WI: Tsar Ivan V has a son?

So I think everyone here basically knows who Peter the Great was but I don't know if all that many people remember his older brother and co-ruler Ivan V. Ivan was the youngest son of Tsar Alexei and his first wife Maria Miloslavskaya and was basically the Carlos II of Russia (physically and mentally disabled); still, he was the senior son of Alexei and could not be ignored. Thus, when his older brother Feodor III died in 1682 and his stepmother tried to enthrone her son Peter as Tsar, the Muscovites and the Streltsy regiments rioted and forced Ivan's coronation as senior co-Tsar, under the regency of his (in)famous sister Tsarevna Sophia Alekseyevna. Ivan remained the senior Tsar but after Sophia's regency ended in 1689, he was reduced to a non-entity and played no role in the Russian Court until his death in 1696. Yet he did differ from Carlos II in one respect; he fathered five daughters, three of whom survived infancy and one of whom, Anna, became Tsarina in 1730.

So my question is this; what if Ivan had fathered a healthy son? Ivan was the senior Tsar and senior male heir, so would Peter be able to legally side-line his nephew without causing more riots and potential rebellions? How would a continuing ro-regency play out? Would we see a potential civil war as those unsatisfied with Peter's reforms gather around his nephew? Or would Ivan VI become an ally and surrogate son to his uncle (after all, Ivan's would-be mother Praskovia Saltykova was much admired by her brother-in-law, supported his westernization policies and educated most of the female Romanovs of the next generation) Any chance this nephew (Ivan VI for ease) would simply have an accident like other inconvenient male heirs (Ivan the Terrible's son Dmitri comes to mind here)? Would love to here people's views on this one!
 
So my question is this; what if Ivan had fathered a healthy son? Ivan was the senior Tsar and senior male heir, so would Peter be able to legally side-line his nephew without causing more riots and potential rebellions? How would a continuing ro-regency play out? Would we see a potential civil war as those unsatisfied with Peter's reforms gather around his nephew? Or would Ivan VI become an ally and surrogate son to his uncle (after all, Ivan's would-be mother Praskovia Saltykova was much admired by her brother-in-law, supported his westernization policies and educated most of the female Romanovs of the next generation) Any chance this nephew (Ivan VI for ease) would simply have an accident like other inconvenient male heirs (Ivan the Terrible's son Dmitri comes to mind here)? Would love to here people's views on this one!

The options would be "natural causes", "accident" and "high treason". It was one thing to have the nieces and a fundamentally different - a nephew with the very good rights to the throne. If by some unlikely ...er... "oversight" Ivan survives for a while, his chances after Peter's 2nd marriage are too close to zero to be considered seriously: if Catherine managed to convince Peter to kill his own son, doing the same to a nephew would be the piece of cake. Loyalty to Peter would be absolutely irrelevant: Tsarevich Alexey was not only loyal but quite energetic in helping his father until he was pushed to the corner by the clique of Catherine and Menshikov.

As for the "education" of "most of the female Romanovs of the next generation", both Empress Anne and Empress Elizabeth had been absolutely uneducated, beyond elementary literacy, cows. Anne Petrovna presumably knew 4 languages but she grew up in the household of Peter's sister Natalia. Praskovia had been described as "lacking intelligence". In general, education had been more or less limited to the etiquette, dances and perhaps German and French. But at that time knowledge of the languages did not necessarily imply anything beyond the ability to maintain a superficial conversation on the mixture of Russian and <whatever>. Actually, it did not imply a good knowledge of the Russian either: Peter's letters almost has to be translated to Russian because they were written in a bizarre mixture of the ill-digested Russian and the foreign words he managed to pick up. :mad:
 
Catherine managed to convince Peter to kill his own son, doing the same to a nephew would be the piece of cake. Loyalty to Peter would be absolutely irrelevant: Tsarevich Alexey was not only loyal but quite energetic in helping his father until he was pushed to the corner by the clique of Catherine and Menshikov.

First time I've heard this. I always understood it that Alexei's education was left in the hands of boyars hostile to his dad, and he "had feared him [Pyotr] until he had learned to hate him instead". He was maybe good at some of the same things as Pyotr (I think I read somewhere he was good at math and geography or somesuch), but Alexei was the perennial disappointment to his dad (in addition to his father hating his mom).

I'm not saying Menshikov en kie didn't have anything to do with ENCOURAGING Pyotr's neglect of his heir (even fanning the resentment), but I don't think we can blame anyone BUT Pyotr for Alexei's death. (Meaning that while Pyotr may have been pliable when drunk, he didn't do something unless HE wanted to do it).

