Status
Not open for further replies.
Emperor Pedro will be a very different person. His "giving up" in his later years was due to his belief that his failure to produce a living son was a sign of his failure, and his belief than the Brazilian commercial aristocracy and bourgeoisie would not accept a female empress.
I do fully agree; this was one of the main OOC reasons for having this "waltz" of marriages with respect to OTL (I always honestly had a soft spot for him). Butterflies will change Brazilian history a lot ITTL ;)
 
Interesting. I had forgot about the Sicilian vespers, but those were the angevins, who have honestly, not much in common with the house of Orleans other than being a very distant branch of the capetians. Much more recent would be the attempt by the Savoias to conquer Sicily.

Treating Henri, a heavily respected man it seems, as a simple trade off to continue a subservient and clearly secondary branch of the Savoias seems a bit... Dumb? Even on a nationalistic and liberal sense, the Savoias attempted to conquer sicily and have no relations to Sicily which kind of makes them.. Foreigners? While there is nothing more heavily nationalistic and liberal in the first half of the 19 century than overthrowing a Bourbon and putting an Orleans in his place.

A small rant. I've always been a fan of the House of Capet. Apologies if I seem rude.
I believe that you're looking at this from a French POV. It's understandable, but you are underestimating the nationalistic feelings of the Sicilians (where by "nationalistic" I'm referring to both an Italian and a Sicilian identity).
In Sicily, no one cares if the Vespers was an insurrection against an Angevin, an Orleans or a Capetian dynasty: it was an insurrection against the French, a sentiment that was reinforced during the Napoleonic wars (a period Sicily remembers with sympathy, because the seat of government was in Palermo, and a fairly liberal constitution was granted).

The main point, anyway, is that the Sicilian Parliament in 1848 voted to offer the crown to a princess from an Italian dynasty, and clearly excluded any foreign prince from the candidates.
Maria Cristina started on the right foot, both with her behavior towards the Sicilian delegation and her choice of a regal name (Costanza, with an obvious reference to the the last queen of Sicily under the Altavilla dynasty, as well as the mother of Frederick II Houenstaufen: the golden age of Sicily).
I'm afraid that there is no way out: the future kings and queens of Sicily will be Savoia.
 
Well, the Savoys are not trying and conquer Sicily: Maria Cristina of Savoy has been selected by the Sicilian Parliament to become Queen of Sicily. This mirrors what happened IOTL in 1848, when "our" Prince Ferdinand was selected but he refused. Note that IOTL only him and a (soon discarded for being too young) son of the Grand Duke of Tuscany was considered, and none of the two was considered a foreigner; we have no record of considering an Orléans for the Sicilian throne IOTL and there is even less reason for this ITTL. I do not understand what's dumb about Henri: he is a general in the Sardinian Army, in charge of the whole eastern front. It does seem fit for a prince- and the man he was. He will be highly respected as the Prince Consort to Queen Costanza, and already enjoys huge popularity in Italy. IIRC even IOTL he never made a claim to the French throne (even though I believe he was seen as the leader of the Orleanist party), I do not see why he would make a fuss about a throne he has no claim to whatsoever.
Oh yes, I am not saying such. I was arguing against the omition of Henri in the future generations - as you say before, Henri is a highly respected leader, not only in Sardinia but in the whole of Italy. He originates from one of the most opulent and categorically most-relationed houses of the time. Henri is also, a Capet, the house with by far the greatest clout in the whole of European history, and with the most prolific titles - the Capets were Kings in Spain, Portugal, France, Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, a whole bunch of Italian places, almost claimed the crown of England, they were Kings of Hungary, they were Kings of Poland, they were emperors of the Latin Empire. It's a whole lotta historical backing. This is why in my opinion the decision to completely exclude Henri from, as a father, even naming his children, is something that I find ridiculously - unecessary, I guess, and non-logical, to a level? Hell, Queen Victoria's children were not Hannovers, were they? And Henri, one of the most talented generals, amenable and most respected princes of the catholic world, with immense connections and clout in Spain, France and Italy itself - can't even get Savoia-Orleans? Eesh. Im not arguing for making Henri de jure King of Sicily - My argument was for the mentioning of his family name in the continuation of the Sicilian Savoias, as a way to differentiate them from the Piedmontese ones, at the least.

