This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ladislaus IV of Poland(1610-1613, 1634 he officially ended his claims) This entry is highly dubious since he never even visited Moscow, let alone ruled it.
The current listing of Ladislaus IV of Poland as tsar in 1610-1613 is certainly misleading, if not outright wrong. -- Gene s 05:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current page renders only a few mangled lines. 64.236.128.27 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
They are not rulers. You are welcome to put them into whatever separate article. Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In 1924, Nicholas II's cousin Cyril Vladimirovitch declared himself emperor. Here are the claimants to the throne since his death:
- Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovitch ( 1924- 1938)
- Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovitch ( 1938- 1992)
- Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna ( 1992-)
- Tsarevitch Georgiya Mikhailovich ( Heir-Apparent)
In addition, "Prince" Nicholas Romanov, who product of a morganatic marriage between HH Prince Roman Petrovitch and Countess Praskovia Cheremeteva, was elected President of the Romanov Family Association, and thus could also be considered the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia.
Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is Nicholas II listed as a pretender? Amanda7061 ( talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Should this page be renamed to List of Russian monarchs? It will correspond to other lists similarly named and avoid confusion with later republics.
Of course a Russian tsar was never appointed by a Roman Catholic pope. It was a council of Seven Boyars, the most powerful group of Russian nobles (all Orthodox Christians), who deposed the tsar Vasily Shuysky on July 27, 1610, and elected the teenage Władysław, son of Sigismund III Vasa, as Tsar of Russia on August 27, 1610. He did not assume the Muscovite throne due to his father's opposition, and a Russian uprising against Poles occupying the Kremlin at the beginning of November 1612. Władysław IV Vasa, as King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1632 to 1648, resigned the title of Tsar of Russia in 1634 ( Treaty of Polyanovka). -- Mibelz 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does this list end at Peter the Great? -- Jfruh 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
We'd better creat a independent article about them. Now many Princes who had owned the title "Grand Prince of Vladimir" can't be found in the list. A list has existed in Chinese Wikipedia, See here( Grand Prince of Vladimir). -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 06:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
On this page, there's a division between "Princes of Moscow" and "Grand Princes of Moscow" at 1359. But on the Grand Prince of Moscow page, the division comes before Daniel at 1283 (there's a gap between 1263 and 1283). This inconsistency is bad enough... but if you look at the underlying articles, Daniel of Moscow, Yury of Moscow, and Ivan I of Russia (Kalita) are just described as "Princes"; Simeon of Russia is the first to be described as "Grand Prince of Moscow" in his article, which would put the division at 1341. Meanwhile, if you look at the "preceded by/succeeded by" boxes at the bottom, Yury of Moscow is the first person to be labeled "Grand Prince of Moscow" by that method, which puts the division at 1303! Really, I think this calls for some standardization. Chaucer1387 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I see there have been some edit wars with people deleting the duplicative material that's already at Rulers of Kievan Rus'. Most of the time, we retain the duplication. Why is this? Duplication means changes have to be made in two places; not everyone will realize this; and as a result, we have issues like Askold and Dir showing up as rulers of Kiev on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but not on this page, or Oleg's start date as prince of Novgorod showing up as 879 on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but 882 here. Similarly, in the Grand Prince of Moscow section -- in addition to the inconsistencies I pointed out in my comment of 22 Jan 2007 above -- we've got Vasili II-era usurpers here but not in the Grand Prince of Moscow article; Glinskaya shows up in both areas, but the Shuiskys and Belskys only show up here; and Simeon Bekbulatovich shows up as an independent bullet there but as a sub-bullet to Ivan the Terrible here.
I know, someone looking for a list of Russian rulers will come here and will want to see a unified list. It might be inconvenient to have them go to a Kievan Rus' article, a Grand Prince of Moscow article, and who knows what else. But we already do this with the List of leaders of Russia article -- there's no article where you'll see Rurik, Peter the Great, Stalin, and Putin on the same page. Is that so inconvenient? The main problem is that with duplication you end up getting divergent texts as time goes by, unless we're constantly making sure each change is made twice.
