Russian Dowager Tsarinas/Empresses

Can anyone with a knowledge of Russian history, tell me what the position was of a Dowager-Empress/Tsarina in Russia was before Peter the Great? The reason I ask is that most of the 18th century is dominated by reigning empresses, and then Alexander I (as a sop to his mother over his father's murder) created the tradition where the Emperor's mother took precedence over his wife.
 
Can anyone with a knowledge of Russian history, tell me what the position was of a Dowager-Empress/Tsarina in Russia was before Peter the Great? The reason I ask is that most of the 18th century is dominated by reigning empresses, and then Alexander I (as a sop to his mother over his father's murder) created the tradition where the Emperor's mother took precedence over his wife.

I think it depended on the will of the new Tsar. Before Peter the Great women held very little rights, so I imagine they more or less completely withdrew from society after their husband's death, though I would bet that Tsarinas who's sons became Tsar had better status.
 
Maria Nagaya 8th and last wife of Ivan the Terrible was forced into a Nunnery after the death of her son, freed by the first False Dmitriy, after his 1606 death back to the nunnery

Irina Godunova wife of Feodor I, it was talked about her reigning after his death, but she retired to a Convent

Maria Skuratova-Belskaya wife of Boris Godunov was strangled to death with her son shortly after Boris' death

Marina Mniszech wife of both of the False Dmitriys, and the true power behind them, leading armies and kicking ass, she would have ruled through them if they had managed to hold on

Maria Buynosova-Rostovskaya wife of Vasili IV was forced into a Convent when her husband was overthrown

Natalya Naryshkina second wife of Alexei I (mother of Peter I) served as regent for Peter and his mentally weak brother Ivan, after she was replaced by her step-daughter Sofia she leveled in poverty in the summer palace largely supported by the founds form the Church, when Peter took power his mother became a leading figure but would clash with her son as she became the leader of a conservative faction in the Orthodox Church trying to resist Peter's appointment of a patriarch who was European looking
 
Maria Nagaya 8th and last wife of Ivan the Terrible was forced into a Nunnery after the death of her son, freed by the first False Dmitriy, after his 1606 death back to the nunnery

Irina Godunova wife of Feodor I, it was talked about her reigning after his death, but she retired to a Convent

Maria Skuratova-Belskaya wife of Boris Godunov was strangled to death with her son shortly after Boris' death

Marina Mniszech wife of both of the False Dmitriys, and the true power behind them, leading armies and kicking ass, she would have ruled through them if they had managed to hold on

Maria Buynosova-Rostovskaya wife of Vasili IV was forced into a Convent when her husband was overthrown

Natalya Naryshkina second wife of Alexei I (mother of Peter I) served as regent for Peter and his mentally weak brother Ivan, after she was replaced by her step-daughter Sofia she leveled in poverty in the summer palace largely supported by the founds form the Church, when Peter took power his mother became a leading figure but would clash with her son as she became the leader of a conservative faction in the Orthodox Church trying to resist Peter's appointment of a patriarch who was European looking

I was actually wondering more if Peter the Great were to leave a surviving son by Ekaterina I, if she might be co-empress with that son - Peter II or Paul I - due to the fact that she had been crowned by Peter - until her death. And thereby set the precedent of the empress dowager taking precedence over the empress consort - although no other empress-dowager serves as co-empress after her husband's death.
 
I was actually wondering more if Peter the Great were to leave a surviving son by Ekaterina I, if she might be co-empress with that son - Peter II or Paul I - due to the fact that she had been crowned by Peter - until her death. And thereby set the precedent of the empress dowager taking precedence over the empress consort - although no other empress-dowager serves as co-empress after her husband's death.

In that case no. For one I doubt Peter the Great would have made Catherine co-Empress if they had a surviving son. But I think it would depend on the age of the son when Peter dies. If he's underage then there is a possibility of Catherine just becoming co-ruler, but she'll probably lost that status after her son is grown. Plus I kinda get the feeling that it was in a way a reverse Jure uxoris situation, with Catherine's co-monarch status ending with Peter's death, if not for her being made Empress Regnant. And even if that happened, it would be the acceptation rather then the rule. It would be up to the Emperor to codify the precedent, not just because of a co-Empress situation.
 
