DBWI: Emperor Konstantin I Renounces His Rights to the Throne

I had this all typed up and then the thread was closed before I could post (please forgive me if this is some breach of forum etiquette). So I'm turning it into a DBWI of my own.

In 1820, Grand Duke Konstantin (future Emperor Konstantin I) supposedly renounced his rights to the throne in order to marry his Catholic Polish mistress. However, when Emperor Alexander died in 1825, Konstantin became Russian emperor. Of course, Russia was a tinderbox when it got a tsarina who was both a Catholic and a Pole (for good reason, anyone remember the False Dmitri's wife?). There were a couple of rebellions that fizzled out when Konstantin got the army in, especially since Grand Duke Nikolai (the guy who many thought was going to be tsar) was the bloke leading them.

Until then, everyone expected Konstantin to sort of put the Princess Lowicz away and marry someone suitable (he did, but only after she died of cholera in 1831, did he marry Luise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (b.1818)). But it didn't help that Konstantin had married Joanna, Princess of Lowicz, kept his three illegitimate children (Prince Paul (b.1808) - whom he later, in a weird twisted way, married to the bastard daughter of his first wife, Anna of Coburg, Louise von Löwenfels - Prince Konstantin (b.1818) - later a decorated scientist, metalurgist and who dabbled in munitions and agriculture and came up with what we now call dynamite) - and the Princess Konstantia (b.1815)) in public view (and elevated them to being right behind the imperial family) - which were considered rather scandalous at the time - Victorian moralism was just coming in. But he (read Princess Lowicz and Konstantia who served as hostess for her dad between wives) also managed to make the Russian court an extremely refined and cultured centre. But arguably the thing he is most remembered for is his "friendship" with France. Hell, he married his niece to King Henri V. If it hadn't been for the Russian backing, the Bourbon regime might've been overthrown. Not that Konstantin would've done anything had it been overthrown - most likely he'd have just shrugged his shoulders and gone back to drilling his soldiers. But it was the fact that everyone thought they knew that Russia and France were walking in lockstep that made them nervous. Prime Minister Wellington expressed concerns about this several times - which is why he pushed so hard for Luise of Mecklenburg (a cousin to Queen Victoria) to be chosen over another candidate.

So, what if the renunciation had been real/binding in 1820? Would Nikolai Pavlovich's reign have been much different? Would the Russian Emperor also attempt to claim to be overlord of Greece (which Konstantin did when he tried to get either he or his bastard son elected as king of Greece)?
 
I had this all typed up and then the thread was closed before I could post (please forgive me if this is some breach of forum etiquette). So I'm turning it into a DBWI of my own.

In 1820, Grand Duke Konstantin (future Emperor Konstantin I) supposedly renounced his rights to the throne in order to marry his Catholic Polish mistress. However, when Emperor Alexander died in 1825, Konstantin became Russian emperor. Of course, Russia was a tinderbox when it got a tsarina who was both a Catholic and a Pole (for good reason, anyone remember the False Dmitri's wife?). There were a couple of rebellions that fizzled out when Konstantin got the army in, especially since Grand Duke Nikolai (the guy who many thought was going to be tsar) was the bloke leading them.

Strictly speaking, he did not have to: an amendment regarding equal marriage made by Alexander I in 1820 did not forbid the unequal marriages, it simply excluded the children from these marriages from the line of succession and a "low-ranked" spouse was not getting an imperial rank (aka, the marriage was considered a morganatic one (like the 2nd marriage of Alexander II in OTL). In other words, while Princess of Łowicz could not be an empress, Konstantin could be an emperor. It is just that he possessed a charming personality, which made all his family (himself including) worrying about him sharing the fate of his father.

False Dmitri was a remote memory but there were still people who remembered Paul I and his fate quite well.

As for Grand Duke Nikolai leading the loyal troops, except for the political significance of this gesture, he was probably the worst case scenario available: for the whole day the loyal cavalry was making "attack-like" movements against the rebellious units (fortunately, their leadership proved to be even greater nincompoops) until general Karl von Toll (one of the heroes of Napoleonic wars) suggested to him to bring an artillery (this quite "Napoleonic" move ended the whole rebellion within an hour). But show of a loyalty did matter and it also deprived the rebels of any legitimacy.


So, what if the renunciation had been real/binding in 1820? Would Nikolai Pavlovich's reign have been much different? Would the Russian Emperor also attempt to claim to be overlord of Greece (which Konstantin did when he tried to get either he or his bastard son elected as king of Greece)?

Well, short of the marriages, what could be too different? Both of them had been crazy of parade ground drill (even if none of them reached the same level of competence in the subject as their junior brother Michael) and both had "principles" as a substitute of the brain. After all, we know what Nicholas did when he became an emperor after Konstantin's death in 1833.
 
Strictly speaking, he did not have to: an amendment regarding equal marriage made by Alexander I in 1820 did not forbid the unequal marriages, it simply excluded the children from these marriages from the line of succession and a "low-ranked" spouse was not getting an imperial rank (aka, the marriage was considered a morganatic one (like the 2nd marriage of Alexander II in OTL). In other words, while Princess of Łowicz could not be an empress, Konstantin could be an emperor. It is just that he possessed a charming personality, which made all his family (himself including) worrying about him sharing the fate of his father.

False Dmitri was a remote memory but there were still people who remembered Paul I and his fate quite well.

As for Grand Duke Nikolai leading the loyal troops, except for the political significance of this gesture, he was probably the worst case scenario available: for the whole day the loyal cavalry was making "attack-like" movements against the rebellious units (fortunately, their leadership proved to be even greater nincompoops) until general Karl von Toll (one of the heroes of Napoleonic wars) suggested to him to bring an artillery (this quite "Napoleonic" move ended the whole rebellion within an hour). But show of a loyalty did matter and it also deprived the rebels of any legitimacy.




Well, short of the marriages, what could be too different? Both of them had been crazy of parade ground drill (even if none of them reached the same level of competence in the subject as their junior brother Michael) and both had "principles" as a substitute of the brain. After all, we know what Nicholas did when he became an emperor after Konstantin's death in 1833.

Fair enough. The fact that Konstantin managed to avoid any messy palace coups like his dad always seems to indicate that for all his supposed boorishness and "charm" as you put it, he was at least aware of the atmosphere around him. Not a great sovereign, by any means, (his grandson, Konstantin II, far more than he), but I've always thought of Konstantin I being more along the lines of Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia.

It makes one wonder what would've happened if Konstantin had focused more on western Europe - for instance a working alliance with France (rather than the just for show one he had) like under his son and grandson - it was only with Konstantin II's son that Russia and France started losing interest in each other in the 1910s. Or a Russian military without Prince Konstantin (Emperor Konstantin I's bastard)'s developments for the artillery? Or the Russian peasantry if the Agricultural Revolution hadn't been spearheaded by that same prince, who used his closeness to his father and half-brother, the emperors, to get reforms through.
 
Top