In a private discussion with a colleague, who is also a friend and a
relative, I expressed doubts about the story put out by Russia's
Catherine the Great that her son Paul was the son of Sergei Saltykov.
I post below the explanation I offered as to why someone might want to
take a closer look at Catherine and her story:
Normally, I'm willing to take a mother's word as to who fathered her
children.
Catherine's case is special. She has baggage. Lots of it.
First of all, politics enters into it. The couple are husband and
wife. They're second cousins. And, they've grown to hate each other.
At his accession, Peter III fails to name Paul as his successor. The
succession law Peter the Great handed down dispensed with
primogeniture, and allowed the tsar to name whomever he pleased to
succeed him. Peter, for example, passed over his grandson and namesake
in favor of his wife.
There are historians who take this as a tacit admission by Peter that
Paul isn't his son.
Except that they also point out that there were other things on Peter's
mind.
First, he doesn't really like Russia. Given a choice, he'd rather be
in Kiel, governing Holstein-Gottorp.
Coming, as he does from "the West," he may have qualms about inheriting
the Russian throne the way he did. Peter's aunt Elizabeth Petrovna,
though Peter the Great's surviving daughter, usurped the throne from
the infant tsar, Ivan VI, named to succeed his great aunt, Tsarina Anna
Ivanovna, daughter of Peter the Great's half-brother, Ivan V.
Ivan VI was still alive and in prison when Peter came to the throne.
It is said Peter planned to restore Ivan to the throne, and visited
Ivan in prison.
It is also said that, like his grandfather, Peter planned to divorce
his wife and put her away in a monastery.
So things weren't looking good for Catherine.
I'm not fully up on the details, but if Catherine saw the palace coup
that deposed Peter coming, she didn't breathe a word of it to him.
She also didn't do anything to prevent her husband's death.
Catherine, then, usurped her husband's throne. She's also complicit in
her husband's murder. (Accomplice--before? during? after?--the fact?
All three?)
And Ivan VI also dies. (I take it Catherine is also complicit somehow
in Ivan's murder.)
So, when I think of Catherine, "Great" doesn't necessarily come to
mind. But Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Richard III do. Or, at least,
Shakespeare's portrayals of them.
Unlike a legitimate ruler, then, Catherine had to come up with excuses
to justify her presence on a throne that isn't hers by any stretch of
the imagination.
So, you start blackening Peter's memory. Like the KKK in "The Birth of
a Nation," you want to be seen as riding to rescue the country you love
from the excesses of an incompetent.
Yeah, Peter wasn't one of nature's noblemen, so you've got a lot to
work with.
Part of that blackening may have been to assert that Peter wasn't even
a "real" man. That is, he couldn't father children. And I do believe
that part of Catherine's story that Peter did have to have an operation
so that he could successfully father children.
There's another reason to put out such a story. It's cruel, but it's
intended to be kind.
We're doing this "for the boy's sake." That is, if he had grown up
being constantly told, "you're just like your father," that is who he
would have grown up to be.
But, if you tell him he's illegitimate, then you're wiping the slate
clean, and you're giving him a chance to grow up differently.
It's the old "nature" versus "nurture" debate.
Problem is, when Paul grows up, and in spite of the "best" efforts of
Catherine and her court, his psychological profile closely parallels
the very man whose son he isn't supposed to be.
Now, you can act that way as a means of sticking your thumb in the eye
of a parent you don't love. Except that, if it "was" an act, Paul
kept it up 24/7.
That's a lot of psychological energy to expend, just on spite. "Doin'
what comes nacherly" is a lot easier.
Now, immediately after becoming empress, Catherine declares Paul is her
heir. If her story about Paul's origins are true, she does this in
full knowledge she's making her bastard the future tsar of Russia.
(Unlike "Casablanca's" Captain Reynaud, she can't claim subsequently
that she's "Shocked, shocked!" to discover this about Paul.)
Yet, when we come to the political testament she wrote at the end of
her life, suddenly Paul can't inherit the throne because he's
illegitimate.
As the absolute monarch of a backward country, Catherine was indeed in
a position to have it both ways. And her courtiers, if they wanted to
stay healthy, would have to find it in them to follow, move for move,
Catherine's ethical acrobatics.
