HRH Duke Amedeo (1943-2021) and the Savoy-Aosta Family

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Their legal surname is not "Di Savoia" but "Savoia Aosta".

Scroll down the following link (an interview to Prince Amedeo, dating back 2016) and you can see a photo of Amedeo's passport, where the surname is listed as "Savoia Aosta":
Ho 16 tatuaggi, 11 nipoti, ho fatto il giro del mondo e, se fossi stato re, non mi sarei divertito tanto - Corriere.it

HRH Prince Amedeo was born with the surname Di Savoia and all his ancestors in the last century had the same surname. His surname had never been simply Savoia (without Di).

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

HRH Prince Amedeo was born with the surname Di Savoia and all his ancestors in the last century had the same surname. His surname had never been simply Savoia (without Di).

Nobody has claimed it was that it was 'simply Savoia' either.
The Crown Prince and the Prince of Venice belong to the first-line dynasts as eldest son and grandson of the late King. The Duke of Aosta belongs to the 2nd son line of the late King, and are therefore named as such.

I suppose anyone can claim to use whatever shortening of their legal name as they wish, and the court has so decreed, but it does nothing to change the legal status of the name and title, and it does nothing to further cohesion in the cause of monarchy or unity (using the word ironically) in the Italian Royal Family.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

HRH Prince Amedeo was born with the surname Di Savoia and all his ancestors in the last century had the same surname. His surname had never been simply Savoia (without Di).

I tought my previous post was quite clear on the matter, but I was talking about Amedeo's current legal surname.
About it, I believe that his passport (a legal document issued by the Italian Republic that certifies the identity of its holder) is very clear in listing his legal surname, which appears to be "Savoia Aosta" (and not "di Savoia").. Unless of course you wants to suggest that his passporto is wrong...
Anyway, it was exactly the difference in the surnames born by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto "di Savoia" and by Amedeo and Aimone "Savoia Aosta" which formed the grounds for the lawsuit.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I tought my previous post was quite clear on the matter, but I was talking about Amedeo's current legal surname.
About it, I believe that his passport (a legal document issued by the Italian Republic that certifies the identity of its holder) is very clear in listing his legal surname, which appears to be "Savoia Aosta" (and not "di Savoia").. Unless of course you wants to suggest that his passporto is wrong...
Anyway, it was exactly the difference in the surnames born by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto "di Savoia" and by Amedeo and Aimone "Savoia Aosta" which formed the grounds for the lawsuit.

So it is Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia and Amedeo Savoia Aosta?

Umberto I (King of Italy) and Amedeo (1st Duke of Savoy) were brothers. Why has the line of one brother the surname "Di Savoia" and the line of the other brother "Savoia Aosta" (without Di).

Either somewhere it was decreed as such, or it was a mistake in a municipal administration, which since then has become official?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I tought my previous post was quite clear on the matter, but I was talking about Amedeo's current legal surname.
About it, I believe that his passport (a legal document issued by the Italian Republic that certifies the identity of its holder) is very clear in listing his legal surname, which appears to be "Savoia Aosta" (and not "di Savoia").. Unless of course you wants to suggest that his passporto is wrong...
Anyway, it was exactly the difference in the surnames born by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto "di Savoia" and by Amedeo and Aimone "Savoia Aosta" which formed the grounds for the lawsuit.

All the members of the different branches of the Dynasty have always had the surname Di Savoia and never only Savoia. In Italy you could have families that have the surnamevstarting with Di even if they are not nobility.
The trial was not about the Di part of the surname but only about the part Savoia.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Cory

HRH Prince Amedeo was born with the surname Di Savoia and all his ancestors in the last century had the same surname. His surname had never been simply Savoia (without Di).

Wikipedia lists his last name as Savoia-Aosta, as does the Italian Republic in his passport, so I suppose that was his legal name until the aforementioned court decision.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Wikipedia lists his last name as Savoia-Aosta, as does the Italian Republic in his passport, so I suppose that was his legal name until the aforementioned court decision.

