Greek monarch plebiscite goes differently

[Codae]

George I of Greece earned his position following an election in 1862, when he (taking Wikipedia's numbers as correct, even though they're not self-consistent) received six votes out of 241,202, which isn't a very high percentage. However, everyone who got more was rendered ineligible by international pressure or by not actually being people.

George I wasn't the only man to receive only a few votes--there were several more, such as Giuseppe Garibaldi (who got 3), who weren't forbidden via a close relationship with a Great Power's royal house. I think, in such a close election, the idea of four more Garibaldi* votes showing up somewhere is a reasonable POD with interesting, far-reaching consequences, depending on how much stock the Great Powers put in the referendum. Looking at what happened IOTL, it seems that George I won the throne as a consequence of winning the election, once Windsors, Bonapartes, Orléanses, Romanovs, and their in-laws were discounted, but that may be a coincidence.

*Would he accept kingship, anyway?

-----

For an alternative, somewhat less plausible scenario, consider what sort of seven-vote swing some charismatic San Franciscan could promote...

 

[Falastur]

There's some masterful trolling of the voting card there - almost on the same levels as all the people who put Jedi as their religion on the census. For instance, I have to heartily congratulate the 1,763 people who, in answer to the question "who do you want to be your King?" submitted the response "A King". Even better are the 482 people who responded "Long Live the Three Powers", as if that spontaneous outburst of support for the balance of power in Europe somehow answered the question of who should be monarch.

In answer to your question though, it's an interesting scenario but I can't quite see Garibaldi actually accepting. I mean, only one month earlier he had been released from imprisonment for marching on Rome, and he still considered the unification of Italy incomplete (as indeed, it was, but still several years in the doing). After Italy, he had ambitions to free and unify a number of other central European states. I'm not sure he'd be willing to put that all aside just to elevate him above everyone he'd been working with and separate them from himself forever. On top of this, he'd attacked Austria before and would attack them again before the unification was finished - would accepting him on the throne not be seen as a massive insult to, if not a direct attack on, Austria?

 

[Romanos]

Actually, George was selected by virtue of being the selection of Britan, France and Russia and not because of his position in the "election/plebiscite" (which by modern standards would not be considered as such).

As for your question, I find it difficult to imagine a Garibaldi seating in a new kingdom which enjoys the protection and guarantees of independence of the Great Powers. They would have opposed this; he was partly the reason that the status quo in Europe had dramatically changed with the unification of Italy; this was a status quo they were firmly behind of. Also, not that they would have much say, but I imagine the Austrians would be completely and drastically oppose the idea.

Also, bear in mind Garibaldi was in Sicily at the time, trying to organise an expedition against Rome. In Demember, when the plsebiscite was held, he was in jail or just released.

And, most important of all, I think it's very unlikely he would have accepted. Garibaldi had a very different idea of governance from the standards of his time, no less in Greece.

edit: I swear I hadn't read the above post when I was writing mine

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Like its been stated, Greece was under the protection of Britain, France and Russia. They would NEVER allow Garibaldi to become King, even IF he accepted (which I doubt he would). No some Prince (most likely OTL's George I) would be selected as King.

 

[Codae]

Actually, George was selected by virtue of being the selection of Britan, France and Russia and not because of his position in the "election/plebiscite" (which by modern standards would not be considered as such).

Yeah, I was afraid such a tiny vote-victory was too good to be true as a POD.

 

[eliphas8]

I doubt someone like Garibaldi would ever accept it. He was a supporter of the monarchy but I don't think he would ever want to actually be a king, if he where king he couldn't do nearly as much campaigning for liberal independence movements he would have wanted to do.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I doubt someone like Garibaldi would ever accept it. He was a supporter of the monarchy but I don't think he would ever want to actually be a king, if he where king he couldn't do nearly as much campaigning for liberal independence movements he would have wanted to do.

Hell I'm not sure if he even was a supporter of the Italian Monarchy. Didn't he try to found a republic, like several time?

 

[eliphas8]

Hell I'm not sure if he even was a supporter of the Italian Monarchy. Didn't he try to found a republic, like several time?

He was bipolar on support of the monarchy more than anything else. He was willing to be pragmatic if it meant a unified Italy and often worked with the Piedmontese despite their numerous snubs out of patriotism for Italy but he did want a liberal democratic order (whether it was republican or not probably wouldn't matter as long as it was democratic and Italy).