2007-02-28 14:52:06 · 5 answers · asked by Vy-Vy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
He probably would have done better as a British monarch than as a tsar. As a British king, he would not have had the responsibility for governing the country, that is done by the government. As tsar, he was responsible for the entire country, and he had never been brought up to do the job.
2007-03-01 03:41:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nicholas II would not have made an excellent British king. He didn't make an excellent Russian Tsar which is why he was overthrown and eventually murdered.
2007-03-01 00:27:44 · answer #2 · answered by Irish1952 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was an atrocious Tsar of the 'Russian Empire'.Presumably,he would have made a terrible 'King'
of England.
His idiotic 'leadership' led to the communist revolution.
Additionally,if 'Woodrow Wilson' had kept the 'U.S' out,'Germany' would have won,there would have been no opportunity for nuts,such as 'Hitler'and a drunken murderer called
'Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill',to have another war 20 years later.In this case,only 'France' would have been occupied.
2007-03-01 01:26:21 · answer #3 · answered by christian b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he wouldn't have had to make any decisions . He wasn't very strong mentally.
2007-03-01 19:59:13 · answer #4 · answered by Sunshine Suzy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. Deadlyishly so.
2007-03-01 23:25:27 · answer #5 · answered by Dethruhate 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