues against Paul. She apparently went to great lengths to discredit Paul at every turn, leaving the impression that he was an imbecile incapable of ruling as Tsar. As our guide explained, the fact is that Paul was an extraordinarily accomplished musician, spoke several languages and was in fact, all in all, a very accomplished individual. (Despite his predilection for silly wargames  )  

I only add this information since it's interesting to hear what people educated within Russia hear/know about their own history. It helps add to the overall picture.  As far as I can remember, I've never come across this hypothesis in any non-Russian author readings so to hear this was a real treat.  Granted, I haven't read extensivly about Catherine per say...

(On a side note, all travel guides within Russia undergo extensive training before the can begin to work. I believe it's one year schooling and and they must pass a rigorous exam at the end.  This particular guide's equivalent BA is in history and she's now working on her MA in art history.  I add this to help add some credibility to this hypothesis.)

Amy

[Dashkova]

Regarding the paternity of Emperor Pavel, my understanding is that the suspected lover was Saltykov, not Orlov.

It's been rumored for centuries, and yes, I think perhaps begun by Katherine herself.  I personally think Pavel resembles Pyotr III but that's just my guess.

You were lucky regarding your tour guides.  I'm afraid I can't agree with their overall level of training, or maybe I was just particularly unlucky (actually, I was more annoyed than anything and really did not need nor want a tour guide) because I caught many of my guides spouting off things I know are not true.

We did have a marvelous guide at the Kremlin, however, who had a perfect understanding of both Russian and American history and an amazing, captivating wit and humor.

The guide we had at the dreadful (sorry, but I don't like it) Katherine Palace was an idiot. Pompous and ignorant. So, I guess it's where you go and the luck of the draw!

[amy]

You were lucky regarding your tour guides.  I'm afraid I can't agree with their overall level of training, or maybe I was just particularly unlucky (actually, I was more annoyed than anything and really did not need nor want a tour guide) because I caught many of my guides spouting off things I know are not true.... So, I guess it's where you go and the luck of the draw!

Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that.  We arranged two private tours with a St. Petersburg travel agency called Nota Bene Travel. This company was very helpful, responsive and both of the guides they provided were excellent! I was very impressed. Each of the guides are quite young, I think one, a woman named Irina is 22, and the other guide Olga is 26-27? In my estimation the extra cost was well worth it.

Perhaps you're right, it's the luck of the draw. Should you ever visit St. Petersburg again I could give you the contact information for Irina. Many of the guides appear to work as independant contractors.  Through home/school exchange she has spent a considerable time in the US. Her english is excellent and maybe because she's spent so much time here, she's adopted a very US friendly demeanor.  

Now back to Paul... Was he or was he not Peter III's son?  Inquiring minds would like to know!

Amy

[Dashkova]

Thanks Amy  I can't remember the name of the agency we used, actually, one of my Russian professors handled much of the tour, and thankfully we didn't have to have too many guides (I prefer to go without).  I'll be going back to Russia next year to visit family and hope to do more touring in St. Petersburg on my own.  

Yes, back to Paul.  I guess we'll never know for sure, but these days I tend to believe that he was Peter III's son, and it was because of this that Katherine began the rumors.  It was VERY important to her that she establish the bloodline through *herself*, since she was responsible for the coup and (however indirectly), the death of her husband.  If Paul's paternal heritage had been unequivocally established as Peter's, then there might have been a greater chance of his overtaking his mother, in the name of his murdered father.  As long as most were left guessing (including Paul himself) and rumors swirled, Katherine had way more security on the throne.

[jackie3]

I've never been too fond of the movies on Catherine that I've seen - from Elisabeth Bergner (in the highly fictionalized 1932 Catherine the Great) , CZJ and Julia Ormond - the actresses have all been beautiful women and I don't think Catherine was (based on portraits), they tend to bring her up her sexuality at the expense of her genius at political strategy and plotting.  Catherine was very much the political animal. She also loved Russia a lot, much more than Peter III ever did. Catherine was also blessed to have Peter III as a husband since he was so disliked and dim that it wasn't hard to stage her coup. A stronger Tsar could have done to her what Peter I did to his first wife (shut her in a nunnery the rest of her life).

