Feodor I of Russia, last monarch of the Rurikid Dynasty and son of Ivan the Terrible, had a daughter named Feodosia in 1592 with his wife, Irina Godunova (whose brother Boris would become tsar after his brother-in-law), and doted heavily upon her as she was their first child after over a decade of marriage. Now, what if she hand't died at age 2, and instead lived to adulthood (somehow)?
WI: Feodor I of Russia didn't die childless
- Thread starter Peppe
- Start date
Woman could not inherit the throne. There could be, theoretically, a scenario in which she marries a foreign royalty (Denmark was seemingly a preferred choice but there could be another options), he converts into Orthodoxy and, in an absence of a better alternative, is elected as a Tsar (I think that Sobor would be needed for such an extraordinary occasion).
krieger
Banned
Were there formal laws of inheritance, though? In XVIIIth century, Catherine I, Anne, Elizabeth and Catherine II reigned as a female monarchs and no one made fuss about it, until Paul I didn't decide to introduce semi-Salic law.
All of them followed Peter I and the introduction of Petrine Succession which basically meant the Tsar could pick whoever he/she wanted to be the heir.
krieger
Banned
But the Tsar could do this as well before Peter, just look at Ivan IV and Simeon Bekubalatovich.
Mikhail was her second cousin so a much more likely match than Boris’ son, considering the opinion of the Russian church about first cousins matches
Simeon was not a female and at the time of Ivan things and attitudes were quite different.
Even in the late XVII after the death of Feodor III Sophia, the most demonstrably competent member of the family could be only a regent. But Peter broke everything including the customs and attitudes. The females were not sitting in a seclusion anymore: they became a part of the society (BTW, Peter had Catherine crowned during his life time) and the thought of a female empress was not looking absurd anymore.
krieger
Banned
But he was nominated heir without a blood claim, so he can serve as a proof that Tsar could still appoint heir before Peter. Sophia had two younger brothers and no one appointed her as a heir, so no surprise that she didn't press her own claim as a Tsaritsa.
First cousin marriages in Russia is a no-no.
AIUI one of the other Romanovs (Mikhail's dad's brother or something) was the personal preference of Feodor I for his successors. Something that Feodor mentioned to Godunov, and guess who were one of the first family targetted by Boris? Said Romanov cousin.
An alternative is simply to have Feodosia born Pyotr (which many believed for a portion of the troubles, and at least THREE such Pyotr's emerged at this time. One in Astrakhan, one along the Volga and a third called "Pyotr-the-Bear"
Peter issued a law according to which Russian ruler is completely free to appoint anybody as a successor. Such a law did not exist before and tradition assumed succession by the closest male relative. Culture allowing woman to succeed was not there, yet, and you can’t ignore the cultural framework of a society. By the time of Peter’s death Russia was already an empire with its own laws and pretense to be “European” so the framework was seriously different.
Argument about Sophia having the brothers is not working: by the time of Peter’s death there was his grandson, future Peter II. Peter did not leave any will (and did not nominate her) and his law (rather typically) left a field open to the discussion. Supporters of Catherine had been arguing that Peter is young while Catherine is mature and already has experience in the state affairs (actually, she did not) and that Peter could be her heir. The dispute had been won by the Guards who promised to break the legs to anybody objecting her candidacy.
Now, by the time of Feodor’s death inheritance by the woman was culturally impossible. There were two coups: 1st failed conducted by Naryshkin clique declared the younger brother as a Tsar (claiming older brother’s bad health as an excuse) and 2nd, conducted by Miloslavsky clan, resulted in declaring two co-Tsars with Sophia as a regent. Culturally, she could not get more even with the military force (Streltsy) beh
Last edited:
Just to corroborate your point, in the end wasn't Sophia deposed when she actually tried to depose her brothers and crown herself Tsarina?
I wasn't aware she ACTIVELY tried to depose them, but I know she did sow ferment amongst the streltsy to try and grab back being the power BEHIND the throne
She was the power behind the throne for years, being her brother's regent and de facto ruler of Russia, when she tried to become the power IN the throne by usurping her brother she was swiftly deposed by the streltsy and boyards, who were her supporters (they still preferred the guy with a deep seethed despise against them than her)
This was an accusation from Naryshkin clique, her enemies and, as I understand, it was not backed up by anything substantial except for the testimonies given under the torture. Even then, I think that it was mostly along the lines of her trying to kill Peter but not Ivan. Story about her looking for the throne was, IIRC, related to the later event, revolt of few Streltsy regiments. Again, all information is coming from a camp of her enemies.
Last edited:
krieger
Banned
Was it? Why didn't the throne after Feodor I went to his closest male Orthodox relative (Shuisky), but instead it went to Boris Godunov who was relative of his wife, not his? Even Feodor Romanov would have a better claim than Boris because he was a cousin of Feodor I himself. But I understand your argument about those cultural things. I think that, however, Feodor would name whoever would be his son-in-law as heir just like Ivan IV named Simeon Bekubalatovich.
It went to Godunov mostly because he was already in power beforehand (Feodor was mentally handicapped, and Boris was the one in power since the late reign of Ivan IV) and he was liked by those in power. Also, who would even be his son in law? Feodor died in 1598, and his daughter was born in 1592