King Alfred of Greece

In 1862 Greece kicked out King Otto and looked for a new one, the British favorite, Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, The Duke of Edinburgh, second son of Queen Victoria, Greece held a plebiscite about it, the Prince won 95% of the vote, how ever The Queen was very much against loosing her Second Son 2 years after the death of The Prince Albert also the London Conference of 1832 had banned any of the Great Powers' ruling families from accepting the crown, but what if Queen Victoria supported the idea and The Duke of Edinburgh became King of the Hellenes in 1863?
 
I have to wonder what an English Prince as Greek Monarch does to fix Greece's very real problems.

He seemed to do ok as Duke of of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, though that was 30 year latter, plus he might get more favors from the UK than OTL King George I could get from his home (Denmark), also in OTL the UK gave King George I the Ionian Islands as a gift, maybe in this TL in 1878 the UK gives Greece Cyprus.
 
He seemed to do ok as Duke of of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, though that was 30 year latter, plus he might get more favors from the UK than OTL King George I could get from his home (Denmark), also in OTL the UK gave King George I the Ionian Islands as a gift, maybe in this TL in 1878 the UK gives Greece Cyprus.

That assumes that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 goes as OTL, and that the Congress of Berlin would still give them Cyprus.

And yeah, archaeogeek raises a salient point, shroud of snark aside.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
That assumes that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 goes as OTL, and that the Congress of Berlin would still give them Cyprus.

And yeah, archaeogeek raises a salient point, shroud of snark aside.

I suspect Cyprus is inevitable so long as the Ottoman Empire loses the war (far from a given) because it was seen as an essential outpost on the way to India. It was far more convenient than having to get coaling rights in Turkey or doing the circumnavigation of Africa.

Although I will note that Cyprus was nominally an Ottoman vassal until 1915.
 
I suspect Cyprus is inevitable so long as the Ottoman Empire loses the war (far from a given) because it was seen as an essential outpost on the way to India. It was far more convenient than having to get coaling rights in Turkey or doing the circumnavigation of Africa.

Although I will note that Cyprus was nominally an Ottoman vassal until 1915.

And given the British annexation policy (apart from Africa, where Rhodes' ambition bypassed reason) of taking strategic islands, that would make sense.

I do like counterfactual scenarios where the Ottomans win in 1877. :D
 

archaeogeek

Banned
And given the British annexation policy (apart from Africa, where Rhodes' ambition bypassed reason) of taking strategic islands, that would make sense.

I do like counterfactual scenarios where the Ottomans win in 1877. :D

Ironically, an Ottoman victory could pretty much be the best way to get maximum sized Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria if/when the empire collapses, as a) the Bulgarian exarchate wouldn't get split so early, b) the Sanjak of Novi Pazar (including Mitrovica Kosovska) remains Bosniak and c) we're unlikely to see a situation where the albanian vilayets are taking in too much slavic land during the Tanzimat, as a number of sanjaks which were annexed to Shkoder, Prizren and Berat were so because of the political consequences of the Russo-Turkish war (there was no way for Novi Pazar, Pristina (modern day Kosovo actually has parts of four different sanjak, two of which being Shkodra and Dukagjin) and Yanina to be vilayets of their own). Cetinje or Kotor would probably be a much larger city today (so much as anything in Montenegro can be called large), as Podgorica would remain an albanian provincial town. It really depends what course the Tanzimat takes.

Also I suspect Rhodes' ambition was mostly allowed to run because of the whole backwater aspect of South Africa; the colony was pretty damn neglected by London after Cyprus was leased from the Ottomans (and actually tended to have net emigration because of gold prospectors)
 
Last edited:
In 1862 Greece kicked out King Otto and looked for a new one, the British favorite, Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, The Duke of Edinburgh, second son of Queen Victoria, Greece held a plebiscite about it, the Prince won 95% of the vote, how ever The Queen was very much against loosing her Second Son 2 years after the death of The Prince Albert also the London Conference of 1832 had banned any of the Great Powers' ruling families from accepting the crown, but what if Queen Victoria supported the idea and The Duke of Edinburgh became King of the Hellenes in 1863?

