A Ethnically Non Russian Tsar's Name

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Well he ruled an independent country.
Yes, as but he was the spiritual leader with most authority before independence, and he just combined religious leader with political office afterwards. He was still a spiritual leader until his death during the the first years of Red Mongolia (but then again the early red government was mostly nationalists that were Communists out of convenience).
 
Well considering every Russian Emperor post Peter the Great wasn't ethnically Russian..,
Practically all czars since 18th century were German origin. I think that Peter II was last purely Russian ethnic czar of Russia.
So ethnicity is like breed of dog? It's about 'blood', ain't it?
It's about how your ancestors mated?
And that makes you a Bulldog or a Spitz; a French or an Italian?
Oh, that makes the definition of 'ethnicity' so comprehensible...

Technically none of the Tsars were ethnically Russian, Rurik, the founder of the Rurikid Dynasty was a Swede. . .For reference, the Rurikids ruled Russia from the 700's to the Death of Ivan IV. . .
Well, then technically none of the Americans (in the USA) were/are ethnically American.
I mean, think for yourself - if 800 years of living in Russia didn't make the Rurikids 'ethnically Russian', how could 300 years living in the USA make anybody 'ethnic American'?

I think that on veins of Russians is more Uralic and Mongol blood than Scandinavian blood.
Genetically the Finno-Ugorians constitutes a good share in the Russian 'blood'.
There was an extremely tiny part of the 'Mongol blood' even in the veins of the nomadic Golden Horde population, which was predominantly Turkic.
Speaking of the 'Turkic Golden Horde nomadic blood' in the veins of the Russians... according to the latest genetic researches it's close to nil, on the level of the statistical error.
As for 'Scandinavian blood' I don't have any data, but when my uncle sailed overseas (he was a sailor) the Scandinavians always addressed him in their languages, taking him for one of their own, which amused him greatly. Same with my brother, but rare as he's not a sailor and mostly stays in Russia.
 
A question pertinent to an idea for a timeline I had.
Would an ethnically non Russian Tsar Russify his name, take a new Russian name or keep his name?

Germans had been on the throne and marriages with German houses continued until the end. Maybe a Georgian noble/prince as tsar ? At least a common religion. Another option would be a Swede from Finland maybe ? Scandinavian nobility had functions in tsarist Russia (Gustav von Mannerheim was in the tsarist guard). Maybe a swede noble converts to Orthodox Christianity.
 
I'm speaking under correction here but as long as the tsar had the name of a saint (recognized by the Orthodox Church) or took the name of said saint once he kissed the cross, it didn't really matter what his name was. However, it caused several tsarinas/grand duchesses to have to adopt false patronymics since there isn't a Saint Frederick (for instance). I know in OTL Anna Leopoldovna was also known as Anna Carlovna (however, as pointed out in Apollinis et Dianae, Carlovna wasn't a suitable patronym (IDK why Carlovna was less suitable than Leopoldovna, since the Orthodox Church neither recognizes a Saint Charles nor, despite some Babenburger (?) duke bearing the nickname of Leopold the Saint, TMK he was never canonized, a Saint Leopold).
 
So ethnicity is like breed of dog? It's about 'blood', ain't it?
It's about how your ancestors mated?
And that makes you a Bulldog or a Spitz; a French or an Italian?
Oh, that makes the definition of 'ethnicity' so comprehensible...

Well, then technically none of the Americans (in the USA) were/are ethnically American.
That comes over a little flat, considering that most Americans don't identify as ethnically American but rather as ethnically such-and-such and also American (e.g., German-American or Irish-American). Calling yourself "just American" is mostly limited to the Deep South, probably thanks the obvious racial politics involved, and is frequently considered a little odd by other Americans. And, indeed, the definition of ethnicity used is about the 'blood,' not about culture or traditions or anything like that, so that a German-American is considered such because their parents were descended from German-Americans, who were descended from German-Americans, and so on back to the original immigrants, who of course were born in Germany.

Anyway, the OTL example of the later Romanovs, who frequently sprang directly from German loins (as in, their mothers, or sometimes themselves, were unquestionably German in origin) answers the OP's question perfectly well.
 