Is there some way to incorporate the list from the Kievan Rus' page by reference, so the text shows up but there's still only one copy of the text? Alternatively: Why do we even have Rulers of Kievan Rus' or Grand Prince of Moscow pages? Why aren't they just redirects to the appropriate section here? The Rulers of Kievan Rus' page has some historical text (arguably duplicative with the Kievan Rus' page), but the Grand Prince of Moscow is nothing but a list. Why does it even exist? Chaucer1387 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Russian Tsars redirects to Tsar.
Russian czars redirects to List of Russian rulers.
I don't know which is the better target - they both have merit - but it seems very wrong that they lead to different places. Any comments? Let's discuss at Talk:Russian Tsars.
Jordan Brown 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we have the rulers of the Khazars, Golden Hoard Mongols and the Goths listed as well here? Ericl 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Nicholas II passed the crown on to Michael, but Michael never accepted it. He was not truly the Czar- he did not accept, was never accepted as Czar, never acted as Czar in any capacity. He needs to be removed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockStarSheister ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest why he is also listed in the section on pretenders to the throne? Having abdicated, and kept prisoner by the Bolsheviks, he could hardly have been a pretender, and I am unaware of him expressing the desire to regain the throne from the time of abdication to his death.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why authors on Wikipedia seem determined to write that Nicholas was assassinated. As that act is restricted to a political leader, and Nicholas had already abdicated nearly 15 months earlier, he was not assassinated -- he was murdered. To use assassinate is to downplay the criminal nature of the act. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dandalo (
talk •
contribs) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me this entry does not belong in the list. Aside from the already noted suggestion that the Catholic Pope can not appoint an Eastern Orthodoxy ruler, the individual in question never lived in Russia, never assumed even the title of Grand Prince, never mind Tsar, and was discouraged from doing so by his father. Regardless of being elected by the seven boyars, he never held the power literally or figuratively, or the rank, which seems important, or tried to take the role by force or political manipulation. The acceptance of the rank of Grand Duke also suggests there was no serious intention in pretension to the throne of Russia, and only a half-hearted one to the throne of Moscow, which is not the same. I will be deleting this entry unless someone can offer a really good reason for keeping it-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is Ivan V listed after Peter the Great when they began their joint rule on the same day and Peter outlived his half-brother for three decades? Shouldn't Peter be listed after Ivan? To me it just makes more sense. 205.244.113.226 ( talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
On our recent Viking Russian Rivers cruise, we were shown the portrait shown on this page for Alexei Romanov as that of Mikhail Romanov. Should these two portraits be reversed? Wakchil ( talk) 18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
He had two fourth sons?
Don't know which is correct, so I'm just flagging it up for someone to fix. Bazj ( talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In 1922, a Zemsky Sobor created by General Mikhail Dietericks declared Grand Duke Nicholas Czar. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.72.143 ( talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
He is now, unfortunately. I don't think he should be listed, especially if we're not listing Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as "Michael II," something I've actually seen in sources (but which I agree we shouldn't do). john k ( talk) 13:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Full text from The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 June 1854, p. 3 : TITLES OF THE CZAR.-“The following is a list of the Czar's titles, which always head every ukase : Nicholas, by the grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kieffs, Vladimie, and Novgorod; Czar of Kasan, of Astrachan, Poland, Siberia, and the Taurian Chersonesus ; Seignior o Pskoff, and Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wallachia, Podolia, and Finland ; Prince of Esthonia Courland, and Semgalia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Jougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria, and many other countries ; Seignior and Grand Prince of the territory of Inner Novgorod, Tshernigoff, Riaizin, Polotsk, Rostof, Jaroslaf, Bielozero, Oudoria, Obdoria, Koudina, Witebsk, Mtislaf, and Lord of all the hyperborean region ; Seignior of the land of Heria, Kartalina, Grousinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia; Hereditary Seignior and Suzerain of the Circassian princes, of those of the mountains, and others : Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Saint Ormarn, Ditmarseu, and Oldenburg, &c., &c." To these titles must now be added that of "Lord-fearing God," which the Czar has recently assumed. The heraldic blazonings correspond to the description given above.” -- Jaanusele ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is the table for the Tsars completely different from the table for the Emperors? john k ( talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree; this is ridiculous and confusing. Not to mention the fact that Emperor and Tsar/Czar (or even Emperor and Cesar, if we may go that far) are very different (especially in the eyes of the Russian, including the rulers themselves).