But, as a Vaclav Havel might point out, the historian, the genealogist,
should strive to live in truth. If "truth" is too strong a word,
substitute "fact."
Now, as historians and genealogists know, the taint of illegitimacy is
something that doesn't go away. It takes down the whole line. Except
that Catherine wants her grandson Alexander to succeed her. The
bastard is ineligible, but the bastard's son is OK? Yeah, right.
The honest thing in this instance would have been for Catherine to have
cut through years of tangled webs, and to say that Paul was Peter's
son, that had inherited his father's character flaws, and that putting
him on the throne would have caused Russia to suffer. And also that
putting Paul on the throne would have placed his life in jeopardy.
Catherine did look for other outs. Alexander didn't want the throne
under those circumstances. Maria Fyodorovna, Paul's wife, refused to
accept Catherine's proposal that she act as regent for Paul.
As it was, Catherine suffered a stroke and died before she could put
her plans into effect. And, though it took a little longer, Paul
suffers exactly the same fate as Peter.
One further detail. If you accept Catherine's story, then Saltykov
apparently followed Rodney Dangerfield's dictum that "the best thing
about having kids is making 'em."
Once he gets up out of Catherine's bed, he's nowhere in evidence from
that point on. He plays no discernable part in "his" son's upbringing.
He doesn't even complain, as he might, that Catherine is keeping him
from "his" son. (Chicago dad's rights lawyer Jeffrey Leving, call your
office. Have I got a case for you!)
In putting out her story, Catherine doesn't even bother, as she might,
in reproaching Saltykov with being a lousy father.
Thoughts? Comments?
Daniel MacGregor
Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Lisa Davidson
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
Some comments. First - it is not possible to retroactively make someone
illegitimate in cases like this. No matter how cute it seems to you, under
no circumstances would HIM Emperor Paul become "Tsar Paul Sergeyevich
Saltykov". In order to have that name, his mother would have had to have
been married to Saltykov, and she was not. Second, in the area of
legitimacy, it is legal fatherhood that is pertinent. The legal father of
Paul was his mother's husband, Peter. The concept of presumed fatherhood
applies here. Legally, if a married woman has a child, her husband is the
legal father unless he takes legal steps (in current times, that would be a
paternity test followed by a legal action) to change this. Since Peter
never took any steps to disclaim Paul, legally, Paul was his son, and hence
he and the succeeding line were legitimate.
dmaqgregor@hotmail.com wrote:
I have never heard this. Which historians say this? Peter was on the throne
for such a short time that I doubt succession was his first priority.
Speculative. What we do know from his actions is that he was very much
pro-German.
Who said this? Peter could have had Ivan released from prison, yet he did
not do this.
She definitely was his usurper. She also usurped her son's right to govern
after the death of his presumed father. What she did or did not know about
Peter's murder is unknown. What is known is that one of the Orlov brothers
who orchestrated the coup was Catherine's lover and that Catherine gave
birth to their son after the coup. The son, Count Alexis Bobrinski, founded
a noble family by that name that survives to this day.
This was much more straightforward. She ordered his murder.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Catherine was an immensely
capable and talented ruler - the best in governing Russia since Peter the
Great.
Much of this is speculative. What is true is that Catherine had to walk a
fine line. She needed Paul to legitimize her ties with the dynasty but
needed for him not to interfere with her ruling Russia.
I really doubt Catherine worried about who Paul was like - she was very
egocentric.
Again, speculative. For Catherine, Paul was a means to an end.
I agree that Paul had many characteristics similar to his legal father.
There is no evidence that I know of suggesting Paul ever pretending to have
any of these characteristics.
Catherine never removed Paul from the succession. She was known to prefer
Alexander, but nothing was ever finalized. As I pointed out before, Paul
could not be retroactively "unlegitimized".
I don't doubt that Catherine practiced situational ethics. I do dispute
that Russia is a backward country. Catherine did not have it both ways -
she was a powerful woman who worked hard to hold on to her power. Pretty
straightforward.
But, no one is a "bastard" here. No taint of illegitimacy. That was never
the issue. The issue was, could Catherine pass the throne as she wished?
