Are the conditions similar enough? China was after a second world war when monarchy worldwide had far less influence than 1917. While they were facing outside pressure after the revolution it was in proxy wars and via more significant rallying points such as Taiwan/Tibet. Both of those serve that same role but a 1917 monarch would be more culturally/politically relevant. It being a European monarch would mean the revolution is right outside France/Germany/Nonce Island instead of mostly threatening whatever colonial holdings around China that Europe could still manage. The empires opposing Bolshevism in the 1920s were the strong victors of WW1 instead of the mostly ravaged opposition to the CCP excluding the US, and they did just that with the Dalai Lama.
Are the conditions similar enough? China was after a second world war when monarchy worldwide had far less influence than 1917. While they were facing outside pressure after the revolution it was in proxy wars and via more significant rallying points such as Taiwan/Tibet. Both of those serve that same role but a 1917 monarch would be more culturally/politically relevant. It being a European monarch would mean the revolution is right outside France/Germany/Nonce Island instead of mostly threatening whatever colonial holdings around China that Europe could still manage. The empires opposing Bolshevism in the 1920s were the strong victors of WW1 instead of the mostly ravaged opposition to the CCP excluding the US, and they did just that with the Dalai Lama.