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).
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).