Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch

What about when a woman ruled Russia?
The info I've found on the Russian coronation largely seems to presuppose that the ruler being crowned would be a male (which was virtually certain after Paul I's succession law was promulgated). However, Russia crowned four women as rulers during its history; does anyone know if any aspects of this ceremony were different when a woman was being crowned as sovereign? For instance, did the women enter through the Royal Doors and commune with the clergy inside the altar area? Since women (by and large) are not permitted in an Orthodox altar area, this seems to be a very pertinent question. Would the Tsaritsa's consort have been crowned in the same manner as an Empress-Consort was crowned? I really haven't been able to find anything on this, and I don't really think this article would be complete without it. Does anyone have any information on this, or any other aspects pertaining to the Russian Coronation ceremony? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The coronation of any woman (ruler or consort) seems to have been problematic for the Russian Orthodox Church. The first crowned tsaritsa of Russia was Marina Mniszech (crowned alongside her husband) and she was followed by Catherine I of Russia (crowned alone). Catherine's coronation violated the Orthodox rules. Anyway, here is the book that should provide answers to your questions. While reading that book, I noticed that it claims that the original Russian word for coronation is the same word used in my language to denote wedding. It seems that the Russian sovereigns really believed they were marryin Russia by having themselves crowned. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to hit the sack right now, but I'll see if I can't take a look at that tomorrow. Thanks for all your help in this, and for the interesting points you raised about consistency in titles and inclusion of consorts on the table of coronations!  I'll take a look at this, and see what I can do with it.  Thanks for including it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Coronation of Emperor and Empress
The account I have of the ritual used for the crowning of the Emperor and Empress differs in some details from that given on the web-site. my account is from ''A Manual. The Orthodox Church’s Divine Services''. Complied by D. Sokolof, Arch-priest and is as follows:

After the reading of the Gospel Lesson, the Emperor is invested with the purple [velvet and ermine mantle—the modern equivalent of the Byzantine imperial chlamys] and the chain of the Order of the Apostle Andrew the First-Called, presented by the Metropolitan with the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Having received the purple [mantle], the Emperor inclines his head, the Metropolitan signs it with the cross, by laying his hands on it crosswise and prays, “O Lord our God,. . . “ After this prayer the Emperor takes the crown from the cushion presented by the Metropolitan and places it upon his head, while the Metropolitan again utters the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” After the Emperor has assumed the crown, the Metropolitan explains the meaning of the coronation rite:  “This visible and material adornment of thy head is to thee a manifest sign that the King of Glory, Christ, invisibly crowneth thee, the head of the throne of all the Russias.”  Then, from a cushion presented by the Metropolitan the Emperor takes in his right hand the scepter and in his left the orb, while the Metropolitan again utters the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”  Then the Metropolitan tells the Emperor the meaning of the scepter and orb, as follows:  “God-crowned, God-given, God-adorned, most pious Autocrat and great Sovereign, Emperor of All the Russias. Receive the scepter and the orb, which are the visible signs of the autocratic power given thee from the Most High over thy people, that thou mayest rule them and order for them the welfare they desire.” Having assumed the imperial regalia, the Emperor seats himself upon the throne and laying the scepter and orb on a cushion presented to him by dignitaries, calls to him Her Majesty the Empress. Her Majesty rises from her throne and kneels before the Emperor, who takes the crown from his head and touches with it the Empress’ head, then replaces the crown on his own head and places on her head a smaller crown, presented by a dignitary. Then the Empress is invested with the purple [velvet and ermine mantle] and the chain of St. Andrew and seats herself on her throne. A deacon proclaims, “length of days to their Majesties, after which the Emperor kneels down and in a loud voice, offers a prayer in which he beseeches the Lord as follows, “Lord God of our fathers,. . .”