No one would dare call, for example, Alexander I "Emperor" because this is precisely the image he was trying to *avoid* - the "emperor" was Napoleon! This needs to be fixed. Soviet223 ( talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
"The history of Kievan Rus (882–1240) has remained at the center of Russia's search for identity ever since the emergence of historical studies as a scholarly discipline in the Russian Empire" - What is the point or the function of this phrase in this article? To reduce Russia's obvious, manifold and traceable relationship to Kievan Rus to just "Russia's search for identity"? This phrase does not reflect the worldwide view on this issue, but tries to POV-push fringe theories of marginal Ukrainian ideologists. -- Voyevoda ( talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article, there's been nothing no attempt to address issues brought up on the talk page for years. All I can see is a few tweaks, reverts post-vandalism, and the expansion of sections that have been questioned without any dialogue with other editors/contributors.
Interestingly enough, in tracking quite a few of the major contributors, I've discovered that they've been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and similar contraventions of Wikipedia policy. The entire article suffers from extreme POV bias (the lead in itself is blatantly POV with absolutely no citations)... In fact, the whole entry reads like a schoolchild's essay after asking for assistance from their parents (who happen to have subjective, unsustainable views).
Add to this the fact that reader feedback has been disabled and a good case for deleting the entire article starts to come together! Naturally, there are going to be stupid remarks in the feedback, however disregarding feedback is also a disadvantage when constructive criticism/suggestions are blocked.
I'm tagging the article as suffering from multiple issues: lack of inline citations; two texts as references (Latopis hustyński. Opracowanie, przekład i komentarze and The Hustyn' Chronicle, both of which deal with Rus', not Russia) with no inline citations or page numbers; non-neutral POV; weasel words; etc. Basically, as it stands, it simply isn't a defensible, encyclopaedic entry. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what's worse, the rulers of Russia that suddenly ended on 1917, implying that some 9th century monarch is a ruler in the history of Russia or still that Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev were "a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia". Bertdrunk ( talk) 21:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Rulers of Grand Duchy of Vladimir are considered broadly as rulers of Russia since sack of Kiev in 1169 and when Prince Andrey Bogolubsky moved his capital to Vladimir. In the same process the capital and the main titte was moved to Moscow a century after. But between Grand Duchy of Kiev and Grand Duchy of Moscow should not be a centenary gap. If you want you can rework the list to make one ruler at time - you can, but please do not remove whole section entirely. It is wrong. -- Alex Welens ( talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So, as expected this went nowhere. Is someone willing to throw the bureaucracy out and start some action? Bertdrunk ( talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Why the hell is Putin not listed as a Russian ruler? Putin certainly is a ruler of Russian and so was Boris Yeltsin and Dmitry Medvedev. All of them were rulers of Russia. Putin is still a ruler of Russia.
I think that leaders of modern Russia should be added here as well.
Patchman123 ( talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Kingdom of Khazaria, the Khazars in this article? They appeared during its time-frame. They covered Russian land. I hope it is not because their religious conversion from paganism was not to Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There was never a Michael II or Alexis II, so there's no need to call them Michael I or Alexis I. (I have left in Paul I however, as he insisted on being called that in his lifetime.) Richard75 ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Russian rulers. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It is accepted by all normal people that Nicholas II was the last emperor. I'm not against mentioning later claimants, but they do not belong on the same list / table as acknowledged rulers. Richard75 ( talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Alexander III does not have a portrait, I tried to add one (Alexander III, Emperor of Russia (1845-94).png) and saw that that file was already in the table, it just was not showing up, what is the cause of this? Lochglasgowstrathyre ( talk) 14:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
By conflating the history of Kievan Ruś with that of Muscovy the entire article is rendered a fabrication of modern Russian propogandists. Their respective histories are separate until a fully-formed democratic nation of Kievan Ruś's Bogdan Khmelnitsky met with representatives of the Tsar of Muscovy to seek an association with Muscovy, in 1654, in order to gain military protection from the suppression upon it caused by the Kingdom of Poland.