As to the wont of education of Pyotr's daughters, Pyotr was hardly ever around (or had the time to devote) to bother with their education, Marta/Ekaterina could barely write her own name (AFAIK).

But as to the likelihood of an Ivanovich survival I agree. Not simply because he's a threat to Pyotr's heirs, but also, didn't the Miloslavski line have some sort of degenerative genetic disease/bad genes in general (@Valena can coorect me on this), as seen by Feodor III and Ivan V.
 
But as to the likelihood of an Ivanovich survival I agree. Not simply because he's a threat to Pyotr's heirs, but also, didn't the Miloslavski line have some sort of degenerative genetic disease/bad genes in general (@Valena can coorect me on this), as seen by Feodor III and Ivan V.
Alexis Jr. (eldest son of Alexei Mikhailovich by Maria Miloslavskaya) dying at 16 and there being NO records of his military/physical education whatsoever (there is a ton on Feodor III childhood for comparison) and PROBABLY short-living male grandson of Ivan V by Praskovia Ivanovna confirm the bad genes theory. In addition to Feodor III and Ivan V proven poor health.

First time I've heard this. I always understood it that Alexei's education was left in the hands of boyars hostile to his dad, and he "had feared him [Pyotr] until he had learned to hate him instead". He was maybe good at some of the same things as Pyotr (I think I read somewhere he was good at math and geography or somesuch), but Alexei was the perennial disappointment to his dad (in addition to his father hating his mom).
Which can (and was) easiliy fueled by Catherine/Menshikov who basically was Catherine's pimp.

Also, in all likelyhood the boy dies of "natural causes of being strangled by pillow" in 1698. After Ivan's death it's Sophia's chance to re-usurp power of the regent.
 
First time I've heard this. I always understood it that Alexei's education was left in the hands of boyars hostile to his dad,

Please, where would one find these "boyars"? Boyarskaq Duma had been officially abolished in 1704 when Alexey was 14. His 1st teacher (started when Alexey was 6 years old) was Nikifor Wyazemskij, a simple noble. His curriculum included German, French, history, geography. In 1698, after his mother was sent to a nunnery, he was under supervision of Peter's sister, Natalia, who was very close to Peter and his "westernization" (was even visiting the German Settlement with him). Between 1701 and 1702 his tutor was Neugebauer from the University of Leipzig and from 1703 Heinrich Freiherr von Hüyssen who also was engaged by Peter in the diplomatic and legislative capacities.

He was maybe good at some of the same things as Pyotr (I think I read somewhere he was good at math and geography or somesuch), but Alexei was the perennial disappointment to his dad (in addition to his father hating his mom).

Let's filter things. (a) Peter was NOT good at math or any other area requiring active mental work and it does not look like he was interested in any of those, unlike Alexei. (b) All that "disappointment" thingy was a result of the dedicated effort of Peter's 2nd wife and Menshikov; of course, drinking abilities of the 14 - 16 years boy were well below the level of Peter and his buddies and this could be quite disappointing for the "loving father".

I'm not saying Menshikov en kie didn't have anything to do with ENCOURAGING Pyotr's neglect of his heir (even fanning the resentment), but I don't think we can blame anyone BUT Pyotr for Alexei's death. (Meaning that while Pyotr may have been pliable when drunk, he didn't do something unless HE wanted to do it).

Of course, this did not happen against Peter's will and it most definitely happened with his active participation but the timing is somewhat telling: things went from bad to worse after Catherine gave birth to son and Peter was paranoid enough to see the plots everywhere.

As to the wont of education of Pyotr's daughters, Pyotr was hardly ever around (or had the time to devote) to bother with their education, Marta/Ekaterina could barely write her own name (AFAIK).

And Elizabeth could not believe that Britain is on the island(s).

But as to the likelihood of an Ivanovich survival I agree. Not simply because he's a threat to Pyotr's heirs, but also, didn't the Miloslavski line have some sort of degenerative genetic disease/bad genes in general (@Valena can coorect me on this), as seen by Feodor III and Ivan V.

The Romanov tsars had been weak and unhealthy, including Ivan V. Peter was suffering from epilepsy and there are (at least recent) theories about him having some mental disorder. However, there is no reason (AFAIK) to blame things on Miloslavski: 1st, they had nothing to do with the health issues of Michael and Alexei and 2nd, it does not look like Sophia suffered from any health or mental issues; her sister Marfa lived to the age of 62 sister, Catherine - 60 and Maria - 63 .
 
