Catherine II "The Great" (1729-1796)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

TOMMIX

Gentry
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
89
HIM Pavl- son of Peter III [maybe] and Catherine II the Great-
 

Attachments

  • Pavel.jpg
    Pavel.jpg
    18.9 KB · Views: 526
Catherine the Great:TheGlitteringCrowns@groups.msn.com
pic024.jpg
 
Layla1971 said:


- This portrait is not by Livitski but by the danish russian courtpainter Vigilius Erichsen (1722-1780) who was the favorite painter of the empress at the beginning of her reign. He painted 3 large portraits of her - the empress on her horse Brillante; the empress in front of a large mirror; and this portrait in her coronationgown.

- 4 versions are known; one in the british Royal Collection; one in the danish Royal Collection; one in the academy of art in Skt. Petersburg; and one which was destroyed in Charlottenburg, Berlin during WWII.

- I have written an arthistorian dissertation about Erichsen and this portrait at the university of Copenhagen.
 
SaxeundGotha said:
Here they are:
1. An image from the Hermitage museum website, for the sake of completeness and it's the monogram badge of Catherine the Great(?)
EII for Ekaterina II, indeed The Great. Who would have thought a lowly Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst would rise to such dizzying heights? :)
 
Pavel [sometimes translated as Paul] Petrovich should NOT be remembered because he was piggish like Peter Fedorovich and he was a complete conservative elephantine jerk. He hated His Mother Czarina Ekatrina II[Catherine II for most people], He did nothing for Russia, and He is and was unworhty to carry the beautiful name Romanov [meaning of Rome]. He was simply a greedy selfish pig! I think that He and His father Peter Fedorovich III recieved their punishment when they suffered. Peter III was killed by His guards [and supposedly His wife], and Pavel I was killed by His Highness's own legitimate children. Luckily, Alexander Nikailovich [Alexander II] came along to be crowned in 1855, and remove the terrible acts of His ancestors from the Russian people by liberating them, and creating a capitalist government with a bit of Socialism.
 
Pavel Petrovich should not be remembered as anything more than a mother hating greedy fool. The only thing that He did was have His Peter III reburied. But, even this was in spite of His wondeful mother, Catherine II Czaritsa of All Russias. He was murdered by His sons, and Catherine II bred His son Alexxander I to rule Russia. Alexander I died in 1825, but, upon the opening of His tomb we found out that His body was missing. He was rumored to have run of, and become a monk.
 
wow, that's an interesting story. i've never heard it before. thanks for sharing.
 
RussianHistoryBuff said:
Pavel Petrovich should not be remembered as anything more than a mother hating greedy fool. The only thing that He did was have His Peter III reburied. But, even this was in spite of His wondeful mother, Catherine II Czaritsa of All Russias. He was murdered by His sons, and Catherine II bred His son Alexxander I to rule Russia. Alexander I died in 1825, but, upon the opening of His tomb we found out that His body was missing. He was rumored to have run of, and become a monk.
I don't want to go into dicussing the person of Paul I, but his reign was quite interesting.

There is no evidence that Alexander I's tomb has ever been opened; it follows that it is unknown whether it is empty or not.
 
RussianHistoryBuff said:
Pavel Petrovich should not be remembered as anything more than a mother hating greedy fool. The only thing that He did was have His Peter III reburied. But, even this was in spite of His wondeful mother, Catherine II Czaritsa of All Russias. He was murdered by His sons, and Catherine II bred His son Alexxander I to rule Russia. Alexander I died in 1825, but, upon the opening of His tomb we found out that His body was missing. He was rumored to have run of, and become a monk.


y'know RussianHistoryBuff, nothing in life is ever that cut-and-dried. Pavel Petrovich may have been many things and he may have done many bad and/or questionable things, but he was also a husband, a father and a son.......and you must ask yourself: why did he "hate" his mother? the most obvious reason being that she was not a very good mother. she was a strong, ruthless ruler, and it stands to reason that she displayed the same traits with regards to her son. stern, remote & autocratic parents tend to end-up with angry, neurotic & repressed children. Catherine, in all probability, had unknowingly transferred her dislike from father to son -- and treated him accordingly.
children want to loved by their parents. when that doesn't happen, the
effects can be devastating. and when we factor-in the trauma of learning that his mother had his father murdered, it was almost guranteed that Pavel would turn-out with major problems & issues.

it's just cause-and-effect.

i realize you're passionate in your opinions, and i'm not saying you're wrong. i simply ask that you keep this in mind: human beings are very complicated things.....and our personalities are dizzyingly multi-layered. and as i said at the beginning, nothing in life is ever that cut-and-dried; nothing is ever that simple; and no-one should ever be dismissed that easily.