That comes over a little flat, considering that most Americans don't identify as ethnically American but rather as ethnically such-and-such and also American (e.g., German-American or Irish-American). Calling yourself "just American" is mostly limited to the Deep South, probably thanks the obvious racial politics involved, and is frequently considered a little odd by other Americans. And, indeed, the definition of ethnicity used is about the 'blood,' not about culture or traditions or anything like that, so that a German-American is considered such because their parents were descended from German-Americans, who were descended from German-Americans, and so on back to the original immigrants, who of course were born in Germany.
That's kind of difficult for me to comprehend.

I mean if both your parents came from Germany that's easy to identify yourself as "German-American". It gets somewhat harder if your mother came from Germany and your father came from Ireland, but I guess something like "Irish-German-American"(?).

But if your farther is a fourth generation American and he has in his veins blood of good dozen of different nationalities/ethnicities and your mother is the fifth-generation American and has similar cocktail of "bloods" in her veins...
...What does it make you?

- a German-Irish-Italian-French-Scottish-Serbian-Welsh-Chinese-Andalusian-Polish-Norwegian-Dutch-Portugal-Jewish-Greek-Indian-Corsican "American"?
 
That's kind of difficult for me to comprehend.

I mean if both your parents came from Germany that's easy to identify yourself as "German-American". It gets somewhat harder if your mother came from Germany and your father came from Ireland, but I guess something like "Irish-German-American"(?).

But if your farther is a fourth generation American and he has in his veins blood of good dozen of different nationalities/ethnicities and your mother is the fifth-generation American and has similar cocktail of "bloods" in her veins...
...What does it make you?

- a German-Irish-Italian-French-Scottish-Serbian-Welsh-Chinese-Andalusian-Polish-Norwegian-Dutch-Portugal-Jewish-Greek-Indian-Corsican "American"?
Usually people pick one or two that they have some connection to, and ignore the others. For me, for instance, if I bother thinking about it I think of myself as Norwegian-American, because parts of my mother's side of the family immigrated from Norway (and relatively recently, too), or Irish-American, because of a similar story on my father's side. Of course there's some involvement of people from places that aren't Norway or Ireland, but those are the ones that I've actually heard about and feel some degree of connection to.

This, obviously, circles back to ethnicity not actually being about blood, but most people are picking from among their blood ancestors in this case, so it's hard to see that.
 
This, obviously, circles back to ethnicity not actually being about blood...
That's actually my point here...

From all I know 'by blood' the president Barack Hussein Obama was a Kenyan from his father side. But that didn't make him an ethnic Kenyan, I guess.
And I don't think he was/is perceived as an ethnic Kenyan by the other Americans.
That's kind of analogy to how the Russians perceived their tsars of the 'German origin'.
 
That's actually my point here...

From all I know 'by blood' the president Barack Hussein Obama was a Kenyan from his father side. But that didn't make him an ethnic Kenyan, I guess.
And I don't think he was/is perceived as an ethnic Kenyan by the other Americans.
That's kind of analogy to how the Russians perceived their tsars of the 'German origin'.
I don't think that's a very good analogy, because of how being African-American in the United States is so tied up with the legacy of slavery (even if you ancestors never actually suffered slavery, as in Obama's case). Although there are Nigerian-Americans out there...

Probably a better choice would be pointing out that Eisenhower was German-American in this sense, yet that was hardly noticed or commented upon; it was just a curiosity of little import. As, indeed, being German-Russian was for the Tsars.
 
That comes over a little flat, considering that most Americans don't identify as ethnically American but rather as ethnically such-and-such and also American (e.g., German-American or Irish-American). Calling yourself "just American" is mostly limited to the Deep South, probably thanks the obvious racial politics involved, and is frequently considered a little odd by other Americans. And, indeed, the definition of ethnicity used is about the 'blood,' not about culture or traditions or anything like that, so that a German-American is considered such because their parents were descended from German-Americans, who were descended from German-Americans, and so on back to the original immigrants, who of course were born in Germany.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Certainly, many USAians will claim an ethnicity if asked on a poll, but that doesn't really impact most people's daily life. Besides the utter mutts, even mostly and identifiably ethnic Americans will celebrate other ethnic holidays and participate in a fairly generic culture.

