If there was no revolution and Russia was still a monarchy, would the Romanovs still be ruling?

Question

If there was no revolution and Russia was still a monarchy, would the Romanovs still be ruling?

Answer 1

Depends how the dynasty panned out.  I mean, there was a huge flu pandemic in 1918 - could have killed the entire family - in which case the answer is "No"  

But as they were all gunned down, in 1917 in that cellar - we cannot know

Answer 2

Emma M: a tsar is Russia's equivalent to a King not the family name

Answer 3

Its very possible that the Romanovs would still be in power had the Russian Revolution not taken place. Even if Tsareivitch Alexei had not survived to adulthood (he was the only son of Tsar Nicholas ll, the last Tsar) then Nicholas had a brother, Michael, who assumed the throne after his brother's murder. But only for a couple of days and not officially. So I think the line could certainly have survived.

Answer 4

It actually was looking quite bad for the Romanovs as Nicholas' and Alexandra's only male heir Prince Alexei was a hemophiliac. As there were no treatment available at the time any exacerbation of the disease could have most likely kill the prince. This will ultimately lead to another Royal House to be the Czars of Russia whoever marries the eldest princess and granted they have issues.

However if the Prince Alexei managed to marry and had male issue(s), then most likely the Romanovs will still be the rulers of Russia.

Answer 5

I doubt very much that the Romanovs would still be on the throne.

As with all the monarchies of Europe changes were coming prior to WWI . They would have had to recognize that their time was over.

Probably not during the time of Nicholas and Alexandra but more likely the next generation. I doubt the czarvitch would have survived so it would have to gone to the Tsar's next closest male relative. They

probably would have ended up with a constitutional monarchy like England.

Answer 6

Likely. Probably not ruling absolutely, but I think theyd still be there

Answer 7

that would depend, if Ivan the terrible was still the ruler of russia the Vasilyevich family will rule russia,

but , if Ivan's son became a priest the family of the chancellors or the closest family related to him will assume the throne of russia,

and the Romanov's could be part of the imperial line.

Answer 8

Maybe.

Allowing for all the factors other people have given like the war, the influenza etc - some haemophiliacs do live long enough, and did a hundred years ago, to have children - Queen Vic's youngest son Leopold for example, who had two children before he died.

There is an interesting book called Blood Relative, by Michael Gray, in which he claims he is the (illegitimate) son of Alexei, who had somehow survived Russia, with a connection of the British Royal Family. I won't spoil the book by telling you who(no, not Camilla!) . Fascinating reading.

So it is possible that Russia's throne would have been resumed in 1990 by Tsar Alexei the 5th, or whatever.

Answer 9

No, without Stalin there would have been no industrialisation and no electrification.  The country would have remained the corrupt, backward stricken h**l hole of a country that it was for the majority of the people.  

Without the massive (and incredibly costly in terms of human lives) industrial build up in the 1920s and 1930s Hitler would have rolled across the country in a very short time.

So, no revolution = a n**i occupied future for Russia (maybe under a puppet Romanov Tsar)

Answer 10

Probably. Even if Tzarevich Alexei didn't survive or had male heirs, and even if his sisters (or their heirs) weren't allowed to succeed, there were enough male heirs in the Romanov family  to continue the dinasty.

Answer 11

I thought the Tsars were the last monarchy before the revolution? (Or are they the same as the Romanovs?!) Whoever it was, if there was no revolution then yeah, I guess they'd still be ruling Russia. However Tsar Nicolas (the last ruler of Russia before the Revolution of 1917) only had one son and he was ill, with Epilepsy I think it was, so the line or royalty might have died out soon. I guess we'll never know!

Answer 12

Sure- without any doubt.

Answer 13

Yes,if Alexi had married and had a son,they would still be on the throne.Hemophilia is only passed through the female line.

Answer 14

Nicholas 's son had haemophilia.However he had other male members of the Romanov house who could have taken over, had his son died.However,I doubt that the communists would had left them at ease.There would have been a constant tussle for power.The communists might have won though(as they did)as communism sounds quite attractive on paper,but is quite difficult when put into practice(that's why it came to an end in Russia).The monarchy was already evolving into a powerful constitutional one(just like Liechtenstein or Britain's)though I doubt that Nicholas would have been as politically docile like Queen Elizabeth.The elected Duma(parliament)was mainly full of pro-communists that advocated reforms against the king's wishes,including the prohibition on private ownership of property,forcing him to dissolve  it.Out of the three dumas to follow,only the second one ran its full course of 5 years ,with the fourth duma volunteering its own dissolution during the first World War.

The first World War was a complete and utter disaster for Russia. By the autumn of 1916, among the Romanov family desperation reached the point of which Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich, younger brother of Alexander III and the Tsar's only surviving uncle was deputed to beg Nicholas to grant a constitution and a government responsible to the Duma. Nicholas sternly refused, reproaching his uncle for asking him to break his coronation oath to maintain autocratic power intact for his successors. In the Duma on 2 December 1916, Purishkevich, a fervent patriot, monarchist and war worker denounced the dark forces which surrounded the throne in a thunderous two hour speech which was tumultuously applauded. "Revolution" he warned "and an obscure peasant shall govern Russia no longer!"....th rest is history.

Contrary to common belief, the Romanov family is far from extinct. The proper line of succession to the Russian throne is contested, but the Russian people have so far evidenced little popular support for the resurrection of a Russian monarchy, even on a constitutional basis.The current claimants to the now defunct throne are Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia and Prince Dimitri Romanov.However the legality of their claims can be doubted as Nicholas had legally abdicated on March 1917,while most of the ancestors of other claimants had not before being kicked out(such as the king of Bulgaria) .They also don't command the support of substantial amount of the Russian population.