Short answer: Nicholas II could have theoretically changed the succession laws - but in a time of relative instability, it wasn’t a desirable or necessary option, or the 'done thing.'

Long answer: My answer will focus more on the background that led to your question – as after all, Nicholas II himself was keenly aware of his imperial legacy and what the monarchy represented.

The success of autocracy depends mainly on the quality of the individual - not the actual bloodline or genetics of the ruler.

With that in mind: in old Russia, by which I mean from medieval times until the 1700s, the tsar’s eldest son would succeed him. However, in an era of massive infant mortality, and plenty of murders and premature deaths thrown in, stability was not assured.

For example, in the 1500s, the offspring of Rurik dynasty tsar Ivan IV, better known as Ivan the Terrible, did not have much luck. All except two of Ivan VI's eight children died in childhood. Of these two survivors, Ivan the Terrible killed one in a characteristic fit of rage.

His only other surviving child, son and successor, Feodor I, had just one daughter, who died age two, and then he himself died in his forties, leading to the extinction of the Rurik dynasty.

Thus began the anarchic Time of Troubles, where Russia’s dynastic succession resembled an open-mic night of pretenders and claimants. Stability was only restored when nobles and clergy got together to elect 16-year-old Michael Romanov as tsar in 1613.

Young Michael’s own spurious claim to the throne was that his great-aunt Anastasia Romanovna had been married to Ivan the Terrible. For the nobles and clergy, Michael was a desirable candidate because of his lack of ties to them - a sort of neutral, blank slate candidate that everyone could agree on.

Becoming tsar, despite having been asked to do so, was not an appealing prospect for Michael, who seemed unwilling to step into the role.

Much of Russia lay in ruins, the treasury was empty, and Moscow was in such a condition that the young tsar did not at first even have a suitable palace to live in.

Yet in any case, Michael would reign and live long enough to have children of his own, thus becoming the first of the 300-year-old Romanov dynasty, which ruled Russia until 1917.

Thus follows in the 1600s several decades of stability for Russia.

Yet disputes between powerful noblemen threatened new unrest, which led to a rather bizarre situation where the young Peter I, Michael's grandson, ruled alongside his feeble-minded older half-brother Ivan V, (who in modern parlance probably had learning disabilities), under the regent Sophia, Peter's older half-sister and literal power behind the dual throne.

Here's a photo of that dual throne, which features on the left a small window where Sophia would whisper instructions to her young tsar-brothers.

With first-hand understanding of the importance of a clear succession un-marred by the nobility's squabbles, in 1722, the modernising Peter the Great abolished hereditary succession, and set in place a system where the tsar could personally choose who would succeed them.

Throne open

The law of Peter – who was ever a fan of upending Russia’s somewhat ossified systems of governance – placed no restrictions on age or gender.

However, the new law also left no specific guidelines as to who would be a suitable candidate. Should the tsar pick a commoner, or a prominent government minister, for example?

Yet in theory, scrapping hereditary succession should have had two benefits:

• The tsar gets to pick who they think is best – which ensures some degree of competence

• The threat of dynasties becoming extinct becomes a non-issue

However, the reality unfolded differently. All except three of Peter’s 14 children died in infancy, and Peter had his one adult son, Alexei, killed for treachery four years before the 1722 law. Thus, Peter most lacked options from among his own children.

Furthermore, Peter died before naming a surviving successor. One story is that Peter said “leave all to..” before expiring.

Whether or not the dying tsar said that, the succession was thus now open-ended.

The era of Palace coups

What followed would be known as the era of Palace coups throughout the rest of the 1700s. For a time, the late Peter's ministers, such as Alexander Menshikov, guided - or manipulated - whoever was on the throne, until he later himself fell victim to court intrigues.

This era of instability also brought about a certain dynamism. Yet at the same time, despite Peter’s open-ended succession law, no subsequent successor was a random stranger – all would have some hereditary claim, however spurious.