Before that time there was no "Russia", but only the city-state of Muscovy. It was Peter the Great who took the name, "Ruś", latinized it into "Russia", while renaming Ruś "Ukraine", which means, "borderlands", and sought thereby to gold plate the autocratic Muscovy, which had been colonizing and subjugicating it's neighbors, into the the completely fabricated myth of her being a direct discendant of a democratic, Hellenic, glorious nation of Kievan Ruś.
This is settled history for which independent historical sources exist, the most famous of which is likely Michael Hrushevsky's, "A History of Ukraine", 1941, Yale University Press.
Indeed, in 1665, King Charles of Sweden, attempted to warn away Khmelnitsky from alligning Ruś with Moscow, saying that the Tsar would never tolerate a free people bordering his state, and indeed, 400 years of history have shown King Charles to have seen the future very clearly.
Russian propaganda ever since Peter the Great has not ceased to put forward the myth that modern Russia is the child--or indeed, the older brother!--of Kievan Ruś.
Dalton Garis Malugssuak ( talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
u 64.209.159.7 ( talk) 18:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The list presents Russian nationalistic propaganda. Is the Russian POV generally accepted in Western academy? How to prove continuity between Rus' and Moscow, later Russia? I do not know the subject, but I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here. At least "This list represents Russian nationalistic opinion, please compare ....". Xx236 ( talk) 06:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia.
I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here– have you seen list of Ukrainian rulers? Mellk ( talk) 07:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The Romanovs were more "Ruthenian" than the Princes of Kyiv were "Russian". This is just nationalist Russian historiography being presented as fact. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Issue of classifying the "Kievan Rus" rulers as Russian, or as "Ruthenian." The term "Ruthenia" is itself a Latin exonym derived from the latinized form of the term "Роусь", transliterated as "Rus'", the word from which Russia derived - it makes very little sense to imply that the Rurikids were somehow not-Russian is ahistorical. The Anglo-Saxon house of Wessex is English - we get the word "English" from Anglo-Saxon. Same logic applies to the Rurikids and the Rus' rulers. ZelenMelen ( talk) 18:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ladislaus IV of Poland(1610-1613, 1634 he officially ended his claims) This entry is highly dubious since he never even visited Moscow, let alone ruled it.
The current listing of Ladislaus IV of Poland as tsar in 1610-1613 is certainly misleading, if not outright wrong. -- Gene s 05:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current page renders only a few mangled lines. 64.236.128.27 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
They are not rulers. You are welcome to put them into whatever separate article. Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In 1924, Nicholas II's cousin Cyril Vladimirovitch declared himself emperor. Here are the claimants to the throne since his death:
- Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovitch ( 1924- 1938)
- Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovitch ( 1938- 1992)
- Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna ( 1992-)
- Tsarevitch Georgiya Mikhailovich ( Heir-Apparent)
In addition, "Prince" Nicholas Romanov, who product of a morganatic marriage between HH Prince Roman Petrovitch and Countess Praskovia Cheremeteva, was elected President of the Romanov Family Association, and thus could also be considered the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia.
Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is Nicholas II listed as a pretender? Amanda7061 ( talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Should this page be renamed to List of Russian monarchs? It will correspond to other lists similarly named and avoid confusion with later republics.
