May 1946: The Fall of the Monarchy

[MAfan]

I fear I have not to agree with you in many points:

I agree that the marriage between Vittorio Emanuele and Marina Doria was morganatic and not in accordance with the Savoy dynastic laws. I also agree with you concerning the question of two decrees of 1969 - they were not only unfounded and illegal (there is little doubt about that among the lawyers) but also highly unethical; few sons would dare to act so grossly towards their own father.

This marriage was not morganatic, because also a morganatic marriage needs the permission of the King to be celebrated; and this permission has never been asked nor given.

One could argue that by recognizing Vittorio Emanuele as head of the House of Savoy from 1983 to 2006 (for whatever reasons), Amadeo acknowledged the former's leadership and has no right to dispute it now. What is more, I believe that Vittorio Emanuele sought judicial intervention to forbid Amedeo from using the title "Duke of Savoy" in 2007 and, as far as I know, the court's ruling (from June 2008) was in his favour, which implies that the court still recognized Vittorio Emanuele's rights as superior to Amadeo's.

That's very funny: to use the law of a Republic about a title that this republic doesn't recognize...

Then there is also the fact that if there are doubts about Vittorio Emanuele’s rights, there are also doubts concerning Amadeo, Duke of Aosta's claims. Vittorio Emanuele, Emanuele Filiberto and Amadeo, Duke of Aosta have all recognized the Italian Republic, which can be interpreted as an official renunciation of any claims they might have had on the Throne of Italy. Most leading lawyers and constitutional experts are in agreement with that.

Amedeo has never claimed to be King of Italy, only to be the Head of Savoy Family, while Vittorio Emanuele claimed to be King in 1969. The difference between these two claims is very subtle, but important.

Moreover, Amadeo's second marriage to Silvia Paternò di Spedalotto may also be considered morganatic and not in accordance with the Savoy dynastic laws, and he didn't seek or receive the permission of the (then recognized by him) head of the House of Savoy either.

After the divorce from Claude, Amedeo asked to the King the permission to marry to Silvia, in 1982 or 1983; the King gave him the permission, but only if they would have marry in a religious cerimony: that meaned that thay had to wait until the anulement of the Vatican, that was given them in 1987. So, Silvia and Amedeo married with the permission of the King and according to His will.

Btw, my hopes are in Aimone and Umberto: one day They will remain the only claimants to the Headship of Savoy Family, and maybe to the Italian Throne; and I guess one of them will become King.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I fear I have not to agree with you in many points:

This marriage was not morganatic, because also a morganatic marriage needs the permission of the King to be celebrated; and this permission has never been asked nor given.

You are right and thank you for correcting me on this point.

That's very funny: to use the law of a Republic about a title that this republic doesn't recognize...

Nevertheless, both Vittorio Emanuele and Amedeo, Duke of Aosta recognize the Italian Republic, which means they also recognize the laws of the Republic.

Amedeo has never claimed to be King of Italy, only to be the Head of Savoy Family, while Vittorio Emanuele claimed to be King in 1969. The difference between these two claims is very subtle, but important.

Vittorio Emanuele claimed to be King only in the December of 1969 (probably much agitated because of his father's presumed plans to name Amedeo as his successor and the lack of recognition for his bride). Thereafter, he recognized his father as the rightful and only King of Italy.

After the divorce from Claude, Amedeo asked to the King the permission to marry to Silvia, in 1982 or 1983; the King gave him the permission, but only if they would have marry in a religious cerimony: that meaned that thay had to wait until the anulement of the Vatican, that was given them in 1987. So, Silvia and Amedeo married with the permission of the King and according to His will.

As far as I know, Amedeo still needed the permission of the current head of the House of Savoy (and he recognized Vittorio Emanuele as such) for the marriage, even if the previous Head of the House had given his permission.

Btw, my hopes are in Aimone and Umberto: one day They will remain the only claimants to the Headship of Savoy Family, and maybe to the Italian Throne; and I guess one of them will become King.

There we have no differences whatsoever; although I am very fond of Emanuele Filiberto, I agree that the best hopes of the House of Savoy (and the faithful Royal Watchers ) are with Aimone and his Heir.
If Emanuele Filiberto doesn't have male Heirs, they will inded be the sole claimants to the headship of the House of Savoy. If he does have male heirs, the question of headship will remain open, I'm afraid.

[MAfan]

As far as I know, Amedeo still needed the permission of the current head of the House of Savoy (and he recognized Vittorio Emanuele as such) for the marriage, even if the previous Head of the House had given his permission.

Well, once the King had given him the permission in 1982/3, Amedeo doesn't need more permissions.

Nevertheless, both Vittorio Emanuele and Amedeo, Duke of Aosta recognize the Italian Republic, which means they also recognize the laws of the Republic.