However, there is no reason (AFAIK) to blame things on Miloslavski: 1st, they had nothing to do with the health issues of Michael and Alexei and 2nd, it does not look like Sophia suffered from any health or mental issues; her sister Marfa lived to the age of 62 sister, Catherine - 60 and Maria - 63 .
Just think it was something X-chromosome related, and as girls are XX, this is why they were healthy.
https://sanitareugen.livejournal.com/261918.html#comments
The theory from fai.org.ru user for your amusement, darling. It could not likely be lead poisoning (sometimes blamed on) - the girls had no health issues period, the boys... well. Though that could not plausibly be hemophilia, as colleague Sanitareugen theorizes. Likely some kind of muscular dystrophy.
 
The theory of X-related disease also explains poor health of Praskovia Ivanovna's short living son. She was, while not a sufferer (as a girl) a carrier of the thingy.

The defective gene seems to have been finally lost from circulation on Anna Leopoldovna's issue, though if Anna had a male sibling, his health would have also been questionable. Her mother could have been a carrier like her sister, and her daughter simply lucked into not inheriting defective X.
 
Last edited:
defective gene seems to have been finally lost from circulation on Anna Leopoldovna's issue, though if Anna had a male sibling, his health would have also been questionable. Her mother could have been a carrier like her sister, and her daughter simply lucked into not inheriting defective X.

Anna's kids were also affected IIRC. Ekaterina was deaf-mute, and one/both of the younger boys suffered from a hunchback and a twisted spine or something like that. So Anna was probably ALSO a carrier. Surprisingly Ivan VI doesn't seem to be affected - he's an idiot/retard in the same way the earl of Warwick was - starved of contact and uneducated. It's why I found @JonasResende writing of him (Ivan VI) and his alternate death in his Louis XVI TL as both sad and realistic
 
Anna's kids were also affected IIRC. Ekaterina was deaf-mute, and one/both of the younger boys suffered from a hunchback and a twisted spine or something like that. So Anna was probably ALSO a carrier. Surprisingly Ivan VI doesn't seem to be affected - he's an idiot/retard in the same way the earl of Warwick was - starved of contact and uneducated. It's why I found @JonasResende writing of him (Ivan VI) and his alternate death in his Louis XVI TL as both sad and realistic
Sounds like a different disease re. Anna's kids. In this particular disease only boys were affected, so Ekaterina's deaf-mutnetess and scoliosis came from different source. Could have even been newly occuring things due to poor living conditions in exile.
 
OK kinda getting off topic here, LOL. Alexei Petrovich's education and upbringing did strike me as very odd and I feel like we have a traditional history (he was ill-educated by reactionary Boyars and Priests, lazy and uninterested in state affairs, humiliated his father by fleeing to Austria only be be convinced to return Russia and was ultimately tortured to death for his Austrian adventure) and a truth that's never been investigated. Kinda like how until the last few decades everyone accepted Catherine the Great's version of Peter III (a lazy, violent, Prussiphile fanboy that couldn't care less about Russia) and now we have a more balanced view of him (abolishing the secret police, granted religious freedom, started to attempt compulsory education for all classes, ex ex). Alexei simply hasn't got any major scholarship yet.

Anyway, so do we think that Ivan VI would simply die as in infant? Aren't we making a big assumption here? I mean look at the frequent riots that occurred in Peter's early reign whenever Ivan V was (apparently) threatened. Anything happens to his nephew and the Muscovites and Streltsy would blame the Tsar, possibly rioting much worse than OTL. Peter might not necessarily survive a concentrated effort against him. No it would be better to allow him to live and ascent as co-ruler in succession of his father. He could always die later, after the reactionary forces are crushed in the late 1690s.

Going further into this, what happens if Ivan survives into adulthood? I don't think he would be in the same situation as cousin Alexei; Ivan VI would be a crowned co-monarch, and legally Peter would have ability to move against him. So in my opinion it makes more sense to co-opt Ivan as a loyal ally; marry him off at the same time o earlier as Alexei and if he has a son marry one his daughters by Catherine to that great-nephew.
 
Going further into this, what happens if Ivan survives into adulthood? I don't think he would be in the same situation as cousin Alexei; Ivan VI would be a crowned co-monarch, and legally Peter would have ability to move against him. So in my opinion it makes more sense to co-opt Ivan as a loyal ally; marry him off at the same time o earlier as Alexei and if he has a son marry one his daughters by Catherine to that great-nephew.
If there is "Sophia for regent" uprising at the same time as OTL (i.e. Great Embassy), Peter might have lost it. And there were more than enough willing-to-please unscurpulous people in his surrounding, who viewed Ivan as the threat to their chances.
Peter was kinda paranoid after childhood psychological trauma of 1682, so any "happily ever after" outcome in OTL Peter's situation is borderline miracle. Peter himself was very found of his sister-in-law, though. But his surrounding can be not that sentimental.
 