And well, he was seen as the leaders of the Orleanists, true - but the argument about him making a claim to the French throne is obvious as to why he did not - Henri had a whole bunch of nephews before him, and he had always advocated for their rights - not his.

I believe that you're looking at this from a French POV. It's understandable, but you are underestimating the nationalistic feelings of the Sicilians (where by "nationalistic" I'm referring to both an Italian and a Sicilian identity).
In Sicily, no one cares if the Vespers was an insurrection against an Angevin, an Orleans or a Capetian dynasty: it was an insurrection against the French, a sentiment that was reinforced during the Napoleonic wars (a period Sicily remembers with sympathy, because the seat of government was in Palermo, and a fairly liberal constitution was granted).

The main point, anyway, is that the Sicilian Parliament in 1848 voted to offer the crown to a princess from an Italian dynasty, and clearly excluded any foreign prince from the candidates.
Maria Cristina started on the right foot, both with her behavior towards the Sicilian delegation and her choice of a regal name (Costanza, with an obvious reference to the the last queen of Sicily under the Altavilla dynasty, as well as the mother of Frederick II Houenstaufen: the golden age of Sicily).
I'm afraid that there is no way out: the future kings and queens of Sicily will be Savoia.
True, true. Still - the previous history of the Savoias, even if brief, in Sicily, was poor. Victor Amadeus II utterly failed to rule, or sufficiently care about the place. But you do state it well. My only reason for commenting was stated right above in my adress to Tarabas.
 
Oh yes, I am not saying such. I was arguing against the omition of Henri in the future generations - as you say before, Henri is a highly respected leader, not only in Sardinia but in the whole of Italy. He originates from one of the most opulent and categorically most-relationed houses of the time. Henri is also, a Capet, the house with by far the greatest clout in the whole of European history, and with the most prolific titles - the Capets were Kings in Spain, Portugal, France, Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, a whole bunch of Italian places, almost claimed the crown of England, they were Kings of Hungary, they were Kings of Poland, they were emperors of the Latin Empire. It's a whole lotta historical backing. This is why in my opinion the decision to completely exclude Henri from, as a father, even naming his children, is something that I find ridiculously - unecessary, I guess, and non-logical, to a level? Hell, Queen Victoria's children were not Hannovers, were they? And Henri, one of the most talented generals, amenable and most respected princes of the catholic world, with immense connections and clout in Spain, France and Italy itself - can't even get Savoia-Orleans? Eesh. Im not arguing for making Henri de jure King of Sicily - My argument was for the mentioning of his family name in the continuation of the Sicilian Savoias, as a way to differentiate them from the Piedmontese ones, at the least.

And well, he was seen as the leaders of the Orleanists, true - but the argument about him making a claim to the French throne is obvious as to why he did not - Henri had a whole bunch of nephews before him, and he had always advocated for their rights - not his.


True, true. Still - the previous history of the Savoias, even if brief, in Sicily, was poor. Victor Amadeus II utterly failed to rule, or sufficiently care about the place. But you do state it well. My only reason for commenting was stated right above in my adress to Tarabas.
The sons of Victoria were not Hanovers, true, but at the same time, the sons of Isabela of Brazil are Orléans-Bragança and not just Orléans. The fact that in 1848 the Sicilians IOTL chose a Savoy as their monarch and considered an Italian Hapsburg-Lorraine prince shows that at the time the important thing was the perceived Italian-ness of the candidate, and changing the dynasty to a perceived French one is just out of the fashion of the time, so to speak. The choice had also been made well before Henri's valiant endeavors in Northern Italy. Besides, the fact that Henri rightly supported his nephews before him shows that he was a man of high honor and respect for legitimacy, so I do not see him complaining about the surname of his offspring if that may generate problems with the Sicilian Parliament and the French government. What I see happening is an agreement similar to the one reached for the descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip: the dynasty will be Savoy-Sicily, but the sons and daughters of Henri may use Orléans-Savoy in some circumstances.
 
True, true. Still - the previous history of the Savoias, even if brief, in Sicily, was poor. Victor Amadeus II utterly failed to rule, or sufficiently care about the place. But you do state it well. My only reason for commenting was stated right above in my adress to Tarabas.
The previous history of the Savoia in Sicily is limited to less than 5 years, between the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht and the Spanish invasion of 1718: even so, Victor Amadeus was in Palermo for over a year, and made improvements to the administration and to the navy of the island (against the opposition of the aristocracy of Spanish ascendancy).