Of course a Russian tsar was never appointed by a Roman Catholic pope. It was a council of Seven Boyars, the most powerful group of Russian nobles (all Orthodox Christians), who deposed the tsar Vasily Shuysky on July 27, 1610, and elected the teenage Władysław, son of Sigismund III Vasa, as Tsar of Russia on August 27, 1610. He did not assume the Muscovite throne due to his father's opposition, and a Russian uprising against Poles occupying the Kremlin at the beginning of November 1612. Władysław IV Vasa, as King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1632 to 1648, resigned the title of Tsar of Russia in 1634 ( Treaty of Polyanovka). -- Mibelz 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does this list end at Peter the Great? -- Jfruh 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
We'd better creat a independent article about them. Now many Princes who had owned the title "Grand Prince of Vladimir" can't be found in the list. A list has existed in Chinese Wikipedia, See here( Grand Prince of Vladimir). -- Douglasfrankfort ( talk to me) 06:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
On this page, there's a division between "Princes of Moscow" and "Grand Princes of Moscow" at 1359. But on the Grand Prince of Moscow page, the division comes before Daniel at 1283 (there's a gap between 1263 and 1283). This inconsistency is bad enough... but if you look at the underlying articles, Daniel of Moscow, Yury of Moscow, and Ivan I of Russia (Kalita) are just described as "Princes"; Simeon of Russia is the first to be described as "Grand Prince of Moscow" in his article, which would put the division at 1341. Meanwhile, if you look at the "preceded by/succeeded by" boxes at the bottom, Yury of Moscow is the first person to be labeled "Grand Prince of Moscow" by that method, which puts the division at 1303! Really, I think this calls for some standardization. Chaucer1387 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I see there have been some edit wars with people deleting the duplicative material that's already at Rulers of Kievan Rus'. Most of the time, we retain the duplication. Why is this? Duplication means changes have to be made in two places; not everyone will realize this; and as a result, we have issues like Askold and Dir showing up as rulers of Kiev on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but not on this page, or Oleg's start date as prince of Novgorod showing up as 879 on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but 882 here. Similarly, in the Grand Prince of Moscow section -- in addition to the inconsistencies I pointed out in my comment of 22 Jan 2007 above -- we've got Vasili II-era usurpers here but not in the Grand Prince of Moscow article; Glinskaya shows up in both areas, but the Shuiskys and Belskys only show up here; and Simeon Bekbulatovich shows up as an independent bullet there but as a sub-bullet to Ivan the Terrible here.
I know, someone looking for a list of Russian rulers will come here and will want to see a unified list. It might be inconvenient to have them go to a Kievan Rus' article, a Grand Prince of Moscow article, and who knows what else. But we already do this with the List of leaders of Russia article -- there's no article where you'll see Rurik, Peter the Great, Stalin, and Putin on the same page. Is that so inconvenient? The main problem is that with duplication you end up getting divergent texts as time goes by, unless we're constantly making sure each change is made twice.
Is there some way to incorporate the list from the Kievan Rus' page by reference, so the text shows up but there's still only one copy of the text? Alternatively: Why do we even have Rulers of Kievan Rus' or Grand Prince of Moscow pages? Why aren't they just redirects to the appropriate section here? The Rulers of Kievan Rus' page has some historical text (arguably duplicative with the Kievan Rus' page), but the Grand Prince of Moscow is nothing but a list. Why does it even exist? Chaucer1387 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Russian Tsars redirects to Tsar.
Russian czars redirects to List of Russian rulers.
I don't know which is the better target - they both have merit - but it seems very wrong that they lead to different places. Any comments? Let's discuss at Talk:Russian Tsars.
Jordan Brown 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we have the rulers of the Khazars, Golden Hoard Mongols and the Goths listed as well here? Ericl 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Nicholas II passed the crown on to Michael, but Michael never accepted it. He was not truly the Czar- he did not accept, was never accepted as Czar, never acted as Czar in any capacity. He needs to be removed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockStarSheister ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest why he is also listed in the section on pretenders to the throne? Having abdicated, and kept prisoner by the Bolsheviks, he could hardly have been a pretender, and I am unaware of him expressing the desire to regain the throne from the time of abdication to his death.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why authors on Wikipedia seem determined to write that Nicholas was assassinated. As that act is restricted to a political leader, and Nicholas had already abdicated nearly 15 months earlier, he was not assassinated -- he was murdered. To use assassinate is to downplay the criminal nature of the act. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dandalo (
talk •
contribs) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me this entry does not belong in the list. Aside from the already noted suggestion that the Catholic Pope can not appoint an Eastern Orthodoxy ruler, the individual in question never lived in Russia, never assumed even the title of Grand Prince, never mind Tsar, and was discouraged from doing so by his father. Regardless of being elected by the seven boyars, he never held the power literally or figuratively, or the rank, which seems important, or tried to take the role by force or political manipulation. The acceptance of the rank of Grand Duke also suggests there was no serious intention in pretension to the throne of Russia, and only a half-hearted one to the throne of Moscow, which is not the same. I will be deleting this entry unless someone can offer a really good reason for keeping it-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is Ivan V listed after Peter the Great when they began their joint rule on the same day and Peter outlived his half-brother for three decades? Shouldn't Peter be listed after Ivan? To me it just makes more sense. 205.244.113.226 ( talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
On our recent Viking Russian Rivers cruise, we were shown the portrait shown on this page for Alexei Romanov as that of Mikhail Romanov. Should these two portraits be reversed? Wakchil ( talk) 18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
He had two fourth sons?
