AHC: Catherine the Great of Russia begins transition to democracy?

Seriously. The women renounced the entire enlightenment after seeing what went down in France. She even seemed to blame herself and her early patronage of enlightenment figures for the Kings death.

Enlightenment at the time, at least in Catherine's eyes, had absolutely nothing to do with democracy.
As far as I can tell, she never entertained any even remotely "democratic" idea, either before or during the French Revolution, although certainly she was absolutely horrified of it.
 
There's a lot wrong with those sources quoted above:

  • Alexander didn't plan the coup; it was sprung on him by advisers of his father who hated his father. He was even in his father's castle at the time his father was murdered -- he was shown his father's body and told it was "time to rule!"
  • Paul was not unstable -- he just really, REALLY hated his mother -- but Alexander DEFINITELY was unstable; just look at his flip-flopping when it came to Napoleon and his religious mania.
  • And Catherine, as romanticized a ruler as she is now, in no way ruled legitimately; originally only a Prussian princess chosen by Tsarina Elizabeth to be her nephew's wife, she murdered her husband, the actual Tsar, in order to gain power -- and though, at first, she claimed to be ruling only as a regency for his son Paul, it very quickly became apparent that she was concentrating all the power in herself. There is no way in hell she ever would've condoned Russian democracy.
I'm just putting it forward as a single book. If you or anyone else has other sources which you think are good, please share them.
 
Your point concerning Alexander is very debatable. As debatable as the legend of Claudius being named emperor by chance and having had no hand in the plot to murder Caligula.
 
Catherine the Great never intended that her son Paul—weak, mentally unbalanced, and ineffectual—should succeed her. Instead, she favored her grandchildren, particularly Alexander, who was both bright and competent and shared her understanding of and commitment to rational government.
If you have enough power you can do whatever you want. The Tsar certainly had enough power to declare anyone they wanted successor.

First of all you should realize what were the patriarchal "father-son" relationship of Russian peasants of that age:
An old father is sitting by the window and sees his son entering the house.
Son: "My Father, you seem angry. Did I displease you?"
Father: "Yes, my son. I want to punish you, but I am too weak and I need that big stick over there to give you a proper beating. Give me that stick! Quick!"
Son: "Here you are, Father. Take this stick and beat me. But be careful, don't try too hard, I am afraid that this effort might hurt your health".

Of course the above was kind of ideal situation. In real life there was sometimes a son who struck his own father. Well in this case the son was taken by authorities into the Central square and the son's hand was cut off. In a clear sight of approving crowds.

Why am I telling you this?
Because 99% of the Russian population shared this mentality:
" - Father is the head of the family and his son(s) must obey him."
That was a cornerstone of the traditional Russian patriarchal family and all Russian life in general.

So if Catherine the Great keeps her son Paul alive but appoint his son (her grandson) as her successor... well, when she is dead, Paul goes to the nearest Russian regiment and says to the soldiers: "You see, guys, I feel mistreated by my Mother. I think that the throne belongs to me. It is wrong if son is on the throne when his Father's alive"
Every Russian soldier feels that Paul is right. And I mean 'every soldier'. And they declare Paul the tsar/emperor.
If there are some officers who disagree with Paul - they are butchered on the spot by the soldiers. The same happens with all military units.
A few days later the Empire belongs to Paul.
end of story

So the only variant for Catherin the Great was to murder her son Paul in order to make certain that her successor would be Alexander or any other her grandson.
I think she seriously contemplated this decision, but she did not make it.
It was too tough, even for her...
 
Please understand that the quote, "Catherine the Great never intended that her son Paul—weak, mentally unbalanced, and ineffectual—should succeed her."

That's not me. That's the author of the book Stephen Haycox saying this. This 2002 book lists him as a professor of history at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. Of course, he might be mistaken, might have a pet theory, be championing a position, be too quick to dismiss some other position, etc., etc., etc.
 
I know Catherine and Paul had serious problems each other, to the point Paul decided to make it so women could never inherit the throne.

As for Democracy that's really tough if not impossible, the Romanov's managed to weaken and end the only democratic system Tsarist Russia had prior, the Zemsky Sobor or assembly of the land. Even before the Romanov's, Ivan the Terrible destroyed the power of non-compliant or "disloyal" boyars (among well a portion of the general population period).
 
Top