So it would be more of a Greek wank than it was in OTL? They shall get Constantinople. ;) Just because their ruler's a Brit.
 
So it would be more of a Greek wank than it was in OTL? They shall get Constantinople. ;) Just because their ruler's a Brit.

But but but George III lost a war against the colonial upstarts! ;) Granted, of course, said colonials had help from France and Spain...
 
But all Canada has are beavers, and look at what it turned out. :p

He's not in Canada anymore, is he? All we have to do is get rid of Celine Dion and Canada can be proclaimed a true utopia! :D

But not wanting to stray from the topic at hand, nothing really changes. Greece is still Britain's vassal state in the Balkans and an Englishmen won't help the Greeks get much luck with the Ottomans. Britain wants the status quo and if anything, it'll restrain the Greeks much more.
 
He's not in Canada anymore, is he? All we have to do is get rid of Celine Dion and Canada can be proclaimed a true utopia! :D

But not wanting to stray from the topic at hand, nothing really changes. Greece is still Britain's vassal state in the Balkans and an Englishmen won't help the Greeks get much luck with the Ottomans. Britain wants the status quo and if anything, it'll restrain the Greeks much more.

If anything, a British monarch would indeed shorten the chain Britain holds Greece on. The Hellenes have Britain loving their ancient forebears (for lack of a better term, let's not talk about that again) to thank for their independence. In fact I think that Britain's rather strange dealing with the Eastern Question (support Greek independence, then support the Ottomans against Russia, then snatch Britain and the suzerainty of Egypt right under them) is... well, odd.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
If anything, a British monarch would indeed shorten the chain Britain holds Greece on. The Hellenes have Britain loving their ancient forebears (for lack of a better term, let's not talk about that again) to thank for their independence. In fact I think that Britain's rather strange dealing with the Eastern Question (support Greek independence, then support the Ottomans against Russia, then snatch Britain and the suzerainty of Egypt right under them) is... well, odd.

You mean the part where Byron loved far more than just their ancient forebears? ;)

More seriously, the way the british managed the eastern question was more imperialist "realpolitik": Greece was a romantic fancy, the rest was basically making the road to India safe.

I could see the British pushing for Thessalia and to a lesser extent Yania anyway, those are pretty much given; maybe a notch less for Macedonia, especially as OTL they were pretty solidly opposed to San Stefano, but the risk of Greece turning to Russia means Britain will still likely oppose the idea of Neo-Byzantium.
 
If anything, a British monarch would indeed shorten the chain Britain holds Greece on. The Hellenes have Britain loving their ancient forebears (for lack of a better term, let's not talk about that again) to thank for their independence. In fact I think that Britain's rather strange dealing with the Eastern Question (support Greek independence, then support the Ottomans against Russia, then snatch Britain and the suzerainty of Egypt right under them) is... well, odd.

Well I don't know too much about British foreign policy in regards to the Ottomans during the 19th century, really I don't but I can interpet them wanting to keep the status quo to a certain extent. You can't argue that once India had become a part of the British colonial empire by 1857 that they wouldn't go for Egypt given that the idea of the Suez Canal was put in place. And after 1877, it was clear the Ottomans were going to lose most of the Balkans so I'm sure many British politicians felt it was necessary for them to step in order to check on Russia whose ambitions were to take Constantinople as a warm water port.

Am I wrong here?




 
You mean the part where Byron loved far more than just their ancient forebears? ;)

More seriously, the way the british managed the eastern question was more imperialist "realpolitik": Greece was a romantic fancy, the rest was basically making the road to India safe.

Ah, yes. No wonder they held down Arabia as a group of friendly mandates after WWI.

And did Byron do something with the modern Greeks? :confused:;)
 
Top