Alas, her power did not extend that far. Another issue was the possibility
she had the father of her children killed. The taint of that crime was so
great that it has been speculated that was her reason for denying Peter
sired her children.
Well, for starters, Saltykov had no room to be a "father". He was her
one-time lover, that's it. Royal lovers could not raise children they had
with royals. Catherine's children, regardless of who was their biological
father, belonged to Russia and were legally the children of her husband.
Lisa Davidson
illegitimate in cases like this. No matter how cute it seems to you, under
no circumstances would HIM Emperor Paul become "Tsar Paul Sergeyevich
Saltykov". In order to have that name, his mother would have had to have
been married to Saltykov, and she was not. Second, in the area of
legitimacy, it is legal fatherhood that is pertinent. The legal father of
Paul was his mother's husband, Peter. The concept of presumed fatherhood
applies here. Legally, if a married woman has a child, her husband is the
legal father unless he takes legal steps (in current times, that would be a
paternity test followed by a legal action) to change this. Since Peter
never took any steps to disclaim Paul, legally, Paul was his son, and hence
he and the succeeding line were legitimate.
dmaqgregor@hotmail.com wrote:
In a private discussion with a colleague, who is also a friend and a
relative, I expressed doubts about the story put out by Russia's
Catherine the Great that her son Paul was the son of Sergei Saltykov.
I post below the explanation I offered as to why someone might want to
take a closer look at Catherine and her story:
Normally, I'm willing to take a mother's word as to who fathered her
children.
Catherine's case is special. She has baggage. Lots of it.
First of all, politics enters into it. The couple are husband and
wife. They're second cousins. And, they've grown to hate each other.
At his accession, Peter III fails to name Paul as his successor. The
succession law Peter the Great handed down dispensed with
primogeniture, and allowed the tsar to name whomever he pleased to
succeed him. Peter, for example, passed over his grandson and namesake
in favor of his wife.
There are historians who take this as a tacit admission by Peter that
Paul isn't his son.
I have never heard this. Which historians say this? Peter was on the throne
for such a short time that I doubt succession was his first priority.
Except that they also point out that there were other things on Peter's
mind.
First, he doesn't really like Russia. Given a choice, he'd rather be
in Kiel, governing Holstein-Gottorp.
Speculative. What we do know from his actions is that he was very much
pro-German.
Coming, as he does from "the West," he may have qualms about inheriting
the Russian throne the way he did. Peter's aunt Elizabeth Petrovna,
though Peter the Great's surviving daughter, usurped the throne from
the infant tsar, Ivan VI, named to succeed his great aunt, Tsarina Anna
Ivanovna, daughter of Peter the Great's half-brother, Ivan V.
Ivan VI was still alive and in prison when Peter came to the throne.
It is said Peter planned to restore Ivan to the throne, and visited
Ivan in prison.
Who said this? Peter could have had Ivan released from prison, yet he did
not do this.
It is also said that, like his grandfather, Peter planned to divorce
his wife and put her away in a monastery.
So things weren't looking good for Catherine.
I'm not fully up on the details, but if Catherine saw the palace coup
that deposed Peter coming, she didn't breathe a word of it to him.
She also didn't do anything to prevent her husband's death.
Catherine, then, usurped her husband's throne. She's also complicit in
her husband's murder. (Accomplice--before? during? after?--the fact?
All three?)
She definitely was his usurper. She also usurped her son's right to govern
after the death of his presumed father. What she did or did not know about
Peter's murder is unknown. What is known is that one of the Orlov brothers
who orchestrated the coup was Catherine's lover and that Catherine gave
birth to their son after the coup. The son, Count Alexis Bobrinski, founded
a noble family by that name that survives to this day.
And Ivan VI also dies. (I take it Catherine is also complicit somehow
in Ivan's murder.)
This was much more straightforward. She ordered his murder.
So, when I think of Catherine, "Great" doesn't necessarily come to
mind. But Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Richard III do. Or, at least,
Shakespeare's portrayals of them.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Catherine was an immensely
capable and talented ruler - the best in governing Russia since Peter the
Great.
Unlike a legitimate ruler, then, Catherine had to come up with excuses
to justify her presence on a throne that isn't hers by any stretch of
the imagination.
