Napoleon III would like a word with you.
They still wanted a lot of changes to allow more freedom, restrictions and more transparency... just not necessarily a formal republic.
Think about this - in CATO's own Human Freedom Index half of the top 16 countries are monarchies.
1 New Zealand - monarchy 2 Switzerland - republic 3 Hong Kong (definitely not going to be in #4 now) 4 Canada - monarchy 5 Australia - monarchy 6 Denmark - monarchy 6 Luxembourg - monarchy 8 Finland - republic 8 Germany - republic 10 Ireland - repulbic 11 Sweden - monarchy 11 Netherlands - monarchy 13 Austria - republic 14 United Kingdom - monarchy 15 Estonia - republic 15 United States - republic
Napoleon I, Emperor of the French (1804–1814)
Louis XVIII, King of France (1814–1824)
Charles X, King of France (1824–1830)
Louis Philippe I, King of France (1830–1848)
Napoleon III, Emperor of the French (1852–1870)
I'm not arguing either were good, just curious about your point of view here.
That said, the revolutionary spirit under Czar Nicolas II were completely rational, and understandable. The use of violence was needed because the ruling class was—unlike at the end of the Soviet Union—unwilling to make the revolution happen peacefully.
Nobody can tell the future. The fact that awful people might use the turmoil to seize power is not something that people are thinking about when they are trying to overthrow their current oppressors.
This is not necessary the case though, as seen after the Cuban or the Zapatista revolution in Chiapas, Mexico.
At some point revolution becomes necessary, and if democratic means remain unavailable, this revolution will be violent. Horrible people using the political turmoil will become a risk people are willing to take in this growing frustration.