Also, sorry for not answering PMs as of recent - too overworked in my translation bureau (ironically for the same reason of it being understaffed) to translate the material on the court departments of the period in discussion.
 
If there is "Sophia for regent" uprising at the same time as OTL (i.e. Great Embassy), Peter might have lost it. And there were more than enough willing-to-please unscurpulous people in his surrounding, who viewed Ivan as the threat to their chances.
Peter was kinda paranoid after childhood psychological trauma of 1682, so any "happily ever after" outcome in OTL Peter's situation is borderline miracle. Peter himself was very found of his sister-in-law, though. But his surrounding can be not that sentimental.

Wasn't the sole reason he liked Praskovia Saltykova because she'd had the (mis)fortune to produce only girls? Also, Petya was indulgent of her live-in lover (I've never seen a name put forward for the gentleman though) IIRC. Wouldn't it be a case of the Ivanovich boy the Naryshkin faction would say he's sickly, unlikely to live. And IF he does, spread the rumour he's not Ivan's son?
 
Wasn't the sole reason he liked Praskovia Saltykova because she'd had the (mis)fortune to produce only girls? Also, Petya was indulgent of her live-in lover (I've never seen a name put forward for the gentleman though) IIRC. Wouldn't it be a case of the Ivanovich boy the Naryshkin faction would say he's sickly, unlikely to live. And IF he does, spread the rumour he's not Ivan's son?
The gentleman in question (the "komnatny stolnik" (Gentleman of the Bedchamber) to Ivan V) was Vasily Yushkov. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Юшков,_Василий_Алексеевич
And yes, Petya was quite indulgent of him.

So, yes, whatever you wrote. If he's sickly, well, bad blood and all, if he's thriving - he's Vasya's bastard!!!111 or some such.
 
Last edited:
Anna's kids were also affected IIRC. Ekaterina was deaf-mute, and one/both of the younger boys suffered from a hunchback and a twisted spine or something like that. So Anna was probably ALSO a carrier. Surprisingly Ivan VI doesn't seem to be affected - he's an idiot/retard in the same way the earl of Warwick was - starved of contact and uneducated. It's why I found @JonasResende writing of him (Ivan VI) and his alternate death in his Louis XVI TL as both sad and realistic

Glad somebody enjoyed the scene :)

But Ekaterina was deaf-mute as a result of being dropped during the coup. As a result she struggled to hear/was deaf (the few sources conflict), suffered from pains in her head in cold weather, and was for all intents and purposes isolated when she was the last surviving of her siblings, since she'd learned to read lips in Russian, and the only other member of the household who was allowed to be Russian, was the priest, who only came around twice a week. The rest were all Germans. She wrote Alexander I begging to be allowed to return to Russia, but Sasha never even bothered to open the letter - it was found among his correspondence after Nikolai acceded as emperor.
 
And Elizabeth could not believe that Britain is on the island(s).

My mother's a high school geography teacher, and if you hear some of the stories she tells about her students that don't know basics.
"Where is New Mexico?"
"Next to Old Mexico, ma'am."
She decided that she'd cover Russia in the curriculum this year, since the soccer World Cup was there - when it was in Brasil a few years ago, she covered the geography there. So, she asks the kids "Where's the soccer world cup being played? (correct answer is Russia)"
"On television" (which is a reasonable answer, she should've probably asked "in which country is it being played, so I'd give the kid a point for originality).
Or better still, you'll see from my location I live in South Africa. Once, there was a (teenage) girl in my mother's class, who told her that her dad's just gotten back from overseas. When my mother asked "where did he go". "Cape Town". We're still trying to figure out how Cape Town is "abroad" from where my mother taught.

So not believing Britain is on an island, or like Mary of Modena who didn't even know where England was, doesn't really surprise me.
 
Just think it was something X-chromosome related, and as girls are XX, this is why they were healthy.
https://sanitareugen.livejournal.com/261918.html#comments
The theory from fai.org.ru user for your amusement, darling. It could not likely be lead poisoning (sometimes blamed on) - the girls had no health issues period, the boys... well. Though that could not plausibly be hemophilia, as colleague Sanitareugen theorizes. Likely some kind of muscular dystrophy.

