Nicholas II ruled from 1894 until his abdication on 15 March 1917. His reign saw Imperial Russia go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Critics nicknamed him Bloody Nicholas because of the Khodynka Tragedy, Bloody Sunday, the anti-Semitic pogroms, his execution of political opponents, and his pursuit of military campaigns on a hitherto unprecendented scale. Under his rule, Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese War, including the almost total annihilation of the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. As head of state, he approved the Russian mobilization of August 1914, which marked the first fatal step into World War I, a war in which 3.3 million Russians would be killed,<4> thus leading to the demise of the Romanov dynasty less than three years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Nicholas_IIAnd a bonus, from your article...
The Bolsheviks had wanted to bring the tsar for a trial, but circumstances led to a quick decision to kill the whole family summarily. The Romanovs were being held by the Red Army in Yekaterinburg. As the civil war continued and the White Army (a loose alliance of anti-communist forces) were threatening to capture the city, the fear was that the Romanovs would have fallen into their hands. This was unacceptable to the Bolsheviks for two reasons: first, the tsar or any of his family members could provide a beacon to rally support to the White cause; second, the tsar or any of his family members if the tsar were dead, would be considered the legitimate ruler of Russia by the other European nations. This would have meant that he would have been able to negotiate for greater foreign intervention on behalf of the Whites. Soon after the family was executed, the city did in fact fall to the White Army.
So, in other words, if the adults were killed and the children survived, one of them likely would have been declared Tsar and the bloody stupidity of the Romanovs would have continued in their name, with or without Nicholas II himself.