WI: Greece Ruled by a Romanov

[Michael Wittmann]

On October 1862, Otto, the first king of Greece, was deposed by a popular revolt. The Greeks want to choose a pro-British King, Prince Alfred, but England refused to send him and gave Prince William of Denmark instead. What if they didn't vote for Alfred and supported a Russian (Romanov)? How will it affect Greece?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_h...ferendum,_1862

[Spengler]

I'm pretty sure the PTB of Europe wouldn't be supportive of such a likely friend of Russia on the throne of Greece.

[Grey Wolf]

This is interesting. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the details to my hands... I don't think its implausible in the reign of Aleksandr II, but as stated above would be a struggle to get the other guarantor powers of Greece to accept a Russian.

On the other hand, if its the will of the Greeks and the guy actually arrives in Athens, he's going to have a reasonable start on things

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Don_Giorgio]

I dont think its possible... If i am not mistaken Great Powers had signed a treaty which forbade any of their Princes to become King of Greece... And thats why George of Denmark was selected despite people choosing Prince Alfred of Britain in a referendum...

[cimon]

At that time it was impossible due to the adverse international scene.The best chance for a crowned Romanov in Greece was towards the end of the 18th century when Austria and Russia(Cathrine the Great)made an alliance
with the aim to end the European presence of Turkey and had divided most of the lands between them and the rest were to become a new Greek empire under her nephew Constantine Pavlovic who was learning Greek;if memory serves that was approximately 1791-92.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Highly implausible. They would reject a Romanov for the same reasons that they would reject Victoria's son Prince Alfred (despite the latter being the preferred alternative to the next Greek monarch).

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

Highly implausible. They would reject a Romanov for the same reasons that they would reject Victoria's son Prince Alfred (despite the latter being the preferred alternative to the next Greek monarch).

A small correction:Alfred was the one to refuse;the Greeks wanted Alfred as king due to the very strong pro-English party there,but Alfred refused as he found the new borderline that substituted the old one too restrictive.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Originally Posted by cimon

At that time it was impossible due to the adverse international scene.The best chance for a crowned Romanov in Greece was towards the end of the 18th century when Austria and Russia(Cathrine the Great)made an alliance
with the aim to end the European presence of Turkey and had divided most of the lands between them and the rest were to become a new Greek empire under her nephew Constantine Pavlovic who was learning Greek;if memory serves that was approximately 1791-92.

Wasn't that the very same Constantine that refused to take the Tsarist crown during the Decembrist Revolt?

[isabella]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Wasn't that the very same Constantine that refused to take the Tsarist crown during the Decembrist Revolt?

Yes and he was Catherine grandson not her nephew. OTL he refused the Crown because he renounced to his succession right for marry morganatically his mistress, a beautiful Polish Countess after the annulment of his first marriage

[Sian]

Originally Posted by cimon

A small correction:Alfred was the one to refuse;the Greeks wanted Alfred as king due to the very strong pro-English party there,but Alfred refused as he found the new borderline that substituted the old one too restrictive.

They is probably to be read as "great european states" which argeed that the new king of Greece shouldn't be a part of the English, French or Russian Royal houses. So any Romanov you find is falling for the same reasons as Alfred did.

Prince William of Denmark was a choice made, at least partially, because he had ties (through his siblings) to both the English (first sister Alexandra was bethorthed to Crown Prince Edward VII in 1862) and the Russian royal houses (second sister Dagmar was about to be bethorthed to Nicholas, heir presumtive of the Tsar throne, and when he died of Meningitis, before the marriage, she merried his younger brother Alexander III)

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Sian

They is probably to be read as "great european states" which argeed that the new king of Greece shouldn't be a part of the English, French or Russian Royal houses. So any Romanov you find is falling for the same reasons as Alfred did.

Prince William of Denmark was a choice made, at least partially, because he had ties (through his siblings) to both the English (first sister Alexandra was bethorthed to Crown Prince Edward VII in 1862) and the Russian royal houses (second sister Dagmar was about to be bethorthed to Nicholas, heir presumtive of the Tsar throne, and when he died of Meningitis, before the marriage, she merried his younger brother Alexander III)

The Danish royal house usually provided good candidates like George of Glieksburg who was to become king of Greece later on in 1862,the most successful king of Greece ever from the dynasty he had founded;meanwhile
the Greeks had to be content with that moron Otto of Wittelsbach until then.
On the point of relations you mentioned above,it was difficult at that time in Europe to find a royal family whose members were not related one way or another with the Hohenchollerns or the Hapsburgs(including of course the royal house of England).So these interelations were not counted for much unless they were going to influence the prospective king's succession.

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

Well I was wondering though why choose a foreigner to be king I mean surely one or two of the royal houses of the ERE must still be around by this point right or at least thier descendants. Why not make them the kings rather than the danes? Its a bit off topic but i always wondered why they didn't choose someone who was descended from the Eastern Roman empires noble families.... Otherwise romanov wouldnt work due to as other people said the very bad and volatile relations beetween the west and russia.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

Well I was wondering though why choose a foreigner to be king I mean surely one or two of the royal houses of the ERE must still be around by this point right or at least thier descendants. Why not make them the kings rather than the danes? Its a bit off topic but i always wondered why they didn't choose someone who was descended from the Eastern Roman empires noble families.... Otherwise romanov wouldnt work due to as other people said the very bad and volatile relations beetween the west and russia.

