Charles Albert of Savoy, Emperor of Mexico

[Alpha413]

So, between 1821 and 1822 the newly independent Mexico was searching for a European prince to crown Emperor, after the refusal of Ferdinand VII, preferably a Bourbon. During the same period, Charles Albert of Savoy-Carignano had been exiled to Florence after his involvement in an attempt to to force the King of Sardinia to accept a constitution.
So let's say that, after not being able to recruit Bourbon prince, and hearing of the above, decide to offer the throne to Charles Albert, who, maybe excluded from the line of succession, as the then king, Charles Felix, wanted, accepts it.

So now Mexico has got its European prince, and Italy lacks its Hamlet. What's is probably going to happen next? If the scenario is possible.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Doubt its possible, unlikely any European power would be willing to fight Spain to get Mexico an emperor.

What makes the situation worse, Carlo Felice never sired an heir, and as far as I know, once he dies, Carlo Alberto is the last of the Savoyards. What becomes of Sardinia-Piedmont, now that its monarch is in the New World?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Doubt its possible, unlikely any European power would be willing to fight Spain to get Mexico an emperor.

What makes the situation worse, Carlo Felice never sired an heir, and as far as I know, once he dies, Carlo Alberto is the last of the Savoyards. What becomes of Sardinia-Piedmont, now that its monarch is in the New World?

Legally Savoy was under Salic Law. However, IIRC at some point Vittorio Emanuele I's queen wanted their eldest daughter (Maria Beatrice, who was married to Italy's hangman, Francesco IV of Modena) to succeed. Apparently this WAS earnestly considered due to their distaste for Carlo Alberto. Besides, Austria rules the rest of northern Italy, France is the only power I could see objecting.

And Carlo Alberto WASN'T the last of the Carignanos. There was still a junior line (the Carignano-Villafrancas). But I'm unsure of where they ranked on a scale of legitimacy. According to some sources somewhere along the line there was a morganatic marriage. Which, considering that morganatic marriages (AIUI) are non-existent in Italy, I imagine that they would be next in line for the Sardinian throne.

 

[LordKalvan]

Legally Savoy was under Salic Law. However, IIRC at some point Vittorio Emanuele I's queen wanted their eldest daughter (Maria Beatrice, who was married to Italy's hangman, Francesco IV of Modena) to succeed. Apparently this WAS earnestly considered due to their distaste for Carlo Alberto. Besides, Austria rules the rest of northern Italy, France is the only power I could see objecting.

And Carlo Alberto WASN'T the last of the Carignanos. There was still a junior line (the Carignano-Villafrancas). But I'm unsure of where they ranked on a scale of legitimacy. According to some sources somewhere along the line there was a morganatic marriage. Which, considering that morganatic marriages (AIUI) are non-existent in Italy, I imagine that they would be next in line for the Sardinian throne.

It is quite an extreme POD to see Carlo Alberto accepting the throne of Mexico, getting some support out of Europe and making a success of his reign. If it works (against all odds) and the succession crisis comes up on schedule, there is the possibility that his second son (Ferdinando, born in 1822) might take the crown of Piedmont-Sardinia. It would require quite a long regency, but OTOH Carlo Alberto himself had his hands pretty tied during the first decade of his reign. Interestingly enough, the Sicilian insurgents offered the crown of the island to Ferdinando in 1848, and apparently the British were supportive (while France was against, obviously).
Carlo Alberto's defeat at Custoza killed this possibility.
Ferdinando died pretty young (33 years old) of some illness I wasn't able to pinpoint precisely, but he left a son (Tommaso, born the year before his death) and Margherita (who IOTL married her first cousin Umberto I, becoming queen of Italy).

 

[Vitruvius]

Carlo Alberto WASN'T the last of the Carignanos. There was still a junior line (the Carignano-Villafrancas). But I'm unsure of where they ranked on a scale of legitimacy. According to some sources somewhere along the line there was a morganatic marriage. Which, considering that morganatic marriages (AIUI) are non-existent in Italy, I imagine that they would be next in line for the Sardinian throne.