So, you start blackening Peter's memory. Like the KKK in "The Birth of
a Nation," you want to be seen as riding to rescue the country you love
from the excesses of an incompetent.
Yeah, Peter wasn't one of nature's noblemen, so you've got a lot to
work with.
Part of that blackening may have been to assert that Peter wasn't even
a "real" man. That is, he couldn't father children. And I do believe
that part of Catherine's story that Peter did have to have an operation
so that he could successfully father children.
There's another reason to put out such a story. It's cruel, but it's
intended to be kind.
We're doing this "for the boy's sake." That is, if he had grown up
being constantly told, "you're just like your father," that is who he
would have grown up to be.
Much of this is speculative. What is true is that Catherine had to walk a
fine line. She needed Paul to legitimize her ties with the dynasty but
needed for him not to interfere with her ruling Russia.
I really doubt Catherine worried about who Paul was like - she was very
egocentric.
But, if you tell him he's illegitimate, then you're wiping the slate
clean, and you're giving him a chance to grow up differently.
Again, speculative. For Catherine, Paul was a means to an end.
It's the old "nature" versus "nurture" debate.
Problem is, when Paul grows up, and in spite of the "best" efforts of
Catherine and her court, his psychological profile closely parallels
the very man whose son he isn't supposed to be.
Now, you can act that way as a means of sticking your thumb in the eye
of a parent you don't love. Except that, if it "was" an act, Paul
kept it up 24/7.
That's a lot of psychological energy to expend, just on spite. "Doin'
what comes nacherly" is a lot easier.
I agree that Paul had many characteristics similar to his legal father.
There is no evidence that I know of suggesting Paul ever pretending to have
any of these characteristics.
Now, immediately after becoming empress, Catherine declares Paul is her
heir. If her story about Paul's origins are true, she does this in
full knowledge she's making her bastard the future tsar of Russia.
(Unlike "Casablanca's" Captain Reynaud, she can't claim subsequently
that she's "Shocked, shocked!" to discover this about Paul.)
Yet, when we come to the political testament she wrote at the end of
her life, suddenly Paul can't inherit the throne because he's
illegitimate.
Catherine never removed Paul from the succession. She was known to prefer
Alexander, but nothing was ever finalized. As I pointed out before, Paul
could not be retroactively "unlegitimized".
As the absolute monarch of a backward country, Catherine was indeed in
a position to have it both ways. And her courtiers, if they wanted to
stay healthy, would have to find it in them to follow, move for move,
Catherine's ethical acrobatics.
I don't doubt that Catherine practiced situational ethics. I do dispute
that Russia is a backward country. Catherine did not have it both ways -
she was a powerful woman who worked hard to hold on to her power. Pretty
straightforward.
But, as a Vaclav Havel might point out, the historian, the genealogist,
should strive to live in truth. If "truth" is too strong a word,
substitute "fact."
Now, as historians and genealogists know, the taint of illegitimacy is
something that doesn't go away. It takes down the whole line. Except
that Catherine wants her grandson Alexander to succeed her. The
bastard is ineligible, but the bastard's son is OK? Yeah, right.
But, no one is a "bastard" here. No taint of illegitimacy. That was never
the issue. The issue was, could Catherine pass the throne as she wished?
Alas, her power did not extend that far. Another issue was the possibility
she had the father of her children killed. The taint of that crime was so
great that it has been speculated that was her reason for denying Peter
sired her children.
The honest thing in this instance would have been for Catherine to have
cut through years of tangled webs, and to say that Paul was Peter's
son, that had inherited his father's character flaws, and that putting
him on the throne would have caused Russia to suffer. And also that
putting Paul on the throne would have placed his life in jeopardy.
Catherine did look for other outs. Alexander didn't want the throne
under those circumstances. Maria Fyodorovna, Paul's wife, refused to
accept Catherine's proposal that she act as regent for Paul.
As it was, Catherine suffered a stroke and died before she could put
her plans into effect. And, though it took a little longer, Paul
suffers exactly the same fate as Peter.
One further detail. If you accept Catherine's story, then Saltykov
apparently followed Rodney Dangerfield's dictum that "the best thing
about having kids is making 'em."
