Something that's always amazed me is some peoples criticism that the Vladimirovitchi were power hungry - as evidenced by Grand Duke Cyrill's behavior during the revolution. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say that the entire Romanov dynasty since it's establishment had an enormous lust for power. Look at all the legitimate rulers that were disposed by a family rival, or in the case of Catherine the Great their own wife. To me this is shortfall of the autocratic system, rather than a fault that the Vladimirovitchi alone possessed.
After Catherine's day, though, the family were raised to be tenaciously loyal to the Tsar in order to end the sort of palace revolution taht went on in her century - hence the oath each Grand Duke took at 16, etc. They were supposed to deploy their talents in the servcie of the Emperor, not against him - and in fact, faced with supreme power, many Grand Dukes balked at it (look at Konstantin Pavlvich, for instance). Others did whatever was required of them to the best of whatever ability they had an amused themslves the rest of the time. The most talented and dutiful of the Grand Dukes used their brains wholly in service of the throne - and the outstanding exaple of course is Konstantin Nikolaevich, my favouite.
:-) In his lifetime there were all manner of silly stories about his supposed lust of power, but not one of them was true.
It's a moot point as to whether Kiril's actions in 1917 were due to a lust for power or an attempt to save the throne, but his conduct to that point had hardly been that of a talented servant of the throne (even his mother was disapponted in all three of her sons), and this is the crux of peopels' criticusms of him, I think - he failed to act until he was in a position where personal power might seem to be the motive.