I don't believe the Villafrancas were dynastic because the founder of the line, Charles Albert's great uncle Eugene, had eloped and married a minor French noble without permission of the head of his own house, the King of Sardinia, nor of the King of France in whose court he was resident at the time. So after attempts to annul the marriage it was decreed that they could remain married but their descendents would be non-dynastic. Charles Albert elevated their grandson, his cousin, to Prince of Savoy after he became King so I suppose it can be done but it seems like they may be more inclined to recognize Maria Beatrice than a Villafranca.

As to Charles Albert's sons, would it be more likely that his elder son would return home to take up the rule of Sardinia? I'm just thinking that a European throne might seem more attractive than one in the Americas, especially if Mexico is unstable as I think it would likely be.

 

[LordKalvan]

As to Charles Albert's sons, would it be more likely that his elder son would return home to take up the rule of Sardinia? I'm just thinking that a European throne might seem more attractive than one in the Americas, especially if Mexico is unstable as I think it would likely be.

It'd going to be a decision made by CA, since both sons would be underage at the death of Carlo Felice. In any case, CA would have been emperor of Mexico for almost a decade: this should mean that the throne of Mexico is not so unstable.
More important, Vittorio Emanuele would be the heir to the Mexican throne, and I don't remember a case where the heir renounced the title to assume a different crown. It would also be a very unpopular decision in Mexico.
A second son taking the crown of Sardinia would certainly be more acceptable, even if it would imperil the succession of Mexico by removing a spare wheel (maybe in TTL CA can manage to sire a third son - he'd be in a better psychological condition than he was OTL during the 1820s).
As far as Maria Beatrice and her disgusting husband are concerned, I think that France (and possibly Great Britain too) might not be so eager to have such an aggrandizement of Austrian power in Italy.

 

[Alpha413]

It'd going to be a decision made by CA, since both sons would be underage at the death of Carlo Felice. In any case, CA would have been emperor of Mexico for almost a decade: this should mean that the throne of Mexico is not so unstable.
More important, Vittorio Emanuele would be the heir to the Mexican throne, and I don't remember a case where the heir renounced the title to assume a different crown. It would also be a very unpopular decision in Mexico.
A second son taking the crown of Sardinia would certainly be more acceptable, even if it would imperil the succession of Mexico by removing a spare wheel (maybe in TTL CA can manage to sire a third son - he'd be in a better psychological condition than he was OTL during the 1820s).
As far as Maria Beatrice and her disgusting husband are concerned, I think that France (and possibly Great Britain too) might not be so eager to have such an aggrandizement of Austrian power in Italy.

Would the succession of Maria Teresa and her husband be a possible alternative? Maybe permanently giving up the Duchy of Parma (who would it go to, tough? Would it got to Napoleon II, if he survives?) , and having Lucca be integrated into Tuscany earlier?

 

[LordKalvan]

Would the succession of Maria Teresa and her husband be a possible alternative? Maybe permanently giving up the Duchy of Parma (who would it go to, tough? Would it got to Napoleon II, if he survives?) , and having Lucca be integrated into Tuscany earlier?

