Latest / The Romanov Dynasty: Rise, Power, and Bloody End — Fexingo History / The Romanovs' Game of Thrones: Ivan the Terrible's Missing Son
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we've talked a lot about the Romanovs' rise, their reforms, their bloody end. But today I want to go back to the very beginning, or rather, to the moment that made the Romanovs possible. I'm talking about the death of Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible, in 1581. Luna: Oh, that's the famous painting, isn't it? The one with the tsar holding his dying son? Lucas: Exactly, Ilya Repin's 'Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan' — that haunting image of a crazed father cradling his son's head. But what actually happened that night in the Alexander Kremlin? The sources are murky, but the consequences were massive. Lucas: Ivan Grozny — and I should say, 'Grozny' doesn't mean 'terrible' in the modern sense, it's more like 'awe-inspiring' or 'formidable' — had already killed his own son in a fit of rage, allegedly. But was it really a fit of rage? That's what we need to dig into. Luna: Wait, 'allegedly'? I thought it was pretty much settled that he struck him with his staff. Lucas: The most commonly told story goes like this: the tsar found his daughter-in-law, Elena, in a state of undress — she was pregnant at the time — and flew into a rage, beating her. His son rushed to protect her, and Ivan struck him on the head with his pointed staff. The wound was fatal. Lucas: But there's a problem with that story. The only contemporary account we have is from a papal envoy, Antonio Possevino, who was in Moscow at the time. He wrote that Ivan struck his son in the temple, and that the tsarevich died a few days later. But other sources suggest it might have been a stroke, or even poison. Lucas: Some scholars now argue that the whole thing might have been a politically motivated assassination, maybe even by someone else in the court. The Oprichnina, Ivan's secret police, had created an atmosphere of paranoia and violence. It's not impossible that the tsarevich was killed by a rival faction and Ivan took the blame. Luna: Hmm, so the 'mad tsar' story might be a convenient cover-up? Lucas: Precisely. And here's where it gets interesting for the Romanovs. When Ivan died in 1584, he left behind a weak successor: his other son, Feodor, who was intellectually disabled by many accounts, and a baby, Dmitry, from a later marriage. That set the stage for the Time of Troubles, the Smutnoye Vremya, when the Rurikid dynasty literally died out. Lucas: Feodor's reign was dominated by his brother-in-law, Boris Godunov, who became tsar after Feodor's death in 1598. But then came the famines, the false Dmitrys, and the Polish invasion. It was complete chaos. And out of that chaos, a Zemsky Sobor elected a sixteen-year-old boy, Mikhail Romanov, as the new tsar in 1613. Luna: So the death of Ivan's son directly led to the Romanovs taking the throne. That's a pretty big butterfly effect. Lucas: Absolutely. If Ivan's son had survived, there might have been a more stable succession, and the Romanovs might have remained just another boyar family. But because of that one violent act — or whatever actually happened — the line of Moscow tsars came to an end, and the Romanovs rose to power. Lucas: Now, let me talk about the painting itself for a moment. Repin painted it in 1885, and it caused a sensation. It was banned from display for a while, because it was seen as a critique of the tsarist autocracy — showing the tsar as a murderer. But it also cemented the popular image of Ivan as a monster. Lucas: The painting is actually based on a real historical incident, but Repin took some artistic liberties. For example, the tsarevich is shown with a wound to the temple, but some accounts say the blow was to the head or ear. And the expression on Ivan's face — that mix of horror and remorse — is pure artistic invention. Luna: It's interesting how art can shape our perception of history. I mean, most people probably think of Ivan as a madman because of that painting. Lucas: Right, and that's a problem, because Ivan was a complex figure. He was a reformer, a patron of the arts, and a brilliant military leader. He expanded Russia's territory enormously. But he was also paranoid, ruthless, and capable of terrible cruelty — the Oprichnina terror was real. So we have to hold both sides. Lucas: Now, before I go deeper into the aftermath, I want to pause for a second. We've been having these conversations for a while now, and if you've been getting something out of them, we'd love it if you considered supporting the show. It's a small thing, but it really helps us keep going without ads. If today's episode was worth a coffee to you, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it genuinely helps us keep doing this. And we really appreciate anyone who does. Now, back to the death of the tsarevich — what happened right after? I mean, Ivan must have been beside himself. Lucas: According to Possevino, Ivan fell into deep despair. He tore his hair, wept, and prayed for forgiveness. He even considered entering a monastery. He sent alms to churches and monasteries, and there were reports that he gave away large sums to have prayers said for his son's soul. But it was too late — the damage was done. Lucas: The political fallout was just as significant. With Ivan's death, the throne passed to Feodor, who was weak and dominated by boyar factions. The Oprichnina was disbanded, and the country slid into chaos. The Time of Troubles, which followed, was a period of civil war, foreign invasion, and famine that nearly destroyed Russia. Luna: And that's when the Romanovs stepped in. But how did they manage to get elected? I mean, they weren't exactly the most powerful family at the time. Lucas: The Romanovs had a claim through marriage — Mikhail's great-aunt, Anastasia Romanova, was Ivan the Terrible's first wife. So they had blood ties to the Rurikid dynasty. But also, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was heavily influenced by the Cossacks and the church, and they wanted someone who wasn't tainted by the previous reigns. Lucas: Mikhail was young, inexperienced, and malleable — which made him a safe choice for the boyars who wanted to maintain their own power. Little did they know that the Romanovs would go on to rule for over three hundred years, and that they'd become one of the most powerful dynasties in Europe. Luna: So, in a way, Ivan's deadly temper ended up creating the very dynasty that would eventually be overthrown by the revolution. There's a poetic irony there. Lucas: There really is. And that's what makes this story so compelling — it's a reminder that history is full of these hinge moments, where a single act of violence, or a single decision, can change the course of a nation. And it also reminds us that our understanding of those moments is often filtered through art, propaganda, and incomplete records. Luna: Sounds great. Until then, keep questioning the stories you think you know.