PETER PRINCIPLE

Re Edvard Radzinsky’s “The Last Tsar”:

“Former Soviet citizen” Jasmine d’Avignon-Lane’s claim (Letters, Sept. 6) that “the post-Catherine II Romanovs had no legal claim” to the Russian throne is based on serious misinformation.

It is not known if Peter III was sterile. What is know is that he suffered from phimosis, an abnormal growth of the foreskin, which made intercourse impossible and could only be remedied by circumcision.

After eight years of marriage, during which his wife amused herself elsewhere, Peter was persuaded to undergo the surgery, and the following year Catherine gave birth to her son, Paul. Although it was widely assumed that he was Sergei Saltykov’s son, Paul bore a striking physical and emotional resemblance to Peter III, who may actually have been his father.

I must also refute Ms. D’Avignon-Lane’s statement that Catherine II was not royal; she was of royal blood, being born a princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, one of the many tiny German states . . .

One other item: The caption under your photo is incorrect; the lady with the Tsar is not his wife Alexandra but their second daughter, Grand Duchess Tatiana.

JOHN P. LoCASCIO, ALHAMBRA