That's kind of difficult for me to comprehend.
...What does it make you?

- a German-Irish-Italian-French-Scottish-Serbian-Welsh-Chinese-Andalusian-Polish-Norwegian-Dutch-Portugal-Jewish-Greek-Indian-Corsican "American"?

Yeah, something like that - I think you've got it closer to correct than Workable Goblin. The latest immigrants I can trace are my mother's paternal grandparents that both came from Holland, so I'm a solid 1/4 Dutch. I may be more German, but from multiple sources. Two strands go back to 1680s in Connecticut, and to early 1700s (grandfather of the Revolutionary War soldier, at least) in VA- both pretty early. My surname is Czech, but the immigration papers for that ancestor claim "Prussia" (while his death certificate claims "Germany"- they made the entry based on the current names, as far as I can tell). I don't claim anything but hick or redneck.
 
I don't think this is necessarily true. Certainly, many USAians will claim an ethnicity if asked on a poll, but that doesn't really impact most people's daily life. Besides the utter mutts, even mostly and identifiably ethnic Americans will celebrate other ethnic holidays and participate in a fairly generic culture.
So? The whole discussion started, if you'll recall, with Russian pointing out that if the Rurikids were never ethnically Russian then there aren't any ethnic Americans. And, well, there aren't. Or not many, relatively speaking, because only a small proportion of Americans almost entirely within the Deep South claim to be ethnically American. Day-to-day life has nothing to do with it.
 
...being African-American in the United States is so tied up with the legacy of slavery (even if you ancestors never actually suffered slavery, as in Obama's case)...
I know, I know it's more about racial and slavery connotations here.
Speaking of racial and slavery connotations in Russia...
pushkin.jpg
Alexander Pushkin was/is for the Russian literature like Shakespeare was for the English literature, I mean the greatest.
And he was an 'Afro-Russian' racially, his African ancestor was presented as a gift to the Russian tsar. And Alexander Pushkin is/was perceived as the greatest Russian poet, and him being of African origin as you said: "was hardly noticed or commented upon; it was just a curiosity of little import".
My point here is that even being of other race was not important for the Russian mentality.


Probably a better choice would be pointing out that Eisenhower was German-American in this sense, yet that was hardly noticed or commented upon; it was just a curiosity of little import. As, indeed, being German-Russian was for the Tsars.
There was other thing of importance which should be mentioned here:
I don't have hard data at hand, but about half of the Russian nobility had the Non-Russian roots. That actually started with Ryurikids and their supporters of the Scandinavian origin and then the wide stream of the Mongol/Tartar refugees coming to serve the Russian Grand Prince, Lithuanians, and then after Peter the Great - lots of the European 'swords for hire'. And nobody concealed that or was shy about it, there was nothing embarrassing about it*.
That was normal, nothing to speak about.
My point here that against this background the tsars having non-Russian roots was seen as most normal as well.

* till the end of the XIXth century when the Russian nationalism started to show it's teeth.
 
So? The whole discussion started, if you'll recall, with Russian pointing out that if the Rurikids were never ethnically Russian then there aren't any ethnic Americans. And, well, there aren't. Or not many, relatively speaking, because only a small proportion of Americans almost entirely within the Deep South claim to be ethnically American. Day-to-day life has nothing to do with it.
I see another American-Russian analogy here:
I guess when asking the Americans about their 'American' (USA) ethnicity one won't meet too much of understanding, because 'being American' is not exactly about ethnicity; it's mostly about anything else. Their identity is not exactly along the ethnic lines.

And the same goes for Russia: one would get misunderstanding from the 'Russians' before the XIXth century trying to ask about their ethnicity. Their identity was not exactly along the ethnic lines.

I'm trying to explain that the entities and identities are not necessarily always about ethnicities.
And quite surprisingly I guess there are some similarities between Russia (before XIX) and the modern USA here...
 