Once he gets up out of Catherine's bed, he's nowhere in evidence from
that point on. He plays no discernable part in "his" son's upbringing.
He doesn't even complain, as he might, that Catherine is keeping him
from "his" son. (Chicago dad's rights lawyer Jeffrey Leving, call your
office. Have I got a case for you!)
In putting out her story, Catherine doesn't even bother, as she might,
in reproaching Saltykov with being a lousy father.
Thoughts? Comments?
Daniel MacGregor
Well, for starters, Saltykov had no room to be a "father". He was her
one-time lover, that's it. Royal lovers could not raise children they had
with royals. Catherine's children, regardless of who was their biological
father, belonged to Russia and were legally the children of her husband.
Lisa Davidson
-
coeurdelion
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
[skip]
Exactly the point I wanted to make. The expectation that parents ought
to develop close emotional and affectionate relationships with their
children is a relatively new one, and before the 19th century was
rarely followed even in relations between legitimate parents and their
avowed off-spring; with a secret, uncertain and politically dangerous
fatherhood as the one implied between Saltykov (who himself couldn't
have known anything certain) and Paul I, there would have been no such
expectations at all.
On the contrary, being the illegitimate father of the heir to the
throne was considered fairly dangerous by contemporaries, if we may
follow a discussion between Lord Hervey and Queen Caroline of Great
Britain (reported in Hervey's memoirs for 1736, on the occasion of the
marriage of Caroline's hated son Frederick, prince of Wales).
Discussing whether it was "technically" possible to let another man
make the princess of Wales pregnant so that her husband could disprove
allegations of impotence, Lord Hervey insists that this would be
feasible but that nobody would do it. Why not, the Queen argues, he
would be given tons of money and could glory in the thought of his
child ascending the throne. Yes, answers Hervey, but this vanity would
have to be an exclusively private, hidden one, which is scarcely
satisfactory, whilst all more material rewards would be nothing
compared to the immense dangers. In Hervey's view, the sovereign
begotten in such a way, should he ever be informed of it, would
necessarily hate the biological father as the spoiler of his legitimacy
and would inevitably find means to have him killed in order both to
erase the shame and to make detection of his illegitimacy less likely.
If this was the view of someone living in a relatively free,
constitutional monarchy with a parliament, a more or less independent
judiciary etc., you may imagine how much more such arguments must have
counted in a Russian context where even legitimate heirs to the throne
could and were regularly killed without the slightest pretext of
legality, and where subjects couldn't rely on any judicial protection
against the sovereign. (As you mention Ivan VI, it might be added that
he was killed by his gaolers, as Katherine had ordered them to do in
such a case, when Mirovich's conspiracy attempted to free him). Best
regards,
Leonhard Horowski
One further detail. If you accept Catherine's story, then Saltykov
apparently followed Rodney Dangerfield's dictum that "the best
thing
about having kids is making 'em."
Once he gets up out of Catherine's bed, he's nowhere in evidence
from
that point on. He plays no discernable part in "his" son's
upbringing.
He doesn't even complain, as he might, that Catherine is keeping
him
from "his" son. (Chicago dad's rights lawyer Jeffrey Leving, call
your
office. Have I got a case for you!)
In putting out her story, Catherine doesn't even bother, as she
might,
in reproaching Saltykov with being a lousy father.
Thoughts? Comments?
Daniel MacGregor
Well, for starters, Saltykov had no room to be a "father". He was her
one-time lover, that's it. Royal lovers could not raise children they
had
with royals. Catherine's children, regardless of who was their
biological
father, belonged to Russia and were legally the children of her
husband.
Lisa Davidson
Exactly the point I wanted to make. The expectation that parents ought
to develop close emotional and affectionate relationships with their
children is a relatively new one, and before the 19th century was
rarely followed even in relations between legitimate parents and their
avowed off-spring; with a secret, uncertain and politically dangerous
fatherhood as the one implied between Saltykov (who himself couldn't
have known anything certain) and Paul I, there would have been no such
expectations at all.
On the contrary, being the illegitimate father of the heir to the
throne was considered fairly dangerous by contemporaries, if we may
follow a discussion between Lord Hervey and Queen Caroline of Great
Britain (reported in Hervey's memoirs for 1736, on the occasion of the
marriage of Caroline's hated son Frederick, prince of Wales).