For the next few successions, power belonged to whichever family member of the Romanovs - whether by blood or marriage - was popular, ruthless or cunning enough to seize the throne.

This somewhat chaotic system would, on four occasions, also mean female family members taking the throne, sanctioned by the permissive succession law. (Don’t let anyone tell you Russia was completely backward in the 1700s!)

Fast forward to 1797, and Tsar Paul, the son of Catherine the Great, is on the throne.

Paul’s own mother Catherine, who he avidly disliked, had herself overthrown Peter III, her own husband and Paul’s father.

Desiring to bring proper order to the dynasty, Paul – whose own children fared better on the infant mortality stakes than many predecessors – set in place the Pauline succession laws.

In a nutshell, the laws meant that the throne passes to the closest male relative, usually a son or brother, and only to a woman if there are no males.

From now on, despite Paul’s own murder by court officials just a few years later, the succession - as it should have - passed to sons and brothers.

These laws brought a degree of stability to the dynasty – but arguably, stagnation too. No longer was any ruler like Peter or Catherine given the honourific title of 'Great'.

Due to Paul’s many surviving children, and the practice of marrying German princesses – a natural way to build alliances - the imperial family also grew in size, meaning there was never a shortage of potential rulers, like the days of old.

A woman would never rule Imperial Russia again.

No more fun

Historian Simon Sebag Montefiore neatly sums up the next century of rule in his book The Romanovs: 1613-1918:

After Emperor Paul’s brutal murder in 1801, all the monarchs were dutiful and hard-working, and most were charismatic, intelligent and competent, yet the position was so daunting for the normal mortal that no one sought the throne any more.

It was a burden that had ceased to be enjoyable. ‘How can a single man manager to govern [Russia] and correct its abuses?’ asked the future Alexander I. ‘This would be impossible not only for a man of ordinary abilities like me, but even for a genius.’

Why was being ruler not 'enjoyable' anymore? By the late 1700s, the growing power and population and status of Russia meant ever-greater responsibilities far beyond the capacity of a single ruler.

Increasingly, from the reign of Alexander I, ministerial delegation was called for - which meant that from the 1800s and onwards, the tsar's actual personal rule diminished somewhat. (This is part of the reason why Nicholas II, who worked within a long-held administrative framework, may not have wanted to just 'change the rules' arbitrarily.)

What's more, Alexander I’s above remarks were made in an era where unquestioned absolute power was still in fashion in Russia – where revolutionary movements did not yet exist.

Yet by the time Nicholas II takes the throne, in 1894, the world is changing – and Russia, too, as it becomes more industrialised and educated. These factors, among others, make the institution of monarchy look increasingly dated.

According to the laws – and the large size of the imperial family - Nicholas II was not short of heirs. Yet he and Alexandra felt strongly that heirs should come from their direct family line, not another.

Under the existing succession laws, Nicholas and Alexandra's daughters, when born, would be far down the succession list, and would only have ruled if all male dynasts were dead.

Until the birth of his only son, Alexei, Nicholas II’s heir was still his younger brother, Michael.

After Michael, the throne would pass to the family of uncle Grand Duke Vladimir - more that at the end of this answer.

Yet the mild-mannered Michael had little interest or desire to rule. (Nicholas’s middle brother, George, who was initially heir, was killed in an accident in the first few years of Nicholas II's reign).

Playing the role of the embarrassing relative, Michael would later cause a scandal by marrying the twice-divorced nobleman, Countless Natalia Brasova.

Noting Michael's un-tsar-like disposition, Maurice Paléologue, the last French Ambassador to the Russian Court said that the heir "had always been the feeblest of men; a weak character and weak-minded, but kindly, unassuming and affectionate."

The envoy added of Michael's mistress-turned-wife: "He only existed through her (Brasova)."

For her part, Empress Alexandra was equally unconvinced about Michael's ability to rule, remarking: “Misha will [if in power] get everything into a mess.”