Yes, both them recognized the Law of the Italian republic, but it's a nonsense a judicial intervent against Amedeo about a title that officially doesn't exist...Or saying that Amedeo can't be the heir of King Umberto because the present italian law state that one can't be the heir of another person if thay have more then 6 degrees of relationship...(VE has told also this!)

[Tosca]

By serving in the Italian Navy, Prince Amedeo actually recognized the Italian Republic, which should exclude him from a possible succession, but E. Filiberto and V. Emanuele also did, when receiving their passports few years ago. So I highly doubt the monarchy will be restored someday.
They're just fighting for obtaining the title as the Head of the House.

[Tosca]

Please remember that English is the official language of these forums, so all posts must be in English.

If any of the articles you link are written in a language, which is not English, please provide a little summary. Don't forget that only 20% of any article can be translated on these boards.
Translating the whole article will result in copyright infringement, and your post will be deleted without notice.

Tosca
Italian Forum Moderator

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Well, once the King had given him the permission in 1982/3, Amedeo doesn't need more permissions.
Yes, both them recognized the Law of the Italian republic, but it's a nonsense a judicial intervent against Amedeo about a title that officially doesn't exist...Or saying that Amedeo can't be the heir of King Umberto because the present italian law state that one can't be the heir of another person if thay have more then 6 degrees of relationship...(VE has told also this!)

As far as I understand, the permission of the Head of the House is required at the time the marriage actually takes place; at the time of Amedeo's second marriage, the head of the House of Savoy (recognized by Amedeo as well) was Vittorio Emanuele.

The laws are the same for everyone; when Amedeo and Vittorio Emanuele acknowledged the Italian Republic, they also acknowledged its laws, whatever they are.
The claim about 6 degrees of relationship is quite ridiculous though.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points. At least, we both agree that the future is with Aimone and little Umberto.

[Tosca]

And what about the "Allied"?. If I'm correct, the Americans didn't want Italy to remain a Kingdom.

[MAfan]

Also that's true...while the British government wanted the Monarchy in order to avoid the possibility of a communist government in Italy.

[amedea]

I would like to underline that the fact that Amedeo and Aimone (he did too) swore fidelity to the republic in occasion of their militar duties doesn't exclude them from the succession: Amedeo, who could decide not to seve in the army, asked the advice of King Umberto II who answered "Italy first of all"; an advice followed by Aimone too..
And then, are we saying that in an hipotetic future in which the majority of Italians want a monarchy (so not being "faithfull" to the Republic), the only ones to be binded to such a kind of oath would be the members of the Royal Family??

[MAfan]

Also in the past, the italian army swore fidelity to the King; and when His Majesty left Italy, he released the Italian army from the oath. I guess that if the Monarchy will be restored, the present italian army will be released from the oath to the republic. At least, I hope so.

Post n. 1000!!!

[Marsel]

Congratulations with the 1000th!

Why was the USA so determined to put the end to all Monarchies (of the Axis countries) after the war? They played quite a visible role in the fall of the Italian Monarchy, greatly weakened (rather, made practically ceremonial) the Japanese one. What was the motive?

[Tosca]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Also that's true...while the British government wanted the Monarchy in order to avoid the possibility of a communist government in Italy.

But, paradoxically the U.S.S.R. openly supported the monarchy. Stalin was the first to recognize the Kingdom of Southern Italy when the King and his retinue repaired to Brindisi, after Mussolini created the REpublic of Salò in the North.
Besides, the leader of the Italian Communist Party, Palmiro Togliatti wasn't completely against the monarchy: he would have accepted to see the little Prince Vittorio Emanuele be educated by a group of great minds, such as philosopher Benedetto Croce, before ascending the throne.

[Harold]

Yes, the US really doesn't like monarchies. Look at all the trouble Wilson caused after WW1!

[COUNTESS]

President Wilson didn't cause any major problems. He tried to put together a world that would have fewer problems. Wilson had nothing to do with the dissolution of the Italian monarchy after WWII. Yes, the U.S. doesn't think monarchies have much value and they don't. The Italian people have governed themselves very well, sure a nut here and there, but who doesn't have that problem. Mussolini rose to power during a monarchy.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

President Wilson didn't cause any major problems. He tried to put together a world that would have fewer problems. Wilson had nothing to do with the dissolution of the Italian monarchy after WWII. Yes, the U.S. doesn't think monarchies have much value and they don't. The Italian people have governed themselves very well, sure a nut here and there, but who doesn't have that problem. Mussolini rose to power during a monarchy.

The US doesn´t think Monarchies have much value and they don´t...

A line you pinched from that most incompetent of your secretaries of state,Madeline Allbright.

Oh,really.....I do not give a flying whatshowever what the US thinks,at all.Ever!
We do not think THEY are of much use anyway,incompitent bussybodies.
< ed Warren> Do not even try to comment dear,it is all moot to a fault anyway.
This,and Sixtus,gets me a-going big time,and rightfully so.