Discussing whether it was "technically" possible to let another man
make the princess of Wales pregnant so that her husband could disprove
allegations of impotence, Lord Hervey insists that this would be
feasible but that nobody would do it. Why not, the Queen argues, he
would be given tons of money and could glory in the thought of his
child ascending the throne. Yes, answers Hervey, but this vanity would
have to be an exclusively private, hidden one, which is scarcely
satisfactory, whilst all more material rewards would be nothing
compared to the immense dangers. In Hervey's view, the sovereign
begotten in such a way, should he ever be informed of it, would
necessarily hate the biological father as the spoiler of his legitimacy
and would inevitably find means to have him killed in order both to
erase the shame and to make detection of his illegitimacy less likely.
If this was the view of someone living in a relatively free,
constitutional monarchy with a parliament, a more or less independent
judiciary etc., you may imagine how much more such arguments must have
counted in a Russian context where even legitimate heirs to the throne
could and were regularly killed without the slightest pretext of
legality, and where subjects couldn't rely on any judicial protection
against the sovereign. (As you mention Ivan VI, it might be added that
he was killed by his gaolers, as Katherine had ordered them to do in
such a case, when Mirovich's conspiracy attempted to free him). Best
regards,
Leonhard Horowski
-
Gjest
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
In a message dated 04/02/2005 13:15:15 GMT Standard Time,
coeurdelion@gmx.net writes:
Exactly the point I wanted to make. The expectation that parents ought
to develop close emotional and affectionate relationships with their
children is a relatively new one, and before the 19th century was
rarely followed even in relations between legitimate parents and their
avowed off-spring; with a secret, uncertain and politically dangerous
fatherhood as the one implied between Saltykov (who himself couldn't
have known anything certain) and Paul I, there would have been no such
expectations at all.
This may have been the case on the continent, but England, bless her soul,
was somewhat different- certainly in the 18th century where close familial
bonding was very apparent in all parts of English society, Montesquieu, La
Rochefoucauld and Taine all found it quite extraordinary how close the bond was
between parents and children. They all wondered why England was so different
from the rest of Europe.
regards
Peter de Loriol
coeurdelion@gmx.net writes:
Exactly the point I wanted to make. The expectation that parents ought
to develop close emotional and affectionate relationships with their
children is a relatively new one, and before the 19th century was
rarely followed even in relations between legitimate parents and their
avowed off-spring; with a secret, uncertain and politically dangerous
fatherhood as the one implied between Saltykov (who himself couldn't
have known anything certain) and Paul I, there would have been no such
expectations at all.
This may have been the case on the continent, but England, bless her soul,
was somewhat different- certainly in the 18th century where close familial
bonding was very apparent in all parts of English society, Montesquieu, La
Rochefoucauld and Taine all found it quite extraordinary how close the bond was
between parents and children. They all wondered why England was so different
from the rest of Europe.
regards
Peter de Loriol
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
Peter de Loriel writes:
It could be said that, since the 19th century, the French have wondered the
same for exactly the opposite reason.
Chris
This may have been the case on the continent, but England, bless her soul,
was somewhat different- certainly in the 18th century where close familial
bonding was very apparent in all parts of English society, Montesquieu, La
Rochefoucauld and Taine all found it quite extraordinary how close the bond
was
between parents and children. They all wondered why England was so
different
from the rest of Europe.
It could be said that, since the 19th century, the French have wondered the
same for exactly the opposite reason.
Chris
-
Kenny MacInnes
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
First, he doesn't really like Russia. Given a choice, he'd rather be
in Kiel, governing Holstein-Gottorp.
If there was any country he wanted to be ruling, it was Sweden. He was
brought up pro-Swedish and was also the heir to that throne.
-
Lisa Davidson
Re: Tsar Paul Sergeyevich Saltykov???
Kenny MacInnes wrote:
Good point!
First, he doesn't really like Russia. Given a choice, he'd rather be
in Kiel, governing Holstein-Gottorp.
If there was any country he wanted to be ruling, it was Sweden. He was
brought up pro-Swedish and was also the heir to that throne.
Good point!