WI: Tsar Vladimir I

Now I know the title is misleading, but this is not about Vladimir Lenin becoming a Tsar of Russia, but instead the Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich becoming Tsar. After doing research for my timeline A Long and Flowing Whig I came across some interesting information. Apparently, during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78(which IMTL is The Second Crimean War), Tsarevich Alexander was a General leading soldiers in the Balkans.

So I was wondering, what if Tsarevich Alexander was killed in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78? To my knowledge the position of Tsarevich would have passed on to the next male heir, which would have been the third son of Tsar Alexander II, Vladimir. What kind of Emperor would Vladimir have been? I can't find much information about him other then who he married or who his children were. Would he have been a "liberal" emperor like his father, or would he have been an arch conservative like his brother Alexander?
 
The Tsesarevich (this is strictly speaking the correct title, though people always seem to say Tsarevich instead) Alexander had two sons living in 1877, the future Nicholas II who was nine and Grand Duke George who was six. The latter died childless aged only 28, so later on it was the better-known Grand Duke Michael who was heir after Tsesarevich Alexei. Michael was not born until 1878, so in 1877 when to his family's loss but Russia's possible benefit you are killing off then-Tsesarevich Alexander the succession stood as:

1. Him
2. Grand Duke Nicholas
3. Grand Duke George
4. Grand Duke Vladimir, brother of 1 and uncle of 2 and 3

Then the line continued through all the other male dynasts in order, starting with Grand Duke Vladimir's infant sons. So the immediate successor to Alexander II would have been his grandson, the historical Nicholas II, but aged 13 not 26. Grand Duke Vladimir would therefore, one imagines, have been Regent of Russia until his nephew attained his majority. I know little of his character, but in Burke's he is described as a 'historian and wit', so perhaps his period of rule might not have been as regressive as that of his older and distinctly anti-intellectual brother Alexander III was. On the other hand, he would not as regent really be in a position to continue his father's programme of reforms, being a custodian rather than owner, so Russia would probably more or less have marked time until the Emperor was of age.

What effect the altered circumstances might have had on Nicholas II, and how the further course of his reign would have changed, are things to speculate about. It would be easy to say that the reign could hardly have gone worse, and so far as its ending is concerned that is true, but in fact despite all vicissitudes Nicholas II was fairly firmly on the throne in 1914, having ruled for two decades already, and Russia was at the time doing rather well economically. So actually it could have been worse, as well as a whole lot better, which there is certainly plenty of scope for.
 
Top