Hi, all. I was wondering what entitled Tsar Michael I to the Russian throne. As I understand it, he was a great-nephew in-law to Ivan Grozny, and had no blood connection to the Rurikids. How was the line of succession treated in Russia at that time? I understand there were a few Tsars in between Michael and Fyodor, the last Rurikid ruler, but it seems they only ruled for a single generation. Why were their families not made the ruling dynasty? And further, I understand the majority of the princely families (knyaz) of Russia are cadet branches of the Rurikid dynasty. Why were none of the blood descendants of the Rurikids made the new ruling family?
I know for example in Britain, the Hanoverians inherited the throne because they were 1. Protestant, and 2. descendants of James I, and George I was the closest relative to fit both those requirements. I assume eligibility for the throne in pre-Romanov Russia was quite a different system, and I'd like to understand what it was.
You are referencing the Time of Troubles, which is--as the name implies--quite sticky. Starting with Ivan Grozny, his children were Dmitrii (who died in infancy in 1553), Ivan (1554-1581, who was reportedly killed by the Tsar), with Maria Nagaya the son Dmitrii Ivanovich (born 1580), and his actual successor, Feodor the Blessed. Feodor was an ineffectual, weak and extremely religious ruler--one contemporary commentator said he desired to trade the kingdom for a monastery--who married Irina Godunova, the sister of Boris Godunov. Irina was succeeded by Boris only a few weeks after the death of Fyodor, as she had not birthed an heir.
Boris, while related to the last Rurikid, marks the end of that dynasty; and in turn his death led to the Time of Troubles. Boris' son Fyodor II ascended to the throne in April 1605 and in June was murdered along with his mother, Maria Skuratova. Now, Ivan the Terrible sired Dmitrii with Maria in 1580, who was presumed to have been murdered on the order of Boris Gudonov; potentially he died in an epileptic fit; and, critically, may not have been murdered at all, the would-be assassins mistaking someone else for him. However improbable this final story was, it is the reason we have the Time of Troubles. [As an aside, Maria was Ivan's ~5th/6th wife, and was not recognized by the Church, so even had Dmitrii survived his claim to the throne was already tenuous].
The first 'False Dmitrii,' supported by the Polish nobility, had succeeded in assassinating Fyodor II. Dmitrii was crowned in July 1605 and, by the disgraced Maria, postured as legitimate; but his leadership challenged the power of Orthodoxy and himself overthrown the following year. The Second False Dmitrii secured support again from Polish nobility as well as urban Russians, before losing Polish support in the ensuing war. Dmitrii II garnered significant Muscovite support by positioning himself against the boyars, which, well, upset the boyars; and by 1610, after repositioning himself once more to seize Moscow, was murdered. Vasilii Shuysky had succeeded Dmitrii through the support of the boyars, but generally was rather ineffectual (he had a tangential connection to the Rurikid dynasty, so might be seen as the last tsar). After the deposition of Vasilii, there really was no tsar and no Rurikid successor--the Polish had occupied Russia with mixed results, but after several pro-Catholic proclamations resulted in riots and uprisings, which led to the burning of Moscow in the spring of 1611 and by the winter of 1612 the Battle of Moscow between Poland and Russia. The Russians successfully repelled the Polish-Lithuanian army and secured the Kremlin by November. Against this background of war, the Zemsky Sobor (which had elected Godunov as Tsar in 1598) eventually elected Mikhail Romanov in 1613.
What right did Mikhail have? None, really, any more than the False Dmitrii did--he simply had the support of those who had power. Mikhail was selected a compromise: his age allowed for the boyars to exert greater influence, the Cossacks supported the Romanovs, the Romanovs had opposed the oprichnina of Ivan Grozny, Mikhail's father had resisted the Polish control. There were plenty of other proposals, including the Polish Vladislav as well as other Russian noble families (many were implicated with their support of the Polish, while the chairman Mstislavsky had birthed no heirs).
Ivan Grozny, Boris Godunov, and the Time of Troubles became quite significant in the 19th century as poets, dramatists, and painters sought to construct and contend with a Russian national identity, and throughout the 19th century Russian historians strongly debated the significance of the Time of Troubles and the establishment of the Romanov dynasty.
This is a fascinating thread. I am a life-long student of history with expertise in modern Germany, medieval Europe, particularly English history. I have a smattering off familiarity with the Romanovs, albeit superficial. I would very much appreciate any book recommendations for 16th and 17th century Russia. Thanks very much in advance.
