So true so true. Peter III might have been Peter the Great's blood descendent but Catherine was his spiritual successor. Under her reign Russia finally got control of the Crimea. I doubt very seriously that Peter III could have managed that.
Catherine the Great sent off to a nunnery
- Thread starter Socrates
- Start date
So true so true. Peter III might have been Peter the Great's blood descendent but Catherine was his spiritual successor. Under her reign Russia finally got control of the Crimea. I doubt very seriously that Peter III could have managed that.
Foreign-born or not, he has a claim to the throne. Catherine doesn't. There's no basis for freeing her to restore her to power in the way there is for restoring the tsar.
I'm not disputing their relative qualities,
Here's a question. Did anyone, in 1762, have any reason to believe Catherine would prove to be "Peter the Great's spiritual successor"?
We have the benefit of knowing what she did OTL after becoming the ruler, they don't know what would happen in later decades.
OK I'll agree with U there. However, we can look at Peter III's policies in 1762 and, to the Russian powers that be, they don't measure up to their standards. I know that to some Catherine alluded to the idea that she would be regent for her son Paul. So some of her fellow conspirators may have supported her actions as on her son's behave. But the bulk thought that the daughter of a minor German ruler with no Russian, let alone Romanov, blood would be a better ruler then the legitimate grandson of Peter the Great. To me that is very telling. Catherine may not have been Russian in blood but she was Russian in spirit. She had been at the Russian Court for what, almost 17 years? They all knew her and knew that she was more then capable to rule the country. Its not like the conspirators overthrew the Tsar and then invited a foreign Princess who didn't speak a lick of Russian to take the throne.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not Catherine would, so going on about how Peter III was seen as some kind of unholy combination of idiocy, douchebaggery, and perverse love for Frederick is deliberately avoiding addressing the issue.
The Romanovs: Autocrats of all the Russias refers to "A number" of Russia's statesmen supporting her specifically in the assumption that she would act as regent for Paul.
I find it extremely unlikely that they were in the minority.
And "they knew that she was more than capable to rule the country" based on what?
Really. What has Catherine done as of 1762 to suggest she has the ability to rule?
If Peter sends her to a nunnery, the likelihood of a coup against him in Paul's name is pretty good - Peter is still detested. The likelihood of a coup in Catherine's name? Why? Give us a reason why anyone would launch a coup for Catherine instead of Paul.
And if you're going to claim that most of her supporters OTL were pro-Catherine more than pro-Paul, I want to see the source.
Peter was an idiot who was destructing the Russia (give him more time and this will be the most likely result) being practically the president of the "Frederick the Great and Prussia" fan club and this was well clear at that time. True Catherine has not any claim to throne of hers, then you need first take care of Peter then put the rule in her hand as mother of Paul...
And as Constantine said Catherine at that time was in Russia for many years (at that time was already more than half or her life) and was surely seen if not Peter the Great's at least Empress Elizabeth's spiritual successor and I think this was more than enough...
At the time of the later revolts, faux Peter III's supporters had almost surely forgotten how disastrous his policies were (or they know he was not the true Peter)
And as Constantine said Catherine at that time was in Russia for many years (at that time was already more than half or her life) and was surely seen if not Peter the Great's at least Empress Elizabeth's spiritual successor and I think this was more than enough...
At the time of the later revolts, faux Peter III's supporters had almost surely forgotten how disastrous his policies were (or they know he was not the true Peter)
For the love of God, no one is arguing against the idea at Peter was the worst thing to be seen since Batu Khan or Ivan the Terrible or Charles XII or whatever you want to name.
What does that have to do with anyone putting Catherine on the throne?
And there's no reason why her as Paul's mother automatically gets to rule in his name unless there's some Russian custom I've missed.
At that time, Catherine has been pious and respectful to her credit. That's it. Nothing that is going to make people break her out of a nunnery to install instead of her son.
And for (hopefully) the last time, stop with how Peter was horrible.
As stated in my post above, repeating that is just avoiding addressing the issue of why Catherine.
Because Catherine has been, quoting The Romanovs: "dutiful and reverent in her observance of Church ritual" and "calm and dignified, even in the face of the gross insults Peter heaped upon her in public"?