By the 19th century? Nope, at least not any clearly traceable lines.

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

By the 19th century? Nope, at least not any clearly traceable lines.

What about the house of hapsburg Lorraine apparently the Paleologians married into the montferrat housheaded by direct bloods of the palologians and it became ruling familye of mantua and from their the head of that dynasty founded house of hapsburg Lorraine. Or what about house de la roche which was merged i believe with the komnenoi house later on before byzantiums fall. So why not have a member of house lorraine be the king of the greeks since they technically have the closest ties to the former ruling dynasty of byzantium due to tracing descent from them. Edit: Apparently the family of mantua was gonzaga which was descended directly form the paloelogia of montferat and later on this bloodline pased to the dukes of lorraine who became hosue of hapsburg lorraine.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

What about the house of hapsburg Lorraine apparently the Paleologians married into the montferrat housheaded by direct bloods of the palologians and it became ruling familye of mantua and from their the head of that dynasty founded house of hapsburg Lorraine. Or what about house de la roche which was merged i believe with the komnenoi house later on before byzantiums fall. So why not have a member of house lorraine be the king of the greeks since they technically have the closest ties to the former ruling dynasty of byzantium due to tracing descent from them. Edit: Apparently the family of mantua was gonzaga which was descended directly form the paloelogia of montferat and later on this bloodline pased to the dukes of lorraine who became hosue of hapsburg lorraine.

That's a pretty tenuous connection. And I'm not sure the Greeks would want a member of the Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty (if any are willing).

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

That's a pretty tenuous connection. And I'm not sure the Greeks would want a member of the Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty (if any are willing).

Well it is tenous but they have the closest ties due to the gonzaga inehriting montferrat thus having blood of paleologia who ruled montferrat and then transferring on to house of lorraine that continued to have the blood of the Paleologiae. Or you could maybe have the count of Brienne be granted the kingship because the Brienne royal family was part of house de la roche the dukes of athens who under guy duke of athens married into the komennoi family uniting both houses. The roches later on became counts of brienne so technically they too have a connection with greek royalty slightly more direct than lorraine because they are descended from the Komennoi family former emperors of the rhomans and emperors of trebizond.

Other than this I think if the greeks knew that house lorraine descended from the house paleologos which greeks idolized remember the whole myth about the great konstantine XI paloeologos who was granted statehood. So im sure they willing to accept just that they need to know of the connection.

[Elfwine]

At that distance, would it mean anything?

It would be like Britain hunting down a Plantagenet descendant.

Granting Constantine XI sainthood doesn't mean the descendants of his brothers are held as equally awesome.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

What about the house of hapsburg Lorraine apparently the Paleologians married into the montferrat housheaded by direct bloods of the palologians and it became ruling familye of mantua and from their the head of that dynasty founded house of hapsburg Lorraine. Or what about house de la roche which was merged i believe with the komnenoi house later on before byzantiums fall. So why not have a member of house lorraine be the king of the greeks since they technically have the closest ties to the former ruling dynasty of byzantium due to tracing descent from them. Edit: Apparently the family of mantua was gonzaga which was descended directly form the paloelogia of montferat and later on this bloodline pased to the dukes of lorraine who became hosue of hapsburg lorraine.

Isn't that the same as saying why not have an Austrian king? Is there that great a difference between having an Austrian king and a Bavarian one? They are still going to be seen as foreigners, Germans, and Catholics. I don't really think the connection centuries past is going to make anyone think they really ARE Greek...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

At that distance, would it mean anything?

It would be like Britain hunting down a Plantagenet descendant.

Granting Constantine XI sainthood doesn't mean the descendants of his brothers are held as equally awesome.

Well apparently the english royal family is descended from the komnenoi as well due to the fact the brienne who were technically Komennoi due to the union between the houses under guy duke of Athens, and later on marguerite de his descendant married to the English royal family and so technically speaking all british monarchs since Henry VIII are descended from house komenoi technically because of marguerite of brienne who technically carries on the komenoi name because of the union.
according to wiki: Through her son Peter and his wife, Margaret de Baux, Marguerite was an ancestress of Queen consort Elizabeth Woodville and her siblings, King Henry VIII of England, and King Henry IV of France. Every English monarch after 1509 descended from her. Modern-day descendants include HM Queen Elizabeth II, the former Princess of Wales, Lady Diana, the Duchess of Cornwall, and the former Duchess of York.


Also it would mean something going back to what you said because the house of austria has more claim and more direct relations to the greeks due to connection to paleologos than does bavaria. So they should deserve it more than the bavarians because unlike bavarians they actually have claims and have the blood and inheirtence of the paleologia. Even if they arent equally awesoeme at least greeks would be happy that thier ruler was descended from the great greek royal families i think provided they convert to orthdox christianity.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

Well I was wondering though why choose a foreigner to be king I mean surely one or two of the royal houses of the ERE must still be around by this point right or at least thier descendants. Why not make them the kings rather than the danes? Its a bit off topic but i always wondered why they didn't choose someone who was descended from the Eastern Roman empires noble families.... Otherwise romanov wouldnt work due to as other people said the very bad and volatile relations beetween the west and russia.

Yes there were some in Greece and in Romania,but the fact was that the European powers were deciding on the issue;the Greeks themselves wanted to have a parliamentary democracy as it is evident in the writings of the conteporary writers and later ones,but none ask them about their preferences...it was the time the Vienna Congress was still powerful.