There was other thing of importance which should be mentioned here:
I don't have hard data at hand, but about half of the Russian nobility had the Non-Russian roots. That actually started with Ryurikids and their supporters of the Scandinavian origin and then the wide stream of the Mongol/Tartar refugees coming to serve the Russian Grand Prince, Lithuanians, and then after Peter the Great - lots of the European 'swords for hire'. And nobody concealed that or was shy about it, there was nothing embarrassing about it*.
That was normal, nothing to speak about.
My point here that against this background the tsars having non-Russian roots was seen as most normal as well.
Yeah, I know; I'm actually reading a book about Russia's participation in the Napoleonic Wars right now which discusses this to some extent (it is, incidentally, a very fine book given what I've read so far; you might be interested if that kind of military history is your thing. Look for Russia Against Napoleon). Though, coincidentally, mostly in relation to the Baltic Germans (and "Germans" who had little relationship to Germany ancestrally but who were in that particular cultural milieu)...who were seen as non-Russian in key ways, at least some of the time.

I see another American-Russian analogy here:
I guess when asking the Americans about their 'American' (USA) ethnicity one won't meet too much of understanding, because 'being American' is not exactly about ethnicity; it's mostly about anything else. Their identity is not exactly along the ethnic lines.
That is exactly what I was saying.

And quite surprisingly I guess there are some similarities between Russia (before XIX) and the modern USA here...
Maybe not so surprising--the Russian identity was built a lot around their Orthodoxy, right? That strikes me more as being similar to the Roman Empire post-Constantine, where being orthodox (and, therefore, Orthodox most of the time) was a key element in Roman identity, by design more or less. And, well, the Romans did have a lot of influence on Russia...

In general, though, it seems that highly multi-ethnic states often found (or find) some non-ethnic marker to serve as a symbol of identity, for obvious reasons.
 
Anyway, the OTL example of the later Romanovs, who frequently sprang directly from German loins (as in, their mothers, or sometimes themselves, were unquestionably German in origin) answers the OP's question perfectly well.
Well speaking about the Russian tsars "springing directly from German loins"...

That's how the Russians perceived that (I guess you'd be interested to know):
When it was time to find a suitable wife for the Romanov crown prince (obviously one more German princess), a Russian noble made a joke which had a wide success in the society of the time -
He said: "What we need now is another strong healthy German mare to produce the Russian tsars for us".

I mean the Russians didn't see anything odd or humiliating about German girls giving birth to the Russians. And actually... what's wrong about it?
 
Well speaking about the Russian tsars "springing directly from German loins"...

That's how the Russians perceived that (I guess you'd be interested to know):
When it was time to find a suitable wife for the Romanov crown prince (obviously one more German princess), a Russian noble made a joke which had a wide success in the society of the time -
He said: "What we need now is another strong healthy German mare to produce the Russian tsars for us".

I mean the Russians didn't see anything odd or humiliating about German girls giving birth to the Russians. And actually... what's wrong about it?
Nothing! The reason for pointing it out was just to emphasize that the OP's question was addressed IOTL.
 
If anyone is still interested I have revised my idea slightly. All the romanovs are dead but the whites still won the war. After the middle part were he rises to power Roman does not become Tsar rather he becomes Regent of the empire in a Steward of Gondar type situation.
 
If anyone is still interested I have revised my idea slightly. All the romanovs are dead but the whites still won the war. After the middle part were he rises to power Roman does not become Tsar rather he becomes Regent of the empire in a Steward of Gondar type situation.
In that case, Russia would probably become a republic rather than establishing a regency like in Hungary. The White forces had a significant republican component anyway, and simply not having any Romanovs for monarchist forces to center around will likely just strengthen them.
 
In that case, Russia would probably become a republic rather than establishing a regency like in Hungary. The White forces had a significant republican component anyway, and simply not having any Romanovs for monarchist forces to center around will likely just strengthen them.
That is a very good point.
Perhaps an underage Romanov heir is the best way to achieve a Hungary style regency.
 
Top