Prologue
Yes, I am again, yes I am again, but history is the main source of conspiracy theories. The understatement and the principle “the winners write history” give rise to theories that Napoleon was actually 198 cm long, Hitler was a woman, and Alexander the Great did not exist.
By the way, I strongly recommend re-reading the article about Nicholas II
Part one
So, what do history textbooks write about Mikhail (Fedorovich / Aleksandrovich):
- Mikhail Romanov was born on July 12 - on the day of St. Michael, in whose honor he was baptized; also, by tradition, he was named after his uncle - Mikhail Nikitich Romanov.
- Mikhail Fedorovich / Aleksandrovich is the son of one of the most noble boyar families in Moscow, but for a long time she remained in the shadows.
- He was elected to the kingdom in 161_ (3/7) by the Zemsky Sobor, and not by the Duma, as we used to think.
- Mikhail Romanov ruled during the turmoil and the presence of its own ruler in each part of the state did not give him authority.
Well and so on, little by little, in different editions of history textbooks. But who cares, because it will be in history only next year.
Promotional video:
Also, Mikhail Romanov was remembered for the conclusion of the "Eternal Peace" with Sweden, which successfully destroyed Peter I, the Polyanovsky peace with the Commonwealth, united the scattered lands of the Troubles under his rigid rule, restored normal economy and trade, and also annexed Yakutia, the Baikal region and got access to The Pacific Ocean.
The kinship scheme of the Rurikovichs, Godunovs and Romanovs. If the Zemsky Sobor had not elected Mikhail Romanov, then the next * heir * would have been the Godunov family.
And then, more interesting …
Part two
The historian N. I. Kostomarov says the following about the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Romanov:
And now, dear historians, let's compare the data of textbooks and data of Kostomarov:
How could a person with a kind and melancholy character, who could barely read, become a king and unite disparate territories under his rigid rule?
Returning to the marriage of Mikhail Romanov, there are a few more oddities here: Mikhail's first wife was poisoned by his own mother, for which he punished her, but would his gentle nature allow him to administer justice over his own mother? I think so too. His second wife was a commoner who did not stand out in any way, but was the daughter of a nobleman who was impoverished the day before, who had spent his money on some good cause. Other documents say that he wanted to strengthen the Russian army, because this happened just during the war with Poland, respectively, Mikhail Romanov gave his debt to this nobleman, but several sources say that he never intended to marry a commoner.
Part three
It is worth noting the most obvious fact: this boyar, who always remained in the shadows, was elected to the monarch. It is very embarrassing that he was not a competitor for Godunov - a direct rival to the throne, whose reign could save the financial situation.
Since Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was young and inexperienced, until 1619 the country was ruled by the nun Martha, her relatives and Patriarch Filaret. State letters of that time were written on behalf of the tsar and the patriarch.
Patriarch Filaret was sent to Poland for negotiations (why exactly Patriarch Filaret, if he was old and did not really enjoy the love of the people, remains a mystery). At that time, Michael is crowned king and arranges a bloody massacre, since the state was divided into 4 parts and each part had its own chosen one.
After his release from Polish captivity in 1619, the actual power passed into the hands of Patriarch Filaret, who was also called the Great Emperor.
Also, under Mikhail, trade relations with neighboring countries were resumed, peace was made with Sweden, the first Russian newspaper was published, and so on.
***
But how can this be explained? How could modest behavior betray the leadership traits in Mikhail Romanov, for which he was chosen by the Zemsky Sobor?
This can be explained by a conspiracy on the part of the Polish or English crown, because the Cossacks appealed to Michal Romanov solely because they were afraid that under the Polish king Vladislav IV and King James I of England, who claimed the throne, their bread rate would be sold abroad … Accordingly, neither one nor the second received any benefit from their victories and claims, but the murder of the young tsar and his replacement by a protege in the form of Patriarch Filaret and a mouthpiece in the form of the son of the Patriarch does not look so delusional.