I will leave it to the principle editor to determine which account is most accurate and how much of it to edit into the web-site. I took the Sokolof account from photocopies I made from a book on the Russian Divine Services over twenty years ago for my own use and foolishly failed to include the date of publication and the publisher. I believe the Sokolof account was an appendix at the end of a much larger service book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.212.48 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing this information. I've been busy at work, but I'll have some time either tomorrow evening or Sunday, and I'll definitely look it over and see what I can do.  Again, thanks for your imput! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I finally got to this today, and I didn't see any tremendous conflict between what was previously in the article and what was in this reference; rather, it seemed to me that this reference simply offered more details than what the other website had. The only real difference was that the above reference spoke of one Metropolitan robing the Tsar (without naming which one it was; there was more than one at the service), whereas the website account speaks of two, and names them as those of St. Petersburg and Kiev. I chose to keep that reference, as it was more detailed than simply the vague "metropolitan" spoken of here. Indeed, there may not even be a conflict between the two references at all, if read in a certain way. Other than that, I couldn't find any great discrepencies between this reference above and the one I used earlier; rather, this one has simply a few additional details that I incorporated into the text on the receipt of the sceptre and orb, and the invocation of the Trinity during that and the receipt of the crown. Otherwise, this reference above seemed to confirm the other reference I used, at least as far as I could tell. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of coronations of empresses consort
Shouldn't empresses consort be listed among the persons crowned in Russia? The article describes their coronations in great detail (as it should) but they are not listed along with their husbands. I propose including them either seperately or in one row with their husbands. The former idea could be better because some empresses consort were not crowned alongside their husbands. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would bear some thought. I would tend to favor the other idea, since this article is primarily about the coronation of actual rulers of Russia, as opposed to their consorts, though I agree that we should list their consort(s) beside the applicable ruler and their date of crowning, if different from that of the ruler in question.  That would keep the focus on rulers (rather than consorts), at least in my opinion.  But if a concensus favors the other approach, I have no objections to it, either.  We could create a separate section for the consorts' coronations below that for the rulers', with its own table listing the consort (with image, where possible), the ruler she was consort to (as male consorts--there were none, actually, if I remember right, to any of Russia's four female rulers--were never crowned), and the date of her coronation.  Either way works with me, though I personally favor the first.  But whatever the concensus of opinion decides! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked around the articles about Russian consorts and it seems that all of them were crowned alongside their husbands. If that is true, we can simply replace the Reign column with Consort's name column and Other regnal titles column with Consort's portrait column. The Reign column may be beneficial but the Other regnal titles column is empty for most rulers. If you can join the monarchs and their consorts in the same row without removing the dates of their reigns and their other titles, that's OK, but then it could become too crowded because their consorts were not their consorts throughout their whole reign. I hope you understand what I mean. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree with this:

We could put dates below their names if you want. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it! I think, however, that perhaps the reign dates should remain; as far as the "other regnal titles," I could go either way on that.  I was playing around, and created a table that included reign dates in line with the other items (but not the "regnal titles"), just for fun.  That table looked like this:

I think keeping the reign dates is important historically, but also because it provides a bit more "filler" and separation on the table between the Ruler and his/her consort. But what do you think? I also substituted the word "image" for "picture," as "picture" (to me, at least!) suggests more of a photo than a painting or drawing (whereas most Russian monarchs' images will be the latter)--but maybe that's just me. It's no big deal if you think it should say "picture" instead. I've got to go to work now, but let me know what you think on these issues, and thanks again for all of your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the Reign column. I was a bit worried about cases when the empress consort died before the emperor; for example, Alexander II of Russia's reign lasted several months longer than his wife's "reign". But I worry too much; go ahead with your idea. Regarding picture vs. image, use whichever word you consider to be best - English is your first language, not mine ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still at work right now, but I'll see what I can do with this today and tomorrow once I get home. Thanks for your imput!  I'll let you know when I get it done, and you can tell me what you think.  I was hoping someone would rate it (I think it's a definite "B" class, at the very least!), but I'm thinking once I get this all tightened up and a couple of references taken care of that still need tweaking, I might nominate it for GA (per your message to me; thanks for the encouragement!).  It will be interesting to see what happens with it from there; maybe someday even FA????? - 63.111.38.122 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If "my" Maria Theresa of Austria, a humble article compared to this one, was rated as GA, this one has to make it to FA status. I'll be bold and make some changes, insert references, etc, if I find something that should be changed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! As always, I appreciate your help! Check out the new section below on the new table, and tell me what you think. I agree with you that this article is at least GA quality, and possibly more, though it still needs a bit more work before I'm ready to nominate it for GA. We'll see what happens!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsar/Emperor and Tsaritsa/Empress
I believe the article should be consistent regarding the titles of Russian monarchs. For example, it refers to Tsaritsa Alexandra and to Empress Alexandra in one sentence, it refers to a tsar and his wife, the empress, in one paragraph, etc. It should be either Tsaritsa Alexandra or Empress Alexandra, not both because it could create some confusion. More importantly, we should use the same title for the monarch and his wife, so it should be either emperor and empress or tsar and tsaritsa. Perhaps it would be best to use tsar for the predecessors of Peter I and emperor for his successors. Comments? Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At first, I didn't think this was that big of a deal, but after re-reading the article, I can see what you mean. I think using "Tsar" for pre-Petrine rulers and "Emperor" for post-Petrine rulers would be yet another potential source of confusion, however.  Since most folks generally understand and use the title "Tsar" and "Tsaritsa" to refer to all Russian Emperors and Empresses, I thought that it might be best to use those two titles throughout the article, except for one instance in the first paragraph of the lead section, where I introduce the title "Tsar" as the commonly used term for the Emperor of Russia; and in the last paragraph of the lead section, where I explain the "Emperor" vs. "Tsar" thing and also indicate that this article will use the term "Tsar" and "Tsaritsa" throughout.  I made changes to the rest of the article accordingly, changing "Emperor" to "Tsar" and "Empress" to "Tsaritsa," while leaving such terms as "ruler", "sovereign", "monarch", etc. alone for synonym purposes.  But this is just my approach to this dilemma; please feel free to suggest another if you think another would be better! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I too was afraid of creating confusion by using two different terms so I agree with using only Tsar and Tsaritsa. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for your contributions and imput!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New Consorts Table
I fixed the table as we previously decided, to include the consort information. Since several Tsars (especially earlier ones) had more than one consort (Ivan IV had seven or eight, I think!), I decided not to include all of their names; also, I could not get images for all of them, and that would have made things rather awkward, as well. The only solution that I could figure out to this dilemma was to incorporate into the table (since it is a table of Russian coronations) only those consorts who were physically present at their particular ruler-spouse's coronation, and were thus crowned with him. Several of the early Romanov Tsars were not married at the time of their coronations (though they married later), while none of the four women rulers had consorts at the time of their crownings. I figured this was the only way to keep the table from becoming too cumbersome. If you or anyone else out there has a better idea about this, I'd be happy to hear it! Let me know what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that only crowned consorts should be mentioned in the table. Wan't Catherine I the first crowned woman in Russia? If she was, previous consorts should be excluded. We should include every person who was crowned Emperor/Tsar or Empress/Tsaritsa of Russia and only those persons (we should exclude those who were only present at their husband's coronation and uncrowned themselves). That's my humble opinion. It's a good thing that Ivan IV's wives were uncrowned! Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point! I just managed to read that text you referenced in an above entry (the "Scenerios of Power" text you referenced above under "What About When a Woman Ruled Russia?"), and I see it now.  I'll remove all references to consorts prior to Paul I being crowned, with the exception of Marina (wife to False Dmitri I), who I will list as being crowned, but on a separate date--not "at the side of her husband" as indicated in this reference, but several months later.  I'll give an explanation in the paragraph where I described the criterion for inclusion of spouse-consorts on the table, as well.  Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got done with it. I have to leave for work, but take a look now, and tell me what you think.  I apologize for that screw-up on my part; this just goes to illustrate why the "communal" work-nature of Wikipedia is SO important!!  Thanks for pointing out my error! - Ecjmartin (talk)