Can anyone with a knowledge of Russian history, tell me what the position was of a Dowager-Empress/Tsarina in Russia was before Peter the Great? The reason I ask is that most of the 18th century is dominated by reigning empresses, and then Alexander I (as a sop to his mother over his father's murder) created the tradition where the Emperor's mother took precedence over his wife.

In every monarchy a mother of a ruler is quite an important person for obvious reasons. If a monarch is a loving son than his mother might be extremely influential in many aspects, especially if a son is young and needs some mother's support.
In every monarchy mother of the underage heir to the throne in his minority was seen as a natural Reagent which was often the case.
Russia before Peter the Great was no exception. But nothing unusual. Nothing could predict the century of the reigning empresses. Mother ruling together with her adult son or instead(!) of her adult son was unthinkable, outrageous.
By the way the age of the reigning tsarinas started before Peter the Great. It was his sister Sophia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Alekseyevna
The most startling thing happened when Peter the Great was already in full power, adult and in excellent health - the Streltsy attempted to reinstate his sister in the Kremlin during Peter's absence from the country.
To try to put a female on the throne when a male brother was alive and kicking - I cannot understand it! That was a surprising unprecedented break in the mentality of the Russian people.
 
In 18th century that was out of desperation - the male line was extinct, so the women had to take matters in their hands.
Even Sophia's regency can be viewed like this - she was propped up as the last capable adult in Romanov-Miloslavsky line.
In fact the tug-of-war between Romanov-Naryshkin and Romanov-Miloslavsky lines indirectly continued over the whole 18th century and ended with Romanov-Naryshkin victory with imprisonment of Ivan VI and his family.
Needless to say, the lack of clear succession later resulted in the return to old variant of succession law when females could succeed to the throne only if all branches of male line are extinct.
 
Is there any particular reason the Russians were so open to female rule, even that of foreigners?

Tsars and Tsaritsas are different then Kings and most of all Queens, they are anointed by God, other thing the Kings/Queens of England from Henry VII forward no European Monarch is head of the Church, the Tsars have always been the head of the Church and very much involved in its running, as such the "God's anointed" thing is so much more heavy so the Tsaritsa is an anointed monarch even if as a good wife she defers to her husband, no one could take her crown away thus needing to force early Tsaritsas into convents rather then them just retiring to some castle some where
 
Tsars and Tsaritsas are different then Kings and most of all Queens, they are anointed by God, other thing the Kings/Queens of England from Henry VII forward no European Monarch is head of the Church, the Tsars have always been the head of the Church and very much involved in its running, as such the "God's anointed" thing is so much more heavy so the Tsaritsa is an anointed monarch even if as a good wife she defers to her husband, no one could take her crown away thus needing to force early Tsaritsas into convents rather then them just retiring to some castle some where

I didn't know that. Thanks.

So, would a Dowager-Tsarina then outrank her daughter-in-law (wife of the reigning Tsar) or be on par with her in rank?
 
Is there any particular reason the Russians were so open to female rule, even that of foreigners?
No, there was not.
In 18th century that was out of desperation - the male line was extinct, so the women had to take matters in their hands.
Even Sophia's regency can be viewed like this...
Ye, I think it was a game of chance. A coincidence.
The first woman in the Romanovs dynasty to take power officially, Sophia happened to be quite a capable leader. Well, she was not too successful, but she was definitely no worse than any male ruler. The Russians saw it, remembered it, she kind of started the trend.
After her it went easier for a female on the throne, there was already a precedent.
When there was no longer any problems with male line any significance of tsarinas disappeared - after Alexander I there was a steady male line.
So women on the throne was a temporary dynastic problem with male line of the Romanovs.

... the Tsars have always been the head of the Church ...
Nope.
Not always.
Only after Peter the Great.

By the way it was widely believed that medieval French kings could cure people of measles or something. Not sure about British kings though.
The Russians tsars could not do anything like that, they were not expected to do any such things.
But there were a lot of revered Orthodox saint people all over the Russian Empire who were believed to cure people. I mean you overestimate the religious spiritual aspect of tsardom. First and foremost the tsars were earthly rulers.
 
