What if the Russian royal family had produced a capable heir before the February Revolution, and the Romanovs had clung to power?
In the final years of World War One, the Russian economy begins to fail, causing widespread famine, disease and poverty. As a result, anti-monarchist movements begin to develop, leading to the coup that would later become the February Revolution. A faction of republican rebels begins inciting strikes and minor revolts as a way of protesting the harsh working conditions of the time, which quickly evolves into a movement against the Tzar himself.
Tsar Nicholas II responds by forming an advisory body, the Duma, to give the appearance of democratization. However, he does not give them any actual power, which results in widespread outrage amongst the people. The Tsar quickly attempts to suppress the movement by sending the military to disrupt protests, which only results in leftists within the army turning against him. Eventually, a large part of his army joins the rebellion.
In 1917, while the Tsar is on a train ride to Moscow, a contingent of traitorous soldiers orders the train stopped, and Nicholas is brought out before the crowd. Confronted with the threat of death, Nicholas willingly abdicates. His power is passed along to his eldest son, Nicholas III.
Tsar Nicholas III
Public response to Nicholas's rise to power is mixed. Many among the republicans consider the continuation of the monarchy as a failure. However, many see it as a fulfillment of the revolution. Under the rule of Nicholas III, the economy improves, and rebuilding projects begin on a massive scale. The duma is abolished, and the power of the monarchy is increased greatly.