;)
 
originally posted by brnbg68
you must ask yourself: why did he "hate" his mother? the most obvious reason being that she was not a very good mother. she was a strong, ruthless ruler, and it stands to reason that she displayed the same traits with regards to her son. stern, remote & autocratic parents tend to end-up with angry, neurotic & repressed children. Catherine, in all probability, had unknowingly transferred her dislike from father to son -- and treated him accordingly.

I think it is unfair to characterize Catherine as a terrible mother in regards to Pavel, as she never had the chance to be a mother to him. Keep in mind that when he was born the Empress Elizabeth instantly whisked him away, leaving Catherine virtually abandoned and without care for nearly three hours after giving birth. To Elizabeth Catherine was nearly a means of obtaining an heir. Elizabeth even proceeded to pay her for her services, giving her one hundred thousand rubles, which she later demanded back, and a cheap set of jewelry.
It is true Catherine was never much of a mother to Pavel, but one must remember that she was never allowed to be one. Elizabeth did not even let her see her son for the first forty days of his life, and after that contact was limited at best. Catherine was only finally grated a single visit per week once he had reached the age of six, but by that time it was already to late. Pavel was no longer the son she had given life to, but rather a stranger she did not know. Catherine was denied a chance to bond properly with her son after his birth, and therfore denied a chance at having a real relationship with him. One simply cannot use Catherine's poor parenting skills as an explanation for Pavel's poor character. If anything, perhaps one should blame Elizabeth who completely took over his care and upbringing after his birth, not allowing Catherine, his real mother, so much as a chance.
It is in the early years, that a parent and child form that bond carries with them throughout life. If Elizabeth was not so adamant about preventing Catherine and Pavel from forming a proper bond in the first place, who knows what kind of man he would have turned out to be.
 
I have many books on Cath. II "the Great", and, at the moment I don't recall in which was voiced a rumor that Cath.'s natural father was the future Prussian King Fred. II "the Great", who was said to have bedded Cath. mother. And, though the years of reading, it seem to me the rumors might have been based on several interesting facts. It was Fred. II who pushed her marriage to Peter III and that he demanded she visit him before heading off to Russia.

The birth date of Cath. II was said to have been changed and because she was a precocious young girl Cath. was able to make people think she was older than she really was.

Now, don't jump all over me. As far as I am aware, it is just a rumor.

AGRBear
 
Alexander I died in 1825, but, upon the opening of His tomb we found out that His body was missing. He was rumored to have run of, and become a monk.

Unlike the claimant nonsense, I find this story completely believable. He had no heirs (his wife and two daughters had died young) and he did not want to rule but knew his brother did. I have also heard the story of the empty tomb and him being seen as a monk later. Why not, when you're Tsar, you should be able to do anything you want. Very interesting, true or not. I'm surprised this one doesn't get more air time that it does.

I have always admired Catherine, and the story of her takeover is more exciting than any movie. Speaking of movies, it's portrayed in "Young Catherine" which was very good IMO.
 
I made a trip down to Los Angles to see the traveling museum of Armand Hammer from the treasures of the Imperial Rusian State Hermitage Museum of St. Petersburg. What a thrill. She was a very complex and special woman, especially in her time period known as the Golden Age in Russia.

AGRBear
 
Catherine was not a lowly German princess, like someone said above; she was the niece of King Adolf Friderich of Sweden and of the same bloodline of her husband (the Czar Peter III was born Karl Peter Ulrich, Duke of Holstein Gottorp; he was the cousin of her mother Pss Johanna of Holstein-Gottorp) so it was hardly as if he married beneath him.