And as the successors to Byzantine emperors they had to respect the "symphony" of temporal and spiritual power represented by Tsar and Patriarch respectively. Peter I breaking this by establishing Holy Synode was one of the reasons he got dubbed the Antichrist and before that it was pretty hard for a Tsar even lobby a few extra Bishop seats in Siberia if a Patriarch didn't like it. That was a problem between Feodor III and Patriarch Ioakim in 1680 when the Tsar wanted to create a few new Bishoprics in Eastern Siberia to ensure the position of Russian state in the region in anticipation of conflict with China. Patriarch said no to the idea, and that was the end of it.
Peter I learned the lessons of his father and brother and abolished the Patriarchy all together instead of bothering to find a Patriarch who will agree to his ideas.

And the last British monarch who was believed to heal with touch was Queen Anne Stuart.
 
And the last British monarch who was believed to heal with touch was Queen Anne Stuart.
I recall reading somewhere that at the Frankfurt Diet in 1848, some elderly Germans queued up to be touched by the Austrian Emperor (even though he no longer reigned over Germany).
 
Thanks, very interesting.

I guess an aside is that...an anointed Empress who takes over (upon the death of a husband or brother or whatever) would have a very limited pool of suitable marriage partners to draw from?
 
By the way it was widely believed that medieval French kings could cure people of measles or something. Not sure about British kings though.

It was scrofula, actually: tuberculosis of the lymph nodes of the neck. Nasty disfiguring disease, self-limiting but drawn out enough to make the sufferer truly miserable and send them on a search for anything that might help. The kings of England and France claimed they had been given divine power to heal scrofula through touch; even some of those who didn't believe in it (like Elizabeth I and James I) still did it as a theatrical way of asserting their divine right to rule. One of the last people touched for scrofula in English history was the infant Samuel Johnson, who was touched by Queen Anne.
 
It was scrofula, actually: tuberculosis of the lymph nodes of the neck. Nasty disfiguring disease, self-limiting but drawn out enough to make the sufferer truly miserable and send them on a search for anything that might help. The kings of England and France claimed they had been given divine power to heal scrofula through touch; even some of those who didn't believe in it (like Elizabeth I and James I) still did it as a theatrical way of asserting their divine right to rule. One of the last people touched for scrofula in English history was the infant Samuel Johnson, who was touched by Queen Anne.

OTL a man came before William III to be touched for the king's evil, William coldly responded: "God grant you better health and more sense".

Also, Henry Benedict Stuart as well as Bonnie Prince Charlie (esp. in Edinburgh) both touched for the king's evil.

There was also a case OTL where a French woman came to Louis XIV (before his coronation) to be touched, and because Charles II was also present wasn't sure who should touch her - a king without a crown or a king not yet anointed.
 
.... most of the 18th century is dominated by reigning empresses, and then Alexander I (as a sop to his mother over his father's murder) created the tradition where the Emperor's mother took precedence over his wife.

So these imperial women: Emperor's mother, Emperor's wife...
Alexander I was supposed to be wary about them if we are to believe that the Russians were somehow predisposed to the female rule.
To make things worse Alexander had a bunch of sisters.
One of his sisters was Catherine (quite an appropriate name...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Pavlovna_of_Russia
In the English Wikipedia we read:
In 1812, some conspirators who planned to depose Tsar Alexander had the ambitions to put her on the throne as Empress Catherine III.
There is nothing like that in the Russian Wikipedia. And I've never heard anything like that. Actually I heard that Catherine Pavlovna was quite intelligent, took interest in politics, had some influence on her imperial brother. And there were some courtly jokes about her grand imperial name. But to be involved in the plot against the Emperor?
No, I do not buy it.
And it is not about a true sincere affection between sister and brother which they showed and kept through all their life. The matter is that Alexander had brothers and while they were alive Catherine had little...what the hell, she did not have any chance at all to succeed her brother on the throne.

The Russians preferring women on the throne over men is misconception of the foreigners.
Though I agree that the Russians thought that if there was a shortage of male line in that case a woman on the throne was acceptable.
 
Top