Scraping the barrel, are you?
Carlo II di Borbone-Parma was somehow better than Ferdinando IV di Asburgo-Este, but that is a very easy result to achieve: on the plus side, he was a nicer guy and with some liberal (for a given value of liberal, at least); on the minus side, he never showed any interest in governing (in 1849, barely 50 years old, he abdicated, leaving the crown of Parma to his son Carlo III - a nasty man who got assassinated in 1855 by revolutionaries), liked travels and was a spendthrift and an hedonist and whenever he got involved in ruling his decisions were humeral and erratic. Incidentally, his marriage to Maria Teresa was far from a success story: the two were seldom together, their and it is surprising they managed to sire an heir. This said, I don't think it likely that either Carlo or Maria Teresa would have actually canvassed for the crown of Sardinia.
There would be also the problem of the succession of Parma: IMHO, the most obvious solution would have been to give Piacenza to Piedmont and Parma to Austria, but this would have given Austria a strong foothold on the right bank of the Po river and changed the balance in Italy.
There is also the question of who would support Carlo's candidacy to the crown of Sardinia, leaving aside the obvious problem of the Salic law. Louis Philipe of France might have supported him (Carlo II had recognized him as soon as he got the French throne), but Austria would have seen the danger of an increasing French influence in Piedmont-Sardinia, and would have been wary of the danger of installing a king with dangerous liberal leanings. I don't have any idea of what the UK would have thought of this possibility.
If this has to work (and it is a very unlikely possibility), the best option might have been for Carlo's son to get the Sardinian crown (he'd be 8 years old, which again would require a lengthy council of regency). Carlo jr. would also renounce his rights to the duchy of Parma, which at the death of Maria Louise would be split between Sardinia and Austria. Maybe Carlo II would also sell his rights in Lucca to Tuscany (as he did IOTL in 1847), and would have little or nothing to do with the education of his son. Maria Teresa would probably be on the council of regency for Carlo jr.
Carlo jr. was described by contemporaries as a "stubborn, impetuous child who never managed to grow up", and it is quite likely he will end up in the same way ITTL too: after all, IOTL he spent his youth in Piedmont too, enrolled in the Sardinian army by grant of his uncle Carlo Alberto, but not even the harsh army discipline succeeded in curbing his excesses; OTOH, he acquired a taste for everything military, although he never shone in the field. I cannot judge if living since boyhood in Turin under a Regency Council would have improved his character.

 

[Alpha413]

Scraping the barrel, are you?

Eh, frankly I wanted to see how 1848 would be influenced by the lack of Charles Albert. I figured the OTL Duke of Genoa would act somewhat like his father (maybe being more decisive, but I'm not sure if that would have meant Sardinia winning against Austria), so I figured having an harsher reactionary as the King of Sardinia would lead to an interesting situation.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

As far as Maria Beatrice and her disgusting husband are concerned, I think that France (and possibly Great Britain too) might not be so eager to have such an aggrandizement of Austrian power in Italy.

Would Britain even have a say? I mean most 19th century decisions regarding Italy were between France and Austria without reference to London. Wasn't there the joke that Palmerston (or whoever) was the only politician in England who cared for a united Italy?

That said, perhaps the Habsburgs can reach a rapprochement with the July Monarchy over Italy. Austria wouldn't want the liberal duke of Lucca/Parma as ruler of Savoy-Sardinia. France doesn't want ultra-conservative Francesco IV. Perhaps a deal brokered that Savoy goes to Francesco's son (but NOT Francesco), and said son marries a French princess (one of Louis Philippe's daughters). Modena stays with Francesco for his lifetime, but passes to his brother (instead of his son) when he dies. It avoids creating a unified Habsburg bloc in north Italy (and lets ace it, despite most of the rulers being Habsburgs the ran the gamut from ex-Empress Maria Luise's "liberal" regime in Parma to Francesco IV's "ultra" one in Modena). And deprivation of their Modenese inheritance means that the duke of Savoy's probably gonna have some serious dislike of his cousin in Vienna. Which is something France can exploit.

 

[LordKalvan]

Eh, frankly I wanted to see how 1848 would be influenced by the lack of Charles Albert. I figured the OTL Duke of Genoa would act somewhat like his father (maybe being more decisive, but I'm not sure if that would have meant Sardinia winning against Austria), so I figured having an harsher reactionary as the King of Sardinia would lead to an interesting situation.

