The widow of Boris Grachevsky, Ekaterina Belotserkovskaya, disclosed in a private chat that she did not permit him to remarry. The conversation first surfaced on HABER.ru, where she opened up about the nature of her long marriage and what it has meant to her personally.
Belotserkovskaya painted a portrait of unwavering devotion. She reflected on her past, noting that before meeting Boris she had her share of loves and passions, yet she came to feel a lasting bond only with him. In her words, love became something deeper and more permanent as soon as she connected with Grachevsky, a sentiment she described as a kind of lifelong affection that settled into her heart.
She stressed that she could not imagine sharing a life with another man. The concept she raised is sometimes described as swan loyalty, a belief in a monogamous, enduring commitment that transcends ordinary romance. In her telling, Boris not only captured her affection but also shaped her sense of life and family. She added that her current priorities focus on their son, whom she regards as the central figure in her life. The idea that a child could be the greatest joy resonates strongly in her statements, illustrating how central parenthood has become for her and how it has redefined her own happiness.
Historical details about their union show that Boris Grachevsky and Ekaterina Belotserkovskaya wed in 2016. They welcomed a son named Philip on April 8, 2020, a milestone that further deepened their family bond. Later, the director experienced the joy of fatherhood again when a new child joined their family, although the family faced sorrow with a miscarriage after Boris’s passing in January 2021. The loss marked a difficult period, yet the family remains connected through memories and the life they built together, including the role of Philip as a guiding presence for Ekaterina as she navigates life after his death.
In another note tied to the broader circle of public figures, a reference to a different personality emerged. It mentions that there was a long-held reputation about the way names and symbols were presented, a statement attributed to another notable figure. This is not tied directly to the Grachevsky family but appears to be part of a larger narrative circulating in media discussions about public personas and family symbolism.