WI: Nicholas II firstborn is a son?

So, what if instead of Olga a healthy non-hemophiliac boy is born?
Let's say his name is Constantine. There sure would be much less pressure on the Tsars family, and certainly no Rasputin ITTL. What else would it change?
P.S. I know that it probably should go to the Before 1900 forum, but as most of the consequences would happen in 20th century I posted it here.
 
Unfortunately for Russian Empire Nicholas II is still Nicholas II. Stupid and conservative so there wouldn't be much changes.
 
Rasputin was just a symptom of Romanov problems and gave the public something to gossip about. Given the conditions of the poor and working-class people, as well as Nicholas's mismanagement and refusal to abandon the autocracy, the Russian Revolution would still happen it just wouldn't have had as much drama as Rasputin brought.

Frankly the only way to prevent the Revolution was A) Russia goes constitutional monarchy before Nicholas (say during his grandfather Alexander II's reign) or B) Nicholas's father, Alexander III, lives longer and/or decides to begin training him for tsarhood at an earlier age instead of waiting until Nicholas was 30 (and dying when his son was 26).
 
This is actually a very interesting POD, though I doubt the boy would be named Constantine (more likely Alexander or Alexei). To begin with Nikolai II would have an heir near the beginning of his reign, one that would be of age, if barely, and able to assume the throne if things end up the same as OTL and around the same time. However a healthy boy in 1895 really changes things up.

First off, it was the lack of a son and heir over a 10 year period that led Empress Alexandra deeper and deeper into the realm of mystics and faith healers, most of which here charlatans and ending with Rasputin. With a healthy son right off the bat, Alexandra might not go headfirst into religious extremism, although considering her personality I'm not sure about it.

Second, Nikolai himself started out skeptical of his wife's religious extremes and only followed her lead when year after year passed with no heir and, eventually, when the awaited son was stricken with an incurable disease.
So even if Alexandra still goes off the deep end Nikolai himself might not, blocking the devastating influence of the false religious figures and eventually Rasputin.

Third, without shared grief over first the lack of a heir then over his illness, Alexandra's influence over Nikolai would be lessened. This also means that Alexandra won't be able to wield Alexei as a weapon to get her way, as she did OTL during World War I. A less influential Alexandra opens Nikolai up to alternative influences, such as the various Grand Dukes and his mother the Dowager Empress. This could lead to the family being able to convince Nikolai to grant at least some of the reforms Russia desperately needed.

In all, while such a change might not be enough to avoid the 1917 revolution, it does at the least change up some of the Russian landscape. Now whether or not this would be enough save Russia from Communist rule, I don't know.
 
Frankly the only way to prevent the Revolution was A) Russia goes constitutional monarchy before Nicholas (say during his grandfather Alexander II's reign) or B) Nicholas's father, Alexander III, lives longer and/or decides to begin training him for tsarhood at an earlier age instead of waiting until Nicholas was 30 (and dying when his son was 26).

True, altough with Alexander III surviving Russian Empire is still tricky. Best way would be that Alexander II's oldest son Nicholas lives long enough assuming throne (he was pretty reformist mind) and/or Alexander II lives 10 - 15 longer and dies from natural causes.

One way to save the empire could be that you make grand duke Michael Alexandrovich tsar instead Nicholas Alexandrovich. Perhaps Nicholas could die before his father and his younger brother George dies still dies on end of 1890's. But this way is pretty difficult. Michael was so conservative as Nicholas but he was too smarter.
 
Top