Her father was a Prussian army general , close to the Prussian royalty. So maybe that was why she stopped by before going to Russia; I believe the marriage owed a good deal to the support/intervention of the King of Prussia, who was the idol of the young future Czar Peter III.
 
But how propiticious that she was a strong woman to wrest the throne away from her whacked husband!
 
It's the holidays and everyone is busy. My time hasn't been my own and we are still under construction, (about 97 % completed), and all my Catherine II "the Great" books are not at my fingertips and many are still in boxes (been years since some have seen the light of day). Anyway, I've always found her such an interesting character and will take the time to comb through her biographies and present the many remarkable stories of this woman who ruled All the Russias which was known as the Golden Age.

One of the things I recall having seen at the Armand Hammer's display were the books she had written for her grandchildren, two of whom would become Tsars of Russia. She loved art and built marvelous buildings to house all the famous artist paintings so her people could view them. An the list of good things she did is quite long. And, I'll dwell on the good things, if I may.

AGRBear
 
Bear, didn't she have an extensive correspondence with Metternich?
 
I am unpacking some boxes and have found some of my books on Catherine II "the Great". I'll thumb through some today, if I have time, and freshen my memory about her and Metternich.

AGRBear
 
Russo:

Are you talking about Cath II's liberal views which changed with the revolutionary mood of France?

AGRBear
 
I remember Carrolly Erickson wrote about that in her bio. of Catherine the Great. Didn't they discuss other things as well?
 
I looked in the index of her book and didn't find his name.

I recall only two things about Cath. II and France. The first being: the French supported her intentions of becoming Regent; and, the second: she was deathly afraid that "the French infection", I believe that is what she called the open resistance caused by the revolutionaries, would spread as far as Russia.
AGRBear
 
I looked in the index of her book and didn't find his name.
Really? That's interesting. Hmmm. I might have confused books but I distinctly remember Catherine and Metternich corresponding about many things. Liberal views included.
Oh Bear! You are so very thorough. I wish my memory was more accurate so that I might cite references without confusion!
 
But how did Catherine I and Catherine II become legitimate monarchs of Russia? I know that Catherine I was not related to the Russian monarchs at all and that Catherine II was very distantly related to the Russian monarchs, so was it the right of conquest (enjoying support of the army) or something else?

Who would have thought a lowly Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst would rise to such dizzying heights? :)

Incredible indeed. And who would have thought that a mere peasant girl such as Martha Scowronska would become a monarch? :ohmy:
 
You have made valid point. Technically speaking, Catherine II was an usurper. Upon serving as a regent, Catherine II should have relinquished the Russian Imperial throne to Paul I, wheh he came of age.
 
I looked in the index of her book and didn't find his name.
Bear it might have been in "By Influence & Desire: The True Story of Three Extraordinary Women--the Grand Duchess of Courland and Her Daughters" by Rosalynd Pflaum. My books are running together with all their info. I apologize Bear!
 
A book I don't have. So, what does it tell us?

AGRBear
 
Really? That's interesting. Hmmm. I might have confused books but I distinctly remember Catherine and Metternich corresponding about many things. Liberal views included.
Oh Bear! You are so very thorough. I wish my memory was more accurate so that I might cite references without confusion!


I don't recall that. Perhaps you are confusing it with her correspondence with Voltaire, about liberal ideas. She also corresponded with Denis Diderot, a French philosopher and he even came to Russia, as I recall.
 
I don't recall that. Perhaps you are confusing it with her correspondence with Voltaire, about liberal ideas. She also corresponded with Denis Diderot, a French philosopher and he even came to Russia, as I recall.
I may be confusing the personages! I know that one of the daughters of the Duchess was Metternich's lover. I'll have to get that book. (Preferably at a yard sale. . .)
 
Did you read it from the library ( The By Influence and Desire book is that the one you said you'll have to buy)? I've never even heard of it but it sure sounds interesting. I looked it up on Amazon US and it's very cheap, one cent and four dollars shipping used. I will be reading it soon either from there or interlibrary loan, (if they have it). Thanks for mentioning this great book I'd never heard of.
 
Back
Top Bottom