From the (scarce) sources I've been able to find, it appears that Ferdinando was a serious guy, with a predisposition for mathematics (which is why he made his army career in the artillery, not the most obvious path for a prince, and even more surprisingly he had to submit to a competitive examination before entering the School of Artillery). The flavor of the Sardinian court under a regency would not be very different from the flavor of the same court under CA, which makes me believe that his personality would not be affected. By the time he gets the throne, the dinosaurs inherited from the previous reign of Carlo Felice should be a bit long in the tooth, and the new king might open the door to "liberal" ideas more easily than it was for CA, with all the baggage that his father had accumulated in the 1820s. Interestingly enough, he might end up marrying in 1845 archduchess Olga (Nicola I had proposed this marriage IOTL too, and the young couple apparently fell in love with each other; the marriage was vetoed by CA, who insisted the archduchess should convert to catholicism before the marriage, and Ferdinando was so upset by this that he refused to marry until 1850). There might be some benefit if this marriage happens, and the possibility to get an heir almost a decade earlier than OTL.
I am pretty sure Ferdinando would be much more decisive than his father in 1848, and this is likely to result in a much better result in the war.

Would Britain even have a say? I mean most 19th century decisions regarding Italy were between France and Austria without reference to London. Wasn't there the joke that Palmerston (or whoever) was the only politician in England who cared for a united Italy?

With Carlo Alberto in Mexico, the problem of the succession to the throne of Sardinia would certainly become one of the major topics of the Powers' diplomacy, once Carlo Felice proves to be unable to sire an heir, and I believe that Britain would certainly be involved. It might even tie in with the 1830 revolution in Bruxelles (when Louis Philipe was kept out from interfering, much less getting some spoils). I think the issue of the Belgian independence and the succession to the throne of Sardinia might be ultimately decided at the Conference of London, in 1830, where Britain would certainly have a say, at least to avoid a further Austrian encroachment in Northern Italy and keep a "neutral" state between Austria and France.

 

[snerfuplz]

Given how many civil wars, rebellions and revolutions marked Mexican history until the 1940's I'd say it won't be long till a liberal government sends Prince Albert packing back to Europe

 

[isabella]

From the (scarce) sources I've been able to find, it appears that Ferdinando was a serious guy, with a predisposition for mathematics (which is why he made his army career in the artillery, not the most obvious path for a prince, and even more surprisingly he had to submit to a competitive examination before entering the School of Artillery). The flavor of the Sardinian court under a regency would not be very different from the flavor of the same court under CA, which makes me believe that his personality would not be affected. By the time he gets the throne, the dinosaurs inherited from the previous reign of Carlo Felice should be a bit long in the tooth, and the new king might open the door to "liberal" ideas more easily than it was for CA, with all the baggage that his father had accumulated in the 1820s. Interestingly enough, he might end up marrying in 1845 archduchess Olga (Nicola I had proposed this marriage IOTL too, and the young couple apparently fell in love with each other; the marriage was vetoed by CA, who insisted the archduchess should convert to catholicism before the marriage, and Ferdinando was so upset by this that he refused to marry until 1850). There might be some benefit if this marriage happens, and the possibility to get an heir almost a decade earlier than OTL.
I am pretty sure Ferdinando would be much more decisive than his father in 1848, and this is likely to result in a much better result in the war.



With Carlo Alberto in Mexico, the problem of the succession to the throne of Sardinia would certainly become one of the major topics of the Powers' diplomacy, once Carlo Felice proves to be unable to sire an heir, and I believe that Britain would certainly be involved. It might even tie in with the 1830 revolution in Bruxelles (when Louis Philipe was kept out from interfering, much less getting some spoils). I think the issue of the Belgian independence and the succession to the throne of Sardinia might be ultimately decided at the Conference of London, in 1830, where Britain would certainly have a say, at least to avoid a further Austrian encroachment in Northern Italy and keep a "neutral" state between Austria and France.

We can not have one of Carlo Felice’s girls born as boy? Or a younger brother for them?

 

[LordKalvan]

We can not have one of Carlo Felice’s girls born as boy? Or a younger brother for them?

In such a case, Carlo Alberto would have never become king

 

[isabella]

In such a case, Carlo Alberto would have never become king

Exactly and that will consent us to remove the Savoy-Carignano line from Savoy without upsetting their succession, something who would be better for everyone

 

[LordKalvan]

Exactly and that will consent us to remove the Savoy-Carignano line from Savoy without upsetting their succession, something who would be better for everyone

Sure. It would just be not what the OP asked.

