If Russia became a Constitutional Monarchy and the Monarchy was ever abolished

Jan 2013
103
United State
Let suppose that during the 18th and 19th Centuries, Russia becomes a constitutional monarchy following very much the English pattern of form of constitutional monarchy. By the early 20th Century Russia is fully democratized into a true constitutional monarchy very much like that in Great Britain. The Russian Monarchy was never abolished.

As a result, there is no Russian Revolution. Communism never takes hold. The Soviet Union never exsist. Even today (2007) Russia is still a constitutional monarchy, its government is very very much like the government is in The UK. How would that have affected World War 1 and World War 2 and the events that followed. Would there have still been. A Cold War?
 

bartieboy

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,616
The Netherlands
Don't expect an answer in a few hours.
I don't find this question very interesting, it's extremely speculative and there are too many factors that come in to play to make an accurate guess making most guesses quite.... uninteresting.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,373
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Vladmir Putin would be king ...

A part this detail [and I guess that our good friend Vladimir Vladimirovic could enjoy this opportunity!], an eventual "constitutional" monarchy in Russia would have see a well peculiar constitution with the possibility that the parliament elects the king on a mere party base ... With the specification that only a party was allowed to enter parliament: the party made by the lobbies of the establishment.

It would have been a "constitutional monarchic dictatorship" ...
 

kazeuma

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,414
I would think this would require Alexander II to not be shot.
I agree here but I would also put in that there would be problems with Alexander II's heirs, Alexander the III was brutal - he would have problems with the idea of a constitution, and Nicholas II was a twit and his wife Alexandria was a twit. Curing Alexander III would be an easy solition if his father lived, he would have become a moderate leader. Nicholas II, it would be best if he married the ballerina that he was dating before Alexandria - the ballerina had brains in her head and she would have engendered some love in the common peoples for the Tsar.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
1. Curing Alexander III would be an easy solition if his father lived, he would have become a moderate leader.

2. Nicholas II, it would be best if he married the ballerina that he was dating before Alexandria - the ballerina had brains in her head and she would have engendered some love in the common peoples for the Tsar.
1. Actually, I think that Alexander III was very conservative even before his father was assassinated. Thus, having his father die peacefully instead of getting assassinated might have made his policies slightly more moderate, but not by much.

2. I am curious--would this have been a violation of the Russian rules of succession?

In addition, I am skeptical that either Alexander II or Alexander III would have approved of such a marriage for Nicholas II.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Let suppose that during the 18th and 19th Centuries, Russia becomes a constitutional monarchy following very much the English pattern of form of constitutional monarchy. By the early 20th Century Russia is fully democratized into a true constitutional monarchy very much like that in Great Britain. The Russian Monarchy was never abolished.

As a result, there is no Russian Revolution. Communism never takes hold. The Soviet Union never exsist. Even today (2007) Russia is still a constitutional monarchy, its government is very very much like the government is in The UK. How would that have affected World War 1 and World War 2 and the events that followed. Would there have still been. A Cold War?
Perhaps the best way for this to occur would be to have Tsarevich Nicholas (later Tsar Nicholas II in real life) get assassinated in 1891 in the Otsu incident. This would have made Nicholas's younger brother George the new Tsarevich. In turn, George would become Russian Tsar after Alexander III's death in 1894. Since George had tuberculosis, he would have probably abdicated and/or died shortly afterwards (as in real life). Thus, George's and Nicolas's younger brother Michael would have likely become the new Russian Tsar sometime in the late 1890s. As far as I know, Michael did appear to have some liberal sympathies, and thus, if he manages to survive for several decades after he would have become Tsar (say, until the 1950s or 1960s), he might have been both willing and able to eventually make Russia a genuine constitutional monarchy by the time of his death, as well as to hopefully avoid making some or all of the stupid decisions which his elder brother Nicholas made in real life (which in turn might have ensured the survival of the Russian monarchy up to the point of Michael's death and beyond).

There--how is that?
 

kazeuma

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,414
1. Actually, I think that Alexander III was very conservative even before his father was assassinated. Thus, having his father die peacefully instead of getting assassinated might have made his policies slightly more moderate, but not by much.

2. I am curious--would this have been a violation of the Russian rules of succession?

In addition, I am skeptical that either Alexander II or Alexander III would have approved of such a marriage for Nicholas II.

Actually Marrying the ballerina would not have been a violation of the rules of succession. According to Massie in "Nichlas and Alexandria" Alexander III nearly disowned Nicholas II for marrying Alexandria - he knew well that she might be a carrier of Hemophilia and a twit.

Alexander the Third actually met the ballerina and encouraged the relationship - she was so well spoken that she could stare-down Cossacks still in her toe-shoes! When the relationship failed, she was married off to one of Nicholas's relatives and lived nicely until the Russian revolution - then took her jewels and her family, fled Russia, and lived her life nicely in exile.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Actually Marrying the ballerina would not have been a violation of the rules of succession. According to Massie in "Nichlas and Alexandria" Alexander III nearly disowned Nicholas II for marrying Alexandria - he knew well that she might be a carrier of Hemophilia and a twit.

Alexander the Third actually met the ballerina and encouraged the relationship - she was so well spoken that she could stare-down Cossacks still in her toe-shoes! When the relationship failed, she was married off to one of Nicholas's relatives and lived nicely until the Russian revolution - then took her jewels and her family, fled Russia, and lived her life nicely in exile.
Wouldn't such a marriage on Nicholas's part have been a morganatic marriage, though?