There is no link whatsoever, though, between the crown granted at Utrecht and the crown offered by the Sicilian Parliament at the end of March 1848.
I am starting to ask myself if you have even read the Interludes dealing with Sicily in the thread, since you don't appear to give any consideration to the background.
Luckily, Henri is perfectly happy with his position as Prince Consort, as well as madly in love with Maria Cristina. :)
 
The previous history of the Savoia in Sicily is limited to less than 5 years, between the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht and the Spanish invasion of 1718: even so, Victor Amadeus was in Palermo for over a year, and made improvements to the administration and to the navy of the island (against the opposition of the aristocracy of Spanish ascendancy).

There is no link whatsoever, though, between the crown granted at Utrecht and the crown offered by the Sicilian Parliament at the end of March 1848.
I am starting to ask myself if you have even read the Interludes dealing with Sicily in the thread, since you don't appear to give any consideration to the background.
Luckily, Henri is perfectly happy with his position as Prince Consort, as well as madly in love with Maria Cristina. :)
I did yes. I just badly explained myself and I won't dive further into the argument - Having four main houses Savoias is over balanced in their direction and having the children of Maria Cristina and Henri not take the least of their father's surname when Henri is from one of the highest pedigrees in Europe, is well, strange. That was my argument. I was not arguing against' Maria Cristina's taking of the crown, or Henri's presence as Prince consort, since its one of the parts of your story I like the post, since I've always liked Sicily very much and have relations there. Anyhow I shan't bother you further.
 
I did yes. I just badly explained myself and I won't dive further into the argument - Having four main houses Savoias is over balanced in their direction and having the children of Maria Cristina and Henri not take the least of their father's surname when Henri is from one of the highest pedigrees in Europe, is well, strange. That was my argument. I was not arguing against' Maria Cristina's taking of the crown, or Henri's presence as Prince consort, since its one of the parts of your story I like the post, since I've always liked Sicily very much and have relations there. Anyhow I shan't bother you further.
At the moment there are only two lines of the Savoia house : the main line, king of Sardinia as well as king of Lombardy (in personal union: Lombardy has its own constitution and parliament) and a cadet line, in Sicily (which technically has not been officially crowned yet); the third line (Grand Dukes of Romagne) will come in time, but for the moment Eugenio di Savoia-Carignano-Villafranca is still the Lieutenant General of the kingdom of Sardinia.
The situation is apparently complicated, but it will be sorted out in a couple of months.
 
Will there be an aosta branch or was that butterflied with victor Emanuel
As mentioned in Interlude #5, as of now Ferdinand's offspring is as follows: Umberto (b. 1841), Vittoria (b. 1843), Maria Cristina (b. 1845) and Margherita (1847, died in childbirth). So for now, there is only the main Savoy line in Sardinia. This might change in the future, though, as Ferdinand will have more kids down the line. Probably a further son would take Ferdinand's OTL title of Duke of Genoa, I guess.
 
At the moment there are only two lines of the Savoia house : the main line, king of Sardinia as well as king of Lombardy (in personal union: Lombardy has its own constitution and parliament) and a cadet line, in Sicily (which technically has not been officially crowned yet); the third line (Grand Dukes of Romagne) will come in time, but for the moment Eugenio di Savoia-Carignano-Villafranca is still the Lieutenant General of the kingdom of Sardinia.
The situation is apparently complicated, but it will be sorted out in a couple of months.

Any chance of Lombardy going its own way in the future, under a Savoy cadet branch?
 
Alternate History Hub just did a thing:

I personally found it rather shallow and unfair towards Southern Italy, but I guess he made it so for narrative reasons, to help to magnify the "successful socialism" of North Italy, which seems maybe a small, European China. The capital of Northern Italy in Livorno honestly made me chuckle more than than the pronunciation of "Togh-lee-a-teee" XD
 
Alternate History Hub just did a thing:


Nice, but i disagree on the POD (most likely, the Referendum between republic and monarchy, with the North going Partisan Republic and the South going Savoyard according to the results of the elections..)

Moreover, Marche would have went with the North. Nevertheless, as a fellow alt-citizen of the Italian Democratic Republic and coming from a large family of partisans (both communist and left-christian) I would have done my job, and all in my forces, to avoid re-unification following Mr. Bossi's PCI own current :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top