https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ex...nce-philip-mountbatten-change-family-name/amp

I know that the Express is not the most reliable of sources, but I have read the biography that they’re quoting.

I can understand Philip here, but it does mention how he is essentially Philip Mountbatten now and there he has given his name to (some of) his children.

Maybe it does in the biography, but in the article it isn't clear if it means Philip wanted Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or if he wanted Mountbatten.

So if the latter, then Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg still would never have come to the English throne.
 

Md139115

Banned
I can understand Philip here, but it does mention how he is essentially Philip Mountbatten now and there he has given his name to (some of) his children.

Maybe it does in the biography, but in the article it isn't clear if it means Philip wanted Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or if he wanted Mountbatten.

So if the latter, then Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg still would never have come to the English throne.

As with many people in British military service during the World Wars, having a German last name isn’t exactly convenient, so Phillip at the time adopted the name Mountbatten after his maternal grandfather and uncle. Mountbatten itself is the anglicization of Battenberg, which was a cadet branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt.

Come to think of it, you are right in how Prince Phillip is violating the rules on his own by insisting that his kids be named after his mother’s family. Never really thought of that before.

Despite that though, he’s still considered for dynastic purposes to be a member of the House of SHSG, as is all the children.
 
As with many people in British military service during the World Wars, having a German last name isn’t exactly convenient, so Phillip at the time adopted the name Mountbatten after his maternal grandfather and uncle. Mountbatten itself is the anglicization of Battenberg, which was a cadet branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt.

Come to think of it, you are right in how Prince Phillip is violating the rules on his own by insisting that his kids be named after his mother’s family. Never really thought of that before.

Despite that though, he’s still considered for dynastic purposes to be a member of the House of SHSG, as is all the children.

I believe it was a comment by his granduncle about the future royals being Mountbatten that instigated the Mountbatten-Windsor compromise for relatives outside of the immediate line of succession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor#Descendants_of_Elizabeth_II
 
As with many people in British military service during the World Wars, having a German last name isn’t exactly convenient, so Phillip at the time adopted the name Mountbatten after his maternal grandfather and uncle. Mountbatten itself is the anglicization of Battenberg, which was a cadet branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt.

Come to think of it, you are right in how Prince Phillip is violating the rules on his own by insisting that his kids be named after his mother’s family. Never really thought of that before.

Despite that though, he’s still considered for dynastic purposes to be a member of the House of SHSG, as is all the children.

Are the children really considered of SHSG though? I can't really recall instance of anywhere not trying to perpetuate a tired "The Royals aren't really British but German" narrative that would ever use that terminology to describe the Prince of Wales and below? Like have the Danish kings made any remark on this as the senior dynasts of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg>

With all the best in the world, I don't quite think you get the feel of monarchies in the same way most people living in them do. I don't say this as a slight, but your comments come across as not quite "getting" the idea of how Royal Houses really work in terms of de facto becoming the de jure by tradition given any length of time (and that length of time being shortened based on how popular the decision is).
 
Maria Elonora sounds like a very interesting character. I take it that this brief possible affair is only the beginning of her part in Corsica's story?
 
The next update will come when I finally figure out what I want to do with the final peace.

I suspect that even with the somewhat diminished Bourbon position, the most likely outcome is something similar to OTL with minor adjustments (e.g. Finale ceded to Sardinia, Guastalla ceded to Austria, that sort of thing). The reason is that although the allied position is better ITTL, the allies can't simply dismiss the idea of landing Felipe altogether so long as Spain holds Savoy; worst case scenario, Spain simply annexes Savoy and says "there, we've got our principality." So even if the war is completely deadlocked in the Netherlands and Provence, something will have to be given to Felipe to redeem Savoy (as the Spanish don't really have any other objectives aside from some commercial issues with Britain).