 

[isabella]

Sure. It would just be not what the OP asked.

Well the OP never said anything about Savoy’s succession without Charles Albert (but he asked what will happen to Italy without him).
If Carlo Felice has a son, then Carlo Alberto will renounce to his position of second-in-line for the Mexican crown (and it is a situation in which he is much more likely to accept a foreign crown and to be removed from the line of succession in Savoy).
Without Charles Albert and his son on the throne is pretty likely who the Italian Kingdom will never be born (and looking better to the family tree I mixed Carlo Felice and his elder brother Vittorio Emanuele earlier, thinking who to the former was father of the latter’s daughters).
Really three brothers who had zero sons between them is a pretty difficult situation so we can butterfly it giving a son to either Vittorio Emanuele (born after his girls) or Carlo Felice (so his wife is not sterile like OTL). A son of Vittorio Emanuele born in 1813/15, who become King at the time of his father’s OTL abdication will need a regency at least until his 15th birthday (so at least until 1828 at the earliest, have him born in 1815 and the regency last until his 16th or 17th birthday and we can cover the full timespan of Carlo Felice’s OTL reign with his ATL regency).
I think who the existence of a male heir of Savoy’s mainline is needed for making Charles Albert as Emperor of Mexico, because getting him to renounce to Sardinia in the OTL situation (where he was almost guaranteed to inheriting the Crown) is pretty difficult.

 

[Alpha413]

Well the OP never said anything about Savoy’s succession without Charles Albert (but he asked what will happen to Italy without him).
If Carlo Felice has a son, then Carlo Alberto will renounce to his position of second-in-line for the Mexican crown (and it is a situation in which he is much more likely to accept a foreign crown and to be removed from the line of succession in Savoy).
Without Charles Albert and his son on the throne is pretty likely who the Italian Kingdom will never be born (and looking better to the family tree I mixed Carlo Felice and his elder brother Vittorio Emanuele earlier, thinking who to the former was father of the latter’s daughters).
Really three brothers who had zero sons between them is a pretty difficult situation so we can butterfly it giving a son to either Vittorio Emanuele (born after his girls) or Carlo Felice (so his wife is not sterile like OTL). A son of Vittorio Emanuele born in 1813/15, who become King at the time of his father’s OTL abdication will need a regency at least until his 15th birthday (so at least until 1828 at the earliest, have him born in 1815 and the regency last until his 16th or 17th birthday and we can cover the full timespan of Carlo Felice’s OTL reign with his ATL regency).
I think who the existence of a male heir of Savoy’s mainline is needed for making Charles Albert as Emperor of Mexico, because getting him to renounce to Sardinia in the OTL situation (where he was almost guaranteed to inheriting the Crown) is pretty difficult.

Frankly, I was interested of the effects of having someone else on their Sardinian throne (and its effects on the events of 1848) as well as the effects of Mexico having a European Monarch (or rather, of Italy having Charles Albert as its monarch, so a somewhat depressed, indecisive, maybe still somewhat liberal Italian prince).

Having one of Victor Emmanuel I daughters be born a male is not something I had considered, but it's an interesting possibility, partially because because it's easier, and partially because it might also lead to different events in 1830, especially if this alternate king (Victor Amadeus? Charles Emmanuel? Charles Victor? Charles Amadeus?) is somewhat liberal. Similarly 1848 is affected (if 1830 isn't) anyway, with Sardinia being either more successful (altough I don't think really see them completely winning anyway) or, if the new king is as reactionary as the ducale rulers, might mean either more support for a republican unification or that the Tuscan Habsburgs might take the lead in the unification process (which I don't believe is very likely to happen, but if it does, it might just result in a partial unification with an Austrian-aligned North Italian state).

The situation Mexico is also a going to be interssting, as Charles Albert being (hopefully) still somewhat liberal, a legitimate noble from a ruling house (and a quite old one at that), might lead to Mexico becoming a somewhat stable constitutional monarchy, which would make wonders to it, considering how messy it was for much of the 19th century.