Yes, back to Paul.  I guess we'll never know for sure, but these days I tend to believe that he was Peter III's son, and it was because of this that Katherine began the rumors.  It was VERY important to her that she establish the bloodline through *herself*, since she was responsible for the coup and (however indirectly), the death of her husband.  If Paul's paternal heritage had been unequivocally established as Peter's, then there might have been a greater chance of his overtaking his mother, in the name of his murdered father.  As long as most were left guessing (including Paul himself) and rumors swirled, Katherine had way more security on the throne.

We must remember that Empress Elizabeth accepted Paul as her great-nephew (and did most of his early raising as Catherine would do to Alexander) and I doubt she would have so readily accepted a child of Saltykov as the heir of her father, Peter the Great. Peter III also recognized Paul as his son and he had no particular reason to do so - he had never really liked Catherine and if he had refused to accept paternity, Catherine could have been killed.  Paul also shared some similar physical and character traits of Peter. Paul himself certainly heard the rumors (which were indeed started by Catherine himself to discredit him and prevent him from taking the throne as the rightful Romanov heir) but always regarded the late, unlamented Peter III as his father and held him in awe and rightly blamed Catherine and the Orlov brothers for Peter's death.  But Catherine while she could weaken Paul's claim could not discredit it - his existence was the only thing that kept her on the throne. She had no hereditary right. Her rights came from being Paul's mother and the wife of Peter III.  There were other Romanov heirs beside Paul alive when Catherine took power. Tsar Ivan VI, great- grandson of Ivan V who had been desposed by Elizabeth as a child and had been imprisoned almost all his life was still in prison and Catherine toyed with marrying him to secure his hold on the throne (she would engineer an "escape attempt" instead that got him killed and out of the way instead). Ivan had siblings who lived (in exile) well into Catherine's reign and they had better claims to the throne if Paul was discredited. As much as she hated him, she needed Paul (at least until Alexander was born).

[Dashkova]

- his existence was the only thing that kept her on the throne. She had no hereditary right. Her rights came from being Paul's mother and the wife of Peter III.  
##
I slightly disagree with this part of your post.  There are "rights" and "reality."  Katherine worked for many years cultivating all the right people in the right places (before Peter III came to the throne).  She was *very* popular with the court, military and others, Peter III was not. Her connections (at home and abroad) and those she had firmly in her pocket represented quite a bit of her power.  Add to that that she adored Russia and had a number of military/economic/social victories during her reign.  Paul's existence was also a major factor, but hardly the only one, in fact, I still say that would be the least important factor, as he was the son of a hated/deposed emperor.

[Annie]

Very interesting, thank you all for your comments.

The reason I thought the lover was an Orlov was because in the movie, the lover was brothers with the guys who murdered Paul, and they were all Orlovs (in the movie)

[amy]

I agree with Annie, very interesting comments and observations!  

Like I mentioned earlier I haven't read very much about the life of Catherine II.  I know my basic history, but  not the details that I know concerning Nicholas II and his family.

Funny coincidence, I turned on the TV the other day and low and behold, I caught the last 10 minutes of Catherine the Great.  Despite the negative feedback, I'll think I'm still going to rent it. I'm a sucker for period costumes and sets, etc.  Does anyone know where this film was shot?  Are the sets authentic, recreations, or is it like Nicholas and Alexandra, set in a completley different country?  If someone answers this question, I appoligize in advance if it takes me a few days to respond.  I'm going to be away from compter for a few day.

BTW- I loved Young Catherine. I caught a TV showing of it a few years back.  If I had known that it would be this difficult to get a copy of this film, I would have taped it! I remember looking into buying a copy, but the price was near $100 USD! Yikes!

Amy

[gleb]

Is there anyone who saw the tv movie Young Cathrine starring Julia Ormond, Vanessa Redgrave, Anna Kanakis, Katia Galitzine etc etc , and know where it was actec. ( in particular Cathrine's appartment before the weddings)