Who else could unify *Italy?

What would have happened if Ferdinand for whatever reason wasn't alive after Waterloo? Who should the throne pass on to?

Another diffrerent train of though, could he piss off his British supporters enough so they'd accept a Murat staying in Naples anyway?
 
What would have happened if Ferdinand for whatever reason wasn't alive after Waterloo? Who should the throne pass on to?

Another diffrerent train of though, could he piss off his British supporters enough so they'd accept a Murat staying in Naples anyway?

His son, Francis I believe? He had two surviving sons and a pretty numerous amount of male grandchildren, so I can't see them dying out.

Britain had pretty vested interests in Sicily, hence their reason for protecting it. The British Ambassador was involved with the Queen and also forced the king to issue a constitution. There were lots of economic connections between Britain and Sicily that necesitated a return to the post-war settlement. Britain was highly reliant on Sicilian sulphur for certain industries. While men like Castlereaugh defended them, by the 1850s Gladstone fed them to the wolves and let the Neopolitans be isolated on the eve of the independence wars. I just can't see England becoming self sufficient in sulphur or finding another supplier in the early 19th century. These interests were only Sicily, so I don't really think there's a way to make Murat more palatable.

The best way is no Hundred Days, and maybe Talleyrand is barred from Vienna so we get the original peace: 1792 borders for France, no indemnity, and Murat keeps Naples and the Bourbons stay on Sicily. That's the best to hope for, really.
 
They were actually planning on ousting him before Murat made his fiasco following Elba. It's actually why he did it. He found out the promises he'd been given were in vain and that the allies were planning on deposing him next. Talleyrand had been adamant that his policy of restoration to pre-Revolutionary borders even include Naples... which meant Murat had to go and the Bourbons come back. The Bourbons had allies at the Congress; not just Talleyrand, but the sympathetic British. When Murat rebelled it was just a convenient reason to attack him; I suspect something would've happened after Waterloo anyways. Austria had reformed her forces and could spare the men, and it seems Italy overall was somewhat apathetic. I remember when Murat tried to rally Italian patriots to no avail.
Do you have cites for this? (Preferably on-line and in English, although I can do French, and might possibly be able to handle German or possibly Italian, worst come to worst.) I have just been reading a lot about the Congress of Vienna, and my very distinct impression was that Murat wasn't going to end up being deposed, although some people really, really wanted it. I'll grant you the latter. It's not like the "legitimacy" that they so harped on was actually very thoroughly implemented (what with the number of German states going down an order of magnitude, for instance).

Now, I'll admit the sources I've been looking at are pretty basic, as that's what's available in my local county library system.
 
Britain had pretty vested interests in Sicily, hence their reason for protecting it. The British Ambassador was involved with the Queen and also forced the king to issue a constitution. There were lots of economic connections between Britain and Sicily that necesitated a return to the post-war settlement. Britain was highly reliant on Sicilian sulphur for certain industries. While men like Castlereaugh defended them, by the 1850s Gladstone fed them to the wolves and let the Neopolitans be isolated on the eve of the independence wars. I just can't see England becoming self sufficient in sulphur or finding another supplier in the early 19th century. These interests were only Sicily, so I don't really think there's a way to make Murat more palatable.
???Wouldn't that make Britain more likely to support the Bourbons in Sicily, which would allow Murat to survive in Naples? Or are you saying that Murat surviving in Naples would require British direct intervention on HIS side?


The best way is no Hundred Days, and maybe Talleyrand is barred from Vienna so we get the original peace: 1792 borders for France, no indemnity, and Murat keeps Naples and the Bourbons stay on Sicily. That's the best to hope for, really.
That's what I'm trying for in my TL, actually, although Murat surviving was just something that developed from other butterflies.
 
???Wouldn't that make Britain more likely to support the Bourbons in Sicily, which would allow Murat to survive in Naples? Or are you saying that Murat surviving in Naples would require British direct intervention on HIS side?

The question asked was if the Bourbons could piss off their British supporters enough to get them to not support a restoration. I'd presume no; they'll protect them on Sicily ofc, given the economic connections, but it'd take a large break for Britain to abandon them totally.

As for sources, yes, I do. I'll have to dig them up but I'll post a link later.
 
For Dathi, from Italy in the nineteenth century, starting at "At the Congress of Vienna..." detailing Tsar Alexander's wishes and the objections of the rest, and the King of the Two Sicilies general attitude. The History of the Kingdom
covers it too, mostly chapter 4 and 5.

The big issue is Murat saved his hide with the Austrians and even got a British truce, all while they were clamoring to stab him in the back. He knew they were planning on stabbing him in the back and just tried to act first, with terrible consequences. The Austrian Emperor simply said "Alright old chap, you can stay!" While the Bourbons under a cabal Talleyrand was urging him that he was a danger, truly favored Napoleon, ect.
 
Top