 * Errare humanum est :) I've changed the table, I hope you are pleased. It seems more clear this way. Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! I like it! I think the way you've worded it is much better. On the "Dmitri I the False" entry, however, I thought it might look better the way I put it here; this way, there's just one entry instead of two, and no unnecessary "blank spaces" for the rulers' portraits. But if you like it better the other way, let me know. I'll be home from work soon, and I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for all your help!! (Ecjmartin) - 63.111.38.122 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Marina, I thought having a seperate entry for her would be better because it is a list of coronations (not of crowned people) and therefore the coronation itself is what we should list. There was one coronation ceremony for Dmitri I the False and one coronation ceremony for Marina, one coronation ceremony for Nicholas II and Alexandra, etc. But you may have a different idea. Perhaps I am influenced by the List of coronations of British monarchs; I think that it is well done, especially the presiding cleric part, and the lack of portraits (because they make the list longer than neccessary and depict rulers, not coronations). Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting when you say you were influenced by the British monarchs coronation list; in creating this table, I was influenced by the Royal coronations in Norway article (which I had worked a little bit on some time back), and indeed, I simply borrowed their format directly for my list. I like having the portraits, as I think it makes the list look a lot nicer than without (and since there's not nearly as many Russian monarchs to list as British ones!!!).  Also, I was focusing on the coronation of Russian rulers, as opposed to consorts; I don't disagree with the inclusion of the consorts by any means (indeed, I like the idea!), but I was focusing on the coronations of the rulers.  In the end, since only one consort (Dmitri's) of those who were ever crowned was crowned separately from her husband, I thought it made more sense to list her with her husband (showing the separate date of her crowning) so that the focus would still be on the ruler, rather than the consort.  However, I can understand your idea of focusing on the "Coronation" part of "Coronation of the Russian monarch," where I've been focusing on the "monarch" part of that (if we could look at it that way, tongue-in-cheek!).  But this is all just my personal approach; I'd be more than willing to see it go back the other way (with Marina listed separately, below Dmitri, like you originally had it) if you (or any others out there "listening in" on this conversation!) still think it would be better.  Let me know!  Hope this isn't all too confusing! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. On the "presiding cleric" part, I'm not sure how many of those we could get for this list; if we could find it, that would be fine, but I think it would prove prohibitively hard (though I may be wrong!!), and is not necessarily essential (though it is nice to have, as you observed with regard to the British list!). What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, you are right about the cleric part; it would be very hard to find names of all the clerics and we probably have no article about most of them. You are right regarding the portraits too, it does look nicer with the portraits, so let's keep them! However, I still believe that we should list each coronation ceremony seperately, rather than list crowned rulers. If we put the date of the monarch's coronation below the monarch's name, I wouldn't mind putting the date of the consort's coronation below the consort's name. Currently, the date of the coronation of each crowned person (save for Marina) is given in the first column. Besides, a queen consort crowned alone gets her own entry in the article Royal coronations in Norway. Surtsicna (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Consorts Table II
I think I might have come up with something that will potentially satisfy both of us, in regard to the concerns each has raised: you mention the need to separate Dmitri's and Marina's coronations on the table, as both were separate events (and I agree with you on that). I mentioned the idea of keeping at least a little more focus on the rulers than the consorts. So, what I thought we might try is a separate listing for Marina's coronation, with Dmitri's portrait (and a note below saying "already crowned") together with Marina's in the appropriate places (whereas Marina is not listed in the entry for Dmitri's coronation, since she wasn't his wife at the time). I also added an explanatory paragraph at the beginning of the "Time of Troubles" section of the table, to make the double entry more understandable to the reader. I guess what I was trying to avoid was a break in the row of "rulers" portraits perhaps more than anything, if I could; with this format, Dmitri is still shown as the ruler (which he was) at the time of Marina's coronation--but Marina gets her own entry, for her separate ceremony. Take a look at it, and let me know what you think of it; if you still think it needs changing, please let me know! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it is a compromise. Though one could wonder why the uncrowned women married to monarchs at the time of their coronation are excluded. But I don't mind. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm at work now, but I had a moment and so I thought I'd check to see if you'd written back and what your thoughts were. I've been thinking about the Dmitri/Marina thing on the table, and I thought I might go with your original idea of removing his image from the entry on Marina's coronation, to draw attention to Marina, since it was her that was being crowned that day, not him.  I left Dmitri's name in, since he was the ruling monarch at the time, but I thought removing his image would take it more along the lines of what you were thinking.  What do you think?  As far as the other consorts are concerned (uncrowned ones), I think the table is better as it is now, but I'd be open to other suggestions.  GOtta' go; let me know what you think on this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All I can say about removing Dmitri's portrait is: good riddance! Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you were right there. I removed the link to Dmitri on Marina's coronation entry, as he's already linked in his own coronation entry; indeed, I think it looks pretty much now as you intended. I think it (the table, as a whole) is fantastic now; what do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly happy about it! We've spent a lot of time doing the table and it's worth it; all coronation ceremonies in Russia seem to be covered. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I think personally I've spent more time on the table itself than on the rest of the article combined (or at least I feel that way--I imagine you probably do, too!!)!!  Thanks for your imput and contributions; they definitely made it much better!  When I get home this evening (God-willing), I plan to give it a "going over" with an eye toward getting it ready for GA nomination.  If you wish to do the same, that'd be great! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A few more changes to the table: I finessed the entries for Catherine I and Peter I, as you can't really say their consorts (each other) were uncrowned, nor that they had no consorts. I worked it around this way and that, and I think I came up with about the best way of putting it that I could think of.  Take a look, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea; you really can't say that their spouses were uncrowned. May I just propose shortening the explanation of Catherine I's coronation a bit - shortening consort to Peter I "The Great"; crowned as co-ruler in 1724; ruled in her own right after his death in 1725, without remarrying to consort to Peter I; crowned as his co-ruler; ruled alone after his death without remarrying? Her husband is already mentioned above with both his nickname and his monarchical ordinal and the date of her coronation is mentioned in the same entry, while the last part is simply shortened. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Well put. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Nomination
Surtsicna, I think this article is ready for GA nomination. If you (or anyone) see(s) anything that needs improving or changing, please feel free to make the change, or let me know and I'll do it. I figure the GA reviewer can also tell us if there's anything that would hold it back from GA status. Personally, I think it's ready. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominated. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reopening for GA review
I know that it's been four years since this article was last visited for GA review, but I thought I might reopen it and see what I could do. I will begin by revisiting the final entry from TWT's review (see above for the rest of the entries on this topic), where Tea with toast indicated the following "still needed" items (given in my words, here; see above for his full entry):


 * 1) Remove references to forums, and replace with appropriate references.
 * 2) Remove reference 21 altogether.
 * 3) Address issues relative to reference 12.
 * 4) Review references marked as "full citation needed," and correct appropriately.
 * 5) Authors and/or publishers given for all sources, wherever possible.
 * 6) Self-published websites are questionable, as to their appropriateness for Wikipedia.

I have started tonight by:


 * 1) Providing a publisher for the Buxhoeveden book;
 * 2) Removing reference 21 and the material it referred to.

I will be getting back to this over the next few days, and I'll make an effort to meet the (entirely legitimate) objections that were raised here four years ago, and we'll see if we can't get this moved on to the next level. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Coronation of the Russian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)