This may win sympathy, but it doesn't mean people will rally behind her to make her Empress in her own right over putting Paul on the throne.
My apologies for being a bit rude, but when no one is disputing Peter is disliked intensely, bringing it up again and again and again as if it somehow addresses an entirely different matter - why this replacement and not another - is irritating.
My source is Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power By Virginia Rounding. And the coup was NOT launched FOR Catherine. It was launched BY Catherine. She knew her husband was an idiot and did something about his disastrous reign. The fact that NONE of the Guard Regiments that supported her in her coup called out for an Emperor Paul says something. After all, these were part of the Imperial Guards. Surely if they just wanted Peter to be replaced with Paul they could have forced her to? But they didn't. They supported the foreign wife. Surely, if the conspiracy was more Pro-Paul, as you seem to think, nothing would have stopped the conspirators from couping Catherine in favor of her son after she declared herself soul Ruler of Russia? But they didn't. Some of the noble supporters may have preferred a minor Emperor on the throne but the military and the Church supported Catherine. You say Catherine had accomplished nothing but at least she took the time to learn the language. That's more than can be said of her husband. He only spoke German and never bothered to learn Russian. I'm sorry if I'm coming of as harsh or annoying but my point is that Peter's policies are what led to Catherine being seen as better alternative. For every custom or tradition Peter disregarded Catherine fallowed to the point where Catherine seem to be the Russian and Peter the German Consort. If Peter did all the same policies but respected Russian tradition and customs then Catherine wouldn't have looked nearly as good for an alternative. Hell he might have never been overthrown at all. Again sorry if I came off as offensive. Catherine the Great is one of my favorite European rulers and I can go overboard about things I'm passionate about.
Constantine:
I'm not concerned with whether or not you're passionate about Catherine - I'm rather less fond of her, but we're not here to discuss the morality of her sex life.
And I don't care for Peter any more than anyone else in this thread, that's why I'm sick of it being brought up that Peter was a douchebag. That's not the issue. The issue is why the douchebag would be replaced in an alt-coup by his foreign (effectively ex)wife. Because in this case, the coup would be launched - to turn your phrase around - FOR her, not BY her, which is another kettle of fish entirely.
And no amount of Peter bashing however deserved is going to answer that question.
I'm not concerned with whether or not you're passionate about Catherine - I'm rather less fond of her, but we're not here to discuss the morality of her sex life.
And I don't care for Peter any more than anyone else in this thread, that's why I'm sick of it being brought up that Peter was a douchebag. That's not the issue. The issue is why the douchebag would be replaced in an alt-coup by his foreign (effectively ex)wife. Because in this case, the coup would be launched - to turn your phrase around - FOR her, not BY her, which is another kettle of fish entirely.
And no amount of Peter bashing however deserved is going to answer that question.
I have to agree with Elfwine here. For many conspirators, Catherine did seem like a great alternative to Peter, partially because she was a lead conspirator herself.
However, in this timeline, she's in a convent and not in a position of power to create this coup. As she isn't seen as a centre of power, it seems highly unlikely, she will be seen as the alternative. I imagine the likely result is that people take out Peter to put in Paul as King, with some powerful minister or other as regent.
Elfwine - I'd love to get your views on who this would be.
However, in this timeline, she's in a convent and not in a position of power to create this coup. As she isn't seen as a centre of power, it seems highly unlikely, she will be seen as the alternative. I imagine the likely result is that people take out Peter to put in Paul as King, with some powerful minister or other as regent.
Elfwine - I'd love to get your views on who this would be.
Hard to say - depends on who leads the conspiracy, I suspect.
Also, it might be worth noting that an alternate (or even OTL's) coup is not guaranteed to succeed. There are men loyal to Peter, after all.
Not the Guard, but they're not the only regiments relevant.
I'm bringing this up because it does bear at least some consideration - Peter made mistakes OTL he might not make TTL.
Do you know enough about Russian politics at this time to say who the contenders might be?
Not enough to be certain.
I suspect that one way or another the Guards will be involved, though.