When he was born in 1943 his surname contained Di like the surname of all the members of the Dynasty.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

So it is Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia and Amedeo Savoia Aosta?

Umberto I (King of Italy) and Amedeo (1st Duke of Savoy) were brothers. Why has the line of one brother the surname "Di Savoia" and the line of the other brother "Savoia Aosta" (without Di).

Either somewhere it was decreed as such, or it was a mistake in a municipal administration, which since then has become official?

Exactly, it is Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia and Amedeo Savoia Aosta.

I believe that the change in the Aostas surname happened sometime after the proclamation of the Republic and the introduction of the republican Constitution; its 14th final provision states that titles of nobility shall not be recognised, but the place-names included in those existing before 28 October 1922 shall serve as part of the surname.
I believe that this lead, at one point, to a change of Amedeo's surname into Savoia Aosta, to add the place name of his family dukedom (Aosta) to the surname.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The trial was not about the Di part of the surname but only about the part Savoia.

The trial was about the question if it is allowed to Amedeo and Aimone Savoia Aosta to call themselves only "di Savoia" or "Savoia" or "Aosta" or if, instead and as it was claimed by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto, they should always call themselves "Savoia Aosta", because that is theie legal surname.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Firenze doesn't change in any way Amedeo and Aimone's surname: it simply says that they are allowed to call themselves "Amedeo di Savoia" and "Aimone di Savoia", if they want to do so, and are not forced to call themselves only and exclusively "Savoia Aosta".

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by MAfan

The trial was about the question if it is allowed to Amedeo and Aimone Savoia Aosta to call themselves only "di Savoia" or "Savoia" or "Aosta" or if, instead and as it was claimed by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto, they should always call themselves "Savoia Aosta", because that is theie legal surname.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Firenze doesn't change in any way Amedeo and Aimone's surname: it simply says that they are allowed to call themselves "Amedeo di Savoia" and "Aimone di Savoia", if they want to do so, and are not forced to call themselves only and exclusively "Savoia Aosta".

Can they now use "di Savioa" in their Italian documents ?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MAfan

The trial was about the question if it is allowed to Amedeo and Aimone Savoia Aosta to call themselves only "di Savoia" or "Savoia" or "Aosta" or if, instead and as it was claimed by Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto, they should always call themselves "Savoia Aosta", because that is theie legal surname.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Firenze doesn't change in any way Amedeo and Aimone's surname: it simply says that they are allowed to call themselves "Amedeo di Savoia" and "Aimone di Savoia", if they want to do so, and are not forced to call themselves only and exclusively "Savoia Aosta".

It's important to mention the Di in their surname.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Can they now use "di Savioa" in their Italian documents ?

In official documents or when it is required that they use their full legal surname (i.e. in their ID card or passport), no, they will have to use the surname "Savoia Aosta". But otherwise they can call themselves simply "di Savoia".

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am okay with the surname Di Savoia or Di Savoia-Aosta but I (but who am I?) feel not comformatble with the Duke of Aosta usurping the title Duke of Savoy. That belongs to Prince Vittorio Emanuele and then goes to his son Prince Emanuele Filiberto.

I find that not chique and a needless grievance. Especially since Prince Emanuele Filiberto has no son. Automatically once the little Prince Umberto will become the 28th Duke of Savoy and 7th Duke of Aosta and be the senior male agnate of the House of Savoia.

Of course assuming that Prince Emanuele Filiberto and Princess Clotilde will not get a son anymore.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's important to mention the Di in their surname.

Even if their legal surname doesn't have it, being such surname "Savoia Aosta"?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Where are the given names (nome battesimale) on that document? On my Dutch documents all my surnames are visible. Maybe it is printed at the reverse side of the document?

Amedeo Umberto Giorgio Paolo Costantino Elena Fiorenzo Maria Zvonimir di Savoia-Aosta

[MAfan]

You can see the surname and name printed at the right of the photo in the passport. The surname is listed as "Savoia Aosta", the given name only as "Amedeo".

