You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
Umberto I was famously killed in 1900 by an anarchist in revenge for the massacre of food rioters in Milan two years prior. He had already survived another anarchist assassin in 1878, only months after coming to the throne. What if he didn't?
Victor Emmanuel III had just turned 9 years old when the plot was carried out. How would Italy be governed during the regency of 7(?) years? Would a royal relative dominate? Would politicians flex their muscle and try to make the country more democratic? Would this trigger an earlier Red Scare across Europe and America? Perhaps an increase in similar attacks by anarchists?
Without Umberto would Italy's leaders agree to the Triple Alliance in 1882? And without his personal interest in an East African empire, would Italian colonisation efforts be different?
Also would 15 more years on the throne effect VE3? Initially IOTL he made a point of being a constitutional monarch and not organising a major crackdown after his father's murder. However by the 1920s he was very tired with the chaos of Italian democracy, having to constantly intervene and we all know how that went.
Would his father's death in 1878 have a greater impact on VE3 as a child? Would he be more concerned with working-class radicals and "the mob" in general? Or if he does try to be a liberal figurehead is his patience for democracy simply worn down earlier? By the earlier 1900s may VE3 be looking to strong military men to rule as a proto-Duce?