The most credible alternative to putting Felipe in Parma was putting him in Savoy. The proposed Austro-French treaty to end the war envisioned exactly this, while Parma would be ceded to Carlo Emanuele until such time as he recovered Savoy (by inheriting Naples or dying without male issue). In fact a "Philippine Savoy" was the favored solution of France, Austria, and even Spain, but in the end Newcastle's instructions to Sandwich were to allow Felipe to be granted Parma, probably because the British favored the Sardinians more than the Austrians (although this solution was still partially at Sardinia's expense, because Piancenza - part of the Duchy of Parma - had been one of the territories pledged to Sardinia in the Treaty of Worms).

Only Savoy and Parma were given serious consideration in the peace conference, but a few other options were considered during the war. There was a Bourbon proposal, designed to get Carlo Emanuele to switch sides, which envisioned Felipe becoming King of Sardinia (just the island) while Carlo Emanuele would gain the Milanese and become King of Lombardy. "Philippine Sardinia" isn't actually a terrible idea; Carlo Emanuele didn't care much about the island, and of all his territories he would probably mind Sardinia's loss the least. Felipe, meanwhile, would become a king instead of a mere duke. But since Sardinia was the source of Carlo Emanuele's royal title, it's impossible to envision this working unless a "Kingdom of Piedmont" is created from whole cloth, Prussia-style, and I'm genuinely unsure as to how that would work or whether it would even be considered. Such a "create-a-title" had been proposed before during the war - specifically, creating a "Kingdom of Moravia" for the Elector of Saxony so he would have a heritable royal title (as opposed to the Polish crown, which was elective). Presumably the emperor would have to be involved, but Maria Theresa wasn't very fond of the Sardinians and I don't know whether she would have authorized her husband to make it so. For whatever reason no such proposal was discussed at the 1748 talks IOTL.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome. I'm a little tempted to do something different, but the more I read, the more the logic seems to point inexorably towards something approximating OTL's peace.

Maria Elonora sounds like a very interesting character. I take it that this brief possible affair is only the beginning of her part in Corsica's story?

That would be a fair assumption, yes.
 
(although this solution was still partially at Sardinia's expense, because Piancenza - part of the Duchy of Parma - had been one of the territories pledged to Sardinia in the Treaty of Worms).

Piacenza was not part of Parma before the 1550s, so I do not see why it's impossible to split it off the duchy now. Certainly, I do not see Philip granted Guastalla as well in this timeline - will Sardinia get that?
 
Philippine Sardinia and an ad-hoc royal title as the King of Lombardy sounds good

Just to be clear, if this were to happen it would definitely not be the kingdom of Lombardy, as that was already a real thing which would heavily imply rights to the Milanese and the rest of Lombardy (which was why Don Felipe crowned himself "King of Lombardy" upon capturing Milan). "King of Piedmont" would be the only viable choice here. I'm not sure whether it would fly with the Austrians, however, since the very existence of a "Kingdom of Piedmont" would imply that it wasn't part of the crown of Italy/Lombardy, which still existed notionally as a possession of the emperor. Of course, this does not seem to have been an issue with Moravia when the "Kingdom of Moravia" was suggested at Nymphenburg, but Karl Albrecht was in a much weaker position than Maria Theresa and couldn't really have make a stink about the dilution of imperial rights. The bottom line is that while it's a neat idea (and an independent Sardinia would be interesting), the fact that nothing like it was even discussed in 1748 gives me pause. I suspect there's some impediment here that I don't fully grasp.

Actually one very fine idea would be to grant Corsica to Piedmont to maintain their royal title, but that clearly won't work for this timeline.

There's always the option of splitting Sicily and Naples, each a royal title in its own right.

That would be the obvious solution, but it would have to be over the head of Don Carlos, who by this time isn't a party to the war and is not particularly accommodating to either his half-brother Fernando or his brother Felipe. I'm not sure the belligerent powers would - or could - force him to renounce Sicily.

Piacenza was not part of Parma before the 1550s, so I do not see why it's impossible to split it off the duchy now. Certainly, I do not see Philip granted Guastalla as well in this timeline - will Sardinia get that?

It's possible, although it would infuriate Austria if Piacenza were still ceded to Sardinia, as the Austrians would correctly perceive that Britain was carving up their territory but asking nothing from Sardinia. As it stood, the OTL treaty pissed off the Austrians, but they at least took a certain satisfaction in the fact that Sardinia got screwed out of Piacenza. (Maria Theresa really didn't like Carlo Emanuele.)