A precisation: not all the given names necessarily has to be written in the passport or ID card. It depends on the way they were listed in the birth certificate: if all the names are listed in the birth certificate all in a row, then they will be all listed in the other documents; but if the given names are separated by a comma in the birth certificate, then only the first one(s) before the first comma are listed in the other documents.
I.e. my two given names in the birth certificate are separated by a comma, so in my passport and ID card and other documents only the first one is listed.
I suppose, by reading that Amedeo's passport lists only his first name, that also his names were separated by commas in the birth certificate, so that only the first one of them can be found in documents.

[Cory]

The Prince can use the Surname Di Savoia which belong to his Family. The decision restores a right of the Prince.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Prince can use the Surname Di Savoia which belong to his Family. The decision restores a right of the Prince.

That is your interpretation of it, based on wishes and not on law or fact.
The court has ruled that he can use a version of his name if he wishes, but formally, he is Amedeo (insert names) di Savoia-Aosta, and that's an end to the matter. The name 'di Savoia' belongs to another branch of his family, and that's how it stands.

I have two last names, but mostly only use one of them in most settings. That does not negate the fact that on official documents, passports etc, I have to use both. That goes for the Duke of Aosta and his family, just like it does for everyone else. If he wants to be known as Amedeo Savoia informally he is free to do so, but as I read the judgment, he is not entitled to have his name formally changed from 'di Savoia-Aosta' to 'di Savoia'.

To try to spin this as some win in the battle over headship of the Italian Royal Family is foolish and ill-informed. As the case stands today, with a living Crown Prince and Hereditary Prince, the branches are as they are. Thereafter however, I guess royalists will spend their energy debating whether primogeniture trumps progress, with some favouring longing for the past, and some looking to an equal future.

Oh, to be in Paris, now that spring is here ..

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

That is your interpretation of it, based on wishes and not on law or fact.
The court has ruled that he can use a version of his name if he wishes, but formally, he is Amedeo (insert names) di Savoia-Aosta, and that's an end to the matter. The name 'di Savoia' belongs to another branch of his family, and that's how it stands.

I have two last names, but mostly only use one of them in most settings. That does not negate the fact that on official documents, passports etc, I have to use both. That goes for the Duke of Aosta and his family, just like it does for everyone else. If he wants to be known as Amedeo Savoia informally he is free to do so, but as I read the judgment, he is not entitled to have his name formally changed from 'di Savoia-Aosta' to 'di Savoia'.

To try to spin this as some win in the battle over headship of the Italian Royal Family is foolish and ill-informed. As the case stands today, with a living Crown Prince and Hereditary Prince, the branches are as they are. Thereafter however, I guess royalists will spend their energy debating whether primogeniture trumps progress, with some favouring longing for the past, and some looking to an equal future.

Oh, to be in Paris, now that spring is here ..

I don't want to get into this debate, but let me just say that succession is not that straightforward. The fact that the last king has a firstborn son who is still alive doesn't automatically make that firstborn son the heir (or make the eldest son of that firstborn son the next in line). That is because all monarchies and /or royal houses have additional rules under which a person who would be in the line of succession by birth can be nonetheless removed from the succession, often together with all of his descendants. Without getting into the merit of the argument, that is what the Duke of Aosta claims to be the case with respect to his cousins.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don't want to get into this debate, but let me just say that succession is not that straightforward. The fact that the last king has a firstborn son who is still alive doesn't automatically make that firstborn son the heir (or make the eldest son of that firstborn son the next in line). That is because all monarchies and /or royal houses have additional rules under which a person who would be in the line of succession by birth can be nonetheless removed from the succession, often together with all of his descendants. Without getting into the merit of the argument, that is what the Duke of Aosta claims to be the case with respect to his cousins.

Apart from the question who is the head of the family, both cousins Vittorio Emanuele and Amedeo of course are Savoias, they are both direct and legitimate male agnates of a long line of Dukes of Savoy.

It is not that a surname is usurped like Bernadotte or Nassau, both princes simply ARE Savoys.