Don't know which is correct, so I'm just flagging it up for someone to fix. Bazj ( talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In 1922, a Zemsky Sobor created by General Mikhail Dietericks declared Grand Duke Nicholas Czar. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.72.143 ( talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
He is now, unfortunately. I don't think he should be listed, especially if we're not listing Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as "Michael II," something I've actually seen in sources (but which I agree we shouldn't do). john k ( talk) 13:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Full text from The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 June 1854, p. 3 : TITLES OF THE CZAR.-“The following is a list of the Czar's titles, which always head every ukase : Nicholas, by the grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kieffs, Vladimie, and Novgorod; Czar of Kasan, of Astrachan, Poland, Siberia, and the Taurian Chersonesus ; Seignior o Pskoff, and Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wallachia, Podolia, and Finland ; Prince of Esthonia Courland, and Semgalia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Jougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria, and many other countries ; Seignior and Grand Prince of the territory of Inner Novgorod, Tshernigoff, Riaizin, Polotsk, Rostof, Jaroslaf, Bielozero, Oudoria, Obdoria, Koudina, Witebsk, Mtislaf, and Lord of all the hyperborean region ; Seignior of the land of Heria, Kartalina, Grousinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia; Hereditary Seignior and Suzerain of the Circassian princes, of those of the mountains, and others : Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Saint Ormarn, Ditmarseu, and Oldenburg, &c., &c." To these titles must now be added that of "Lord-fearing God," which the Czar has recently assumed. The heraldic blazonings correspond to the description given above.” -- Jaanusele ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is the table for the Tsars completely different from the table for the Emperors? john k ( talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree; this is ridiculous and confusing. Not to mention the fact that Emperor and Tsar/Czar (or even Emperor and Cesar, if we may go that far) are very different (especially in the eyes of the Russian, including the rulers themselves).
No one would dare call, for example, Alexander I "Emperor" because this is precisely the image he was trying to *avoid* - the "emperor" was Napoleon! This needs to be fixed. Soviet223 ( talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
"The history of Kievan Rus (882–1240) has remained at the center of Russia's search for identity ever since the emergence of historical studies as a scholarly discipline in the Russian Empire" - What is the point or the function of this phrase in this article? To reduce Russia's obvious, manifold and traceable relationship to Kievan Rus to just "Russia's search for identity"? This phrase does not reflect the worldwide view on this issue, but tries to POV-push fringe theories of marginal Ukrainian ideologists. -- Voyevoda ( talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article, there's been nothing no attempt to address issues brought up on the talk page for years. All I can see is a few tweaks, reverts post-vandalism, and the expansion of sections that have been questioned without any dialogue with other editors/contributors.
Interestingly enough, in tracking quite a few of the major contributors, I've discovered that they've been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and similar contraventions of Wikipedia policy. The entire article suffers from extreme POV bias (the lead in itself is blatantly POV with absolutely no citations)... In fact, the whole entry reads like a schoolchild's essay after asking for assistance from their parents (who happen to have subjective, unsustainable views).
Add to this the fact that reader feedback has been disabled and a good case for deleting the entire article starts to come together! Naturally, there are going to be stupid remarks in the feedback, however disregarding feedback is also a disadvantage when constructive criticism/suggestions are blocked.