Guastalla (and Sabbioneta, its dependency) would presumably end up Austrian, as legally the duchy reverts to the emperor and Sardinia has no claim on it (it was not one of the Worms territories). Guastalla was supposed to be the Duke of Modena's reward for joining Team Bourbon, but he got his ass kicked at the war's start and isn't getting shit ITTL. In fact some modest territorial concessions from him might even be plausible - say, for instance, his little exclaves in the Lunigiana, which might be granted to Tuscany. That would certainly appeal to the anti-border gore activists among us.
 
Is there a possibility of forming something like Napoleonic Etruria out of Tuscany for Don Felipe, given the Emperor's lack of interest in the region before and after becoming Emperor?
 
Is there a possibility of forming something like Napoleonic Etruria out of Tuscany for Don Felipe, given the Emperor's lack of interest in the region before and after becoming Emperor?

None. Franz Stefan might not care about it personally, but it's a much more important (and lucrative) state than Parma. Giving away Tuscany would also mean giving Livorno to the Bourbons, a center of British trade in the Mediterranean, which London would never allow.
 
I think that the Philippine Savoy is the most sound choice, and in line with the diplomatic thinking of the time.
 
Could the House of Savoy get something like the Kingdom of Burgundy title if they lost Sardinia, or would they be compensated in Central Italy by the Austrians if they lost Savoy proper?
 
Could the House of Savoy get something like the Kingdom of Burgundy title if they lost Sardinia, or would they be compensated in Central Italy by the Austrians if they lost Savoy proper?

Originally, the Austrian proposal to France was to simply screw over Sardinia entirely, giving them nothing in return. By early 1748, when the French were kicking ass and taking names in the United Provinces, the Austrians amended this and proposed that until Savoy was returned to Sardinian control (when Don Felipe died without male heirs or succeeded in Naples), Sardinia would enjoy the possession and revenues of Parma and Piacenza. Britain won't let Sardinia get screwed, so in a Philippine Savoy scenario something similar is likely to happen. So basically, Austria is losing Parma either way; the question is simply whether it goes to Felipe or Carlo Emanuele.

Having the Sardinians take Parma expands their presence in Italy and is thus probably advantageous from the point of an eventual Sardinian unification, but that's very far in the future and I'm not sure which Carlo Emanuele would have preferred. The thing about Savoy is that while it's difficult to defend, it provides him with a nice buffer so that the French aren't perched right on the Alps, looming over Piedmont menacingly.
 
Last edited:
In situations like these it always seems to me that the reality of otl wasn't an obvious logical end point with no strong alternative but just the result of a single advocate. Especially these peace conferences it seems to me that a single charismatic individual or even just a headstrong one can cause a total reshaping.

The concern about the Royal title just baffles me why they let corsica stay genoan. Here especially with the Kingdom of Corsica much more obviously detached it should be given to anyone who needs a royal title. Or at least argued for that case, since it would allow for much better options that makes everyone but the genoans happier

Edit : forgot to refresh and didn't see you mentioned this
 
Last edited:
something will have to be given to Felipe to redeem Savoy

How about something so far out in left field it's not even in the same ballpark: Offer him a viceroyalty or the like somewhere in the colonies. I mean, maybe (probably) that's such an outrageous idea that it'd be rejected out of hand, but if it can be shown to be lucrative enough....
 
Reading the Wikipedia article, it says "Despite his victories, Louis XV of France, who wanted to appear as an arbiter and statesman and not as a conqueror, gave all of his conquests back to his defeated enemies with honor, arguing that he was "King of France, not a merchant". This decision, largely misunderstood by his generals and by the French people, made the king unpopular at home." Was Savoy captured by the Spanish or French army? I don't exactly remember.

Seems weird to give him a title, but then again this isn't a war fought to the bitter end.

A kingdom of Piedmont would be interesting. In some ways I could see Prussia suggesting it since the creation of Prussia as a kingdom already created the precedent of new kingdom titles being created.
 
Top