Well, as far as the Miloslavski were involved, it would be rather difficult to blame them on the bad health of Michael and Alexei. Ilya Danilovich, father of Alexei's wife, lived to the age of 73 so nothing too clear about the males of that family.

Can't tell about the diagnosis but Michael had scurvy, dropsy and probably depression, Alexei presumably died from heart problem and before that, IIRC, had problem with the swelling legs , Feodor died from scurvy, Ivan had paralysis (not sure what he died from), Peter was suffering from the numerous illnesses including epilepsy, kidneys (he was regularly travelling to the famous mineral water places), uncontrollable bursts of rage, severe fevers, etc. As I understand, there are modern theories about him having mental illness (whatever the term) preventing concentrated mental work and it seems that contemporaries had been quite sure about him having syphilis (and passing it to Catherine), which of course had little to do with the genes. ;)
 
Anyway, so do we think that Ivan VI would simply die as in infant? Aren't we making a big assumption here? I mean look at the frequent riots that occurred in Peter's early reign whenever Ivan V was (apparently) threatened. Anything happens to his nephew and the Muscovites and Streltsy would blame the Tsar, possibly rioting much worse than OTL. Peter might not necessarily survive a concentrated effort against him.

IMO, this belongs to the same category as the reactionary boyars educating Alexei Petrovich. :p

The "Muscovites" (citizens of Moscow?) would not care too much and, as far as Streltsy were involved, who said that they'd raise as one if Peter's nephew is dead? The only massive uprising of the Streltsy happened after the death of Feodor III when there was no government. The famous uprising of Peter's reign involved only 3 regiments and the reasons were economic at least as much as they were political: these regiments had been sent from Moscow to the border service, which meant economic ruin (all of them had small businesses in Moscow). Easiness with which these rebels had been defeated (in Peter's absence) tells a lot about the relative military powers of the new troops vs. the Streltsy. As I understand, even on the early stages of the reign most of the Moscow Streltsy regiments had been moved to the border fortresses so their "concentration" was practical impossibility except for the few reasonably early cases when they were used in the campaigns which were all about the siege, like Azov campaigns and the 1st Narva. In both cases they were seemingly serving as the labor force and cannon fodder: at the 1st Narva (before Charles arrived) Peter ordered execution of few hundred Streltsy for unsuccessful attempt to storm the fortress, which should give an idea of how valuable they were to the regime.

No it would be better to allow him to live and ascent as co-ruler in succession of his father. He could always die later, after the reactionary forces are crushed in the late 1690s.

The whole schema with the co-Tsars was a forced compromise between 2 quarreling parties. By the time Peter finally started ruling (which was after the death of his mother) there was no meaningful opposition and no need to continue with all that circus. The term "reactionary forces" is a part of the fake history propagated by the Romanovs and then by the Commies. What was "reactionary" in the regency of Sophia or in the policies of Vasily Golitsin who, by any account was much more progressive than Peter and definitely much better educated? OTOH, during the rule of Naryshkin clique most of the reforms of the previous reign and regency had been rolled back (including disbanding most of the Western style regiments). What was so progressive in Peter's reign except for borrowing the Western fashions (even there Peter made his "contribution" by explicitly forbidding the fancy "Spanish style" of clothes with a punishment being beaten by the knout until all forbidden dress is torn to the shreds; well, so would be the person's back), forcing smoking and drinking on a level which was unusual even for Russia? Ah yes, the "prikazes" had been renamed into "collegies", "diaks" became "ministers" and Boyar Duma had been replaced with a Senate filled mostly with the members of the top aristocratic families but of a dubious mental capacities: "The senators must not be reading the prepared speeches so that one's idiocy would be obvious to everybody" (so, if you think that they are idiots, why are you placing them in the highest administrative office of the land?).


Going further into this, what happens if Ivan survives into adulthood?

I was under the impression that ASBs are excluded from the forum. :openedeyewink:

I don't think he would be in the same situation as cousin Alexei; Ivan VI would be a crowned co-monarch, and legally Peter would have ability to move against him. So in my opinion it makes more sense to co-opt Ivan as a loyal ally; marry him off at the same time o earlier as Alexei and if he has a son marry one his daughters by Catherine to that great-nephew.

You just described in some details why he would not be able to reach an adulthood. Peter could be not 100% sane but he surely was not an idiot. BTW, term "legally" used within the context of Peter's reign is pretty much an oxymoron: what is or is not legal at each specific moment was defined by Peter based on his whim all the way to ordering the priests to report on the confessions that may involve treachery, changing structure of the Russian Orthodox Church, etc.
 
Top