Arrogance is a worldrenowned US trademark.
We here,in Monarchies,just shrug our shoulders for you.
Didn´t make a mess of it hey?He was trying to put a world together with fewer problems Hey?
Get real.What a fairytale nonsense line.Try another.

[Tsar Mark I]

Of course it was rigged. Most monarchists were still relocated from the war and were not able to cast their vote.

[MAfan]

It seems that 3 millions persons have not been able to vote at the referendum, because they were war prisoners or because some land (the Venezia Giulia and the cities of Bolzano and Zara) could not vote.
And 3 millions is a big number, more or less the 10% of all the Italians wth the vote right.

[Toscany]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Not only was manipulated, but I can tell you more: after the referendum, a coup d'etat took place...
But I guess it's better to return at the beginning ot the story.

Between 1922 and 1943 Italy was ruled by the fascist government of Benito Mussolini, and King Vittorio Emanuele III didn't oppose to this totalitarianism.
In 1940 Mussolini led Italy in the Second World War: he was the only person in Italy who wanted that, and the italian army was not able to share in a war: there weren't equipments, and a lot of young soldiers were sent to fight even if they didn't had had any kind of weapon in their hands before.
So, since the beginning of the war everything went wrong for the italian army, and for Italy; Italy fought for the first three years of war only thanks to the helps from the german army.
People was deeply unhappy, and in 1943 also the fascist main body started to understand that; so, on 25 July 1943 the Grand Council of Fascism deposed Mussolini, who was arrested.
In september the armistice between Italy and Allied armed forces was signed, and the Nazis invaded the north Italy, where partisans fought against the occupying german forces. The south of Italy was ruled by the legal government of Badoglio and later of Bonomi.
Between 1943 and 1945 the partisans (who mostly were supported and led by the main antifascist political powers, communists, socialists, christian-democratics and liberals) fought to free the north Italy, and these parties, that joined the National Liberation Committee, started to rule the the north of the Country.
The parties of the NLC were mostly anti-monarchist; and people put the responsability for all happened on the King, who didn't oppose to fascism, and so he was thought responsable for the fact that at the end of the war Italy was a severely damaged country, with a lot of victims, a destroyed economy, and a desperate general condition.

After the complete liberation of Italy, and the end of the war, the north Italy was mostly against the Monarchy, while the south was faithful to the King.
Something had to change, and maybe if the King would have abdicated in 1944 or 1945 would have been better.
Because of this strong internal opposition to the Monarchy, the King signed a decree prescribing the referendum to choose the form for the state, that took place on 2 June 1946.

The political campaign was framed by incidents, mostly in the north Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and fascists; some politicians uses also personal attacks against the old King and the new King Umberto II, who became King after the (tardy) abdication of his Father, on 9 may 1946, less that a month before the referendum; King Umberto, for example, was accused to be homosexual, and in a deeply catholic country this was a heavy accuse (even if false).

The referendum took place, and was won by the republicans: 12 millions votes vs 10 millions for the Monarchy.
The Supreme Court of Cassation had to proclaim the Republic on 12 June, but on this date only the results of the referendum were read; no proclamation, that was postponed to the 18 June.
We have to remember that the Court of Cassation was the only body with the power of proclaim the winner of the referendum.
On that night, the Prime Minister De Gasperi proclaimed the republic, illegally.

The following day te King decided to leave: if he had opponed to the proclamation of the government, a new civil war would have begun. And he didn't want this: that's the reason of his leaving.

About the manipulation of the referendum, we have to notice some things:
1-Many prisoners of war were in prison and not able to vote;
2-Some provinces (Trieste, Bolzano) had not yet been reintegrated into Italy, and so had not been included in the vote;
3-The number of voters recorded was higher than the number of the electors (at least it seems to be so);
4-De Gasperi had no powers to proclaim the Republic.

Where I noted above in bold italics, is the time when Princess Mafalda was taken, along with another very young European Princess, out of Italy by the Nazi's for questioning in Berlin. She and the younger child were then taken to Buchanwald. Princess Mafalda worked as a prisoner in the ammunitions factory, intentionally adjacent to the concentration camp. The Allies began bombing thee plants, not actually knowing Buchanwald was next to it.
On one of the bombing raids, Princess Mafalda was seriously injured while working in the plant. An attempt to give her blood, which was the wrong type, killed her.

Shortly after, the young European Princess, was taken out, and placed with an adopted family by Princess Ileana of Romania and Archduchess of Austria.

[Cory]

I have read a lot about Princess Mafalda but I have never heard this story with a young european princess in camp with her.Where have you read that??

[yogi6807]

was leaving after getting orders for military service common during wwII? i have my fathers orders somewhere. He moved here and joined the navy.