I'm tagging the article as suffering from multiple issues: lack of inline citations; two texts as references (Latopis hustyński. Opracowanie, przekład i komentarze and The Hustyn' Chronicle, both of which deal with Rus', not Russia) with no inline citations or page numbers; non-neutral POV; weasel words; etc. Basically, as it stands, it simply isn't a defensible, encyclopaedic entry. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what's worse, the rulers of Russia that suddenly ended on 1917, implying that some 9th century monarch is a ruler in the history of Russia or still that Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev were "a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia". Bertdrunk ( talk) 21:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Rulers of Grand Duchy of Vladimir are considered broadly as rulers of Russia since sack of Kiev in 1169 and when Prince Andrey Bogolubsky moved his capital to Vladimir. In the same process the capital and the main titte was moved to Moscow a century after. But between Grand Duchy of Kiev and Grand Duchy of Moscow should not be a centenary gap. If you want you can rework the list to make one ruler at time - you can, but please do not remove whole section entirely. It is wrong. -- Alex Welens ( talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So, as expected this went nowhere. Is someone willing to throw the bureaucracy out and start some action? Bertdrunk ( talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Why the hell is Putin not listed as a Russian ruler? Putin certainly is a ruler of Russian and so was Boris Yeltsin and Dmitry Medvedev. All of them were rulers of Russia. Putin is still a ruler of Russia.
I think that leaders of modern Russia should be added here as well.
Patchman123 ( talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Kingdom of Khazaria, the Khazars in this article? They appeared during its time-frame. They covered Russian land. I hope it is not because their religious conversion from paganism was not to Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There was never a Michael II or Alexis II, so there's no need to call them Michael I or Alexis I. (I have left in Paul I however, as he insisted on being called that in his lifetime.) Richard75 ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Russian rulers. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It is accepted by all normal people that Nicholas II was the last emperor. I'm not against mentioning later claimants, but they do not belong on the same list / table as acknowledged rulers. Richard75 ( talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Alexander III does not have a portrait, I tried to add one (Alexander III, Emperor of Russia (1845-94).png) and saw that that file was already in the table, it just was not showing up, what is the cause of this? Lochglasgowstrathyre ( talk) 14:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
By conflating the history of Kievan Ruś with that of Muscovy the entire article is rendered a fabrication of modern Russian propogandists. Their respective histories are separate until a fully-formed democratic nation of Kievan Ruś's Bogdan Khmelnitsky met with representatives of the Tsar of Muscovy to seek an association with Muscovy, in 1654, in order to gain military protection from the suppression upon it caused by the Kingdom of Poland.
Before that time there was no "Russia", but only the city-state of Muscovy. It was Peter the Great who took the name, "Ruś", latinized it into "Russia", while renaming Ruś "Ukraine", which means, "borderlands", and sought thereby to gold plate the autocratic Muscovy, which had been colonizing and subjugicating it's neighbors, into the the completely fabricated myth of her being a direct discendant of a democratic, Hellenic, glorious nation of Kievan Ruś.
This is settled history for which independent historical sources exist, the most famous of which is likely Michael Hrushevsky's, "A History of Ukraine", 1941, Yale University Press.
Indeed, in 1665, King Charles of Sweden, attempted to warn away Khmelnitsky from alligning Ruś with Moscow, saying that the Tsar would never tolerate a free people bordering his state, and indeed, 400 years of history have shown King Charles to have seen the future very clearly.
Russian propaganda ever since Peter the Great has not ceased to put forward the myth that modern Russia is the child--or indeed, the older brother!--of Kievan Ruś.
Dalton Garis Malugssuak ( talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
u 64.209.159.7 ( talk) 18:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The list presents Russian nationalistic propaganda. Is the Russian POV generally accepted in Western academy? How to prove continuity between Rus' and Moscow, later Russia? I do not know the subject, but I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here. At least "This list represents Russian nationalistic opinion, please compare ....". Xx236 ( talk) 06:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia.
I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here– have you seen list of Ukrainian rulers? Mellk ( talk) 07:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The Romanovs were more "Ruthenian" than the Princes of Kyiv were "Russian". This is just nationalist Russian historiography being presented as fact. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Issue of classifying the "Kievan Rus" rulers as Russian, or as "Ruthenian." The term "Ruthenia" is itself a Latin exonym derived from the latinized form of the term "Роусь", transliterated as "Rus'", the word from which Russia derived - it makes very little sense to imply that the Rurikids were somehow not-Russian is ahistorical. The Anglo-Saxon house of Wessex is English - we get the word "English" from Anglo-Saxon. Same logic applies to the Rurikids and the Rus' rulers. ZelenMelen ( talk) 18:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)