The Russian Succession

Pre-Pauline law Russian Succession has always confused me. I know it worked on a pass to the eldest male heir until Peter the Great started tinkering with it. Then it moved on to naming one's successor. Catherine the Great was still going to name Alexander I as her successor before she died, whereupon her son Paul established the succession as eldest son to eldest son.

Now, what I don't understand is, the Tsarevich Alexei (Peter the Great's only surviving and least favorite son) shortly before he died, was tried on questionable charges of treason. I've read that the "treason" was little more than a drunk making vague. But on his return to Russia after fleeing as far as Naples, he begged for clemency from his father, and offered to renounce his succession in favor of his younger (half-)brother.

And here's what I don't get: Alexei already had a son, OTL Peter II. So by renouncing his succession in favour of his half-brother, was he also voiding the claims of his own son and heir?

Secondly, if Peter the Great had left a surviving adult son by his second wife, would that son have automatically succeeded when Peter died rather than the grandson? The reason I ask, is Ivan III, Grand Prince of Muscovy, had a similar situation: he married twice, had sons from both marriages. But the son from marriage no. 1 died before Ivan. When Ivan died, he was succeeded by the eldest son from his second marriage - Vasily III (Ivan the Terrible's dad) - while the grandson languished in prison for four years and then died (whether of natural causes I'm sure is debateable).
 
Pre-Pauline law Russian Succession has always confused me. I know it worked on a pass to the eldest male heir until Peter the Great started tinkering with it. Then it moved on to naming one's successor. Catherine the Great was still going to name Alexander I as her successor before she died, whereupon her son Paul established the succession as eldest son to eldest son.

Now, what I don't understand is, the Tsarevich Alexei (Peter the Great's only surviving and least favorite son) shortly before he died, was tried on questionable charges of treason. I've read that the "treason" was little more than a drunk making vague. But on his return to Russia after fleeing as far as Naples, he begged for clemency from his father, and offered to renounce his succession in favor of his younger (half-)brother.

And here's what I don't get: Alexei already had a son, OTL Peter II. So by renouncing his succession in favour of his half-brother, was he also voiding the claims of his own son and heir?

Secondly, if Peter the Great had left a surviving adult son by his second wife, would that son have automatically succeeded when Peter died rather than the grandson? The reason I ask, is Ivan III, Grand Prince of Muscovy, had a similar situation: he married twice, had sons from both marriages. But the son from marriage no. 1 died before Ivan. When Ivan died, he was succeeded by the eldest son from his second marriage - Vasily III (Ivan the Terrible's dad) - while the grandson languished in prison for four years and then died (whether of natural causes I'm sure is debateable).

Well normally I leave things like this to Valena, but I'll take a crack at it. Up till the Pauline laws, and even passed that unofficially, the Russian succession seemed to be based on a rule of the strong/ Tsar's preference.

In the case of Alexei and Peter II, it had less to do with primogeniture or succession in general and more to do with Peter the Great's belief that his son was a traitor. It seems to me that it was similar to an attainder in England: if the title holder is guilty of treason then the rest of his family forfeits their estates as well, or in this case the throne. And there was the fact that Peter feared, rightly so, that Alexei/Peter II could be a figurehead to those opposed to the Petrine reforms. By disinheriting both, he removed that threat.

As for Catherine the Great and Paul, the situation was similar to that of Alexei and Peter. Both hated their current heir and believed that they would be poor rulers. However, in Catherine's case she had a readily available heir, already of age, while Peter the Great lacked one.
 
The succession law was first broken after death of Alexis I when three brothers reigned in a row (hence the gem with two co-Tsars), but Peter changed the law to succession by the will from primogeniture once it was clear that he won't have any more sons with Catherine. Once his son Peter Petrovich (b. 1715), died, he made the will system out of desperation. Otherwise, yes, it's Ivan III 2.0 in planning - grandson from first marriage passed over in favor of son from second.
 
Russia's succession from 1797 was governed by the Pauline Laws (named after Paul I who issued them) - effectively introduced Semi-salic law and formalised a requirement that members of the imperial family marry equally.
It was amended a couple of times and most was incorporated into the fundamental laws of the Russian Empire in 1906.

Peter the Great edict on the succession of 1722 allowed the Emperor to nominate an heir - but then died without doing so. It was the first written rule on the succession.
The court opted for his widow Catherine.

Prior to Peter the custom was male preference primogeniture although there were no set rules and it was bypassed on occassion.
 
Top