May 1946: The Fall of the Monarchy

[espejor]

I have read that the referendum was manipulated. What do you think about that?

Regards!

[lucien]

Originally Posted by espejor

I have read that the referendum was manipulated. What do you think about that?

Regards!

Fraude,with a capitol F.It was,but leave that to the then hords.

[Ducii]

For people in Italy it was a big surprise when the referendum said that it is the end of monarchy. It was very close...the difference between who want and who not was about 0,5%...

[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.

[MAfan]

I hope that what I've written is fully understandable; i'm sorry if it's not so.

[espejor]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I hope that what I've written is fully understandable; i'm sorry if it's not so.

You have explained it very very well :) Thanks very much!

I'm very interesting in the Italian Royal House because it had a lot of link with the Spanish Royal House.

Do you know a book about this topic?

PD: I have read too that the Vatican broke diplomatic relations with Italy in protest for the proclamation of the Republic during 15 years. Is it true?

Regards and thanks!

[MAfan]

I have read too that the Vatican broke diplomatic relations with Italy in protest for the proclamation of the Republic during 15 years. Is it true?

Never heard, but I don't think...for a lot of time, I guess for the following 30 years, Italy was ruled by the Christian Democratic party, that was very close to the vatican...

[Avicenna]

MAfan, thank you so much for this summary. Well done! Easily understandable plus interesting. I learned a lot.

[lucien]

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.

Thank you for this MAfan.

[Alberto2244]

Originally Posted by espejor

PD: I have read too that the Vatican broke diplomatic relations with Italy in protest for the proclamation of the Republic during 15 years. Is it true?

No, and as a matter of fact the Vatican and the Church were neutral during the referendum campaign.

After the results King Umberto went to the Vatican where the Pope Pious XII received him in a long audience. King Umberto cried and it seems the Pope was very moved also.

But in 1953 there was indeed a kind of argument between the Democrat Christians in power and the Vatican. De Gasperi, the prime-minister asked an audience for him, his wife and their daughter who had recently became a nun with the Pope and it was refused. The Pope was not satisfied the way De Gasperi was managing the communists.

There are many bios on King Umberto in Italian.

If you cannot read Italian I advise you the EXCELLENT "The Fall of the House of Savoy" by Robert Katz.
Despite its title this book deals with the History of the Savoys since the Middle Ages! (with an emphasis on the period 1860-1946, ok)
You can find copies to buy at:
robert katz: savoy - AbeBooks

[Marsel]

That was a wonderful summary, MAfan.
The King's decision to leave was a courageous and thoughtful one; only a Monarch, who truly cares for his people would prefer an exile to a possible civil war.


I may not think very highly of Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, but Emanuele Filiberto is a charming man and would make a delightful King. Somehow, I am sure that some time in future, the Monarchy in Italy will be reinstated.

[espejor]

Originally Posted by Alberto2244

No, and as a matter of fact the Vatican and the Church were neutral during the referendum campaign.

After the results King Umberto went to the Vatican where the Pope Pious XII received him in a long audience. King Umberto cried and it seems the Pope was very moved also.

But in 1953 there was indeed a kind of argument between the Democrat Christians in power and the Vatican. De Gasperi, the prime-minister asked an audience for him, his wife and their daughter who had recently became a nun with the Pope and it was refused. The Pope was not satisfied the way De Gasperi was managing the communists.

There are many bios on King Umberto in Italian.

If you cannot read Italian I advise you the EXCELLENT "The Fall of the House of Savoy" by Robert Katz.
Despite its title this book deals with the History of the Savoys since the Middle Ages! (with an emphasis on the period 1860-1946, ok)
You can find copies to buy at:
robert katz: savoy - AbeBooks

I think that was very strange the position of the Vatican and the Church. The Kings of Italy were Catholic Majesties and their wives could go to the Vatican wearing white dresses...

Thanks for the advise of the book! I will buy it as soon as possible!

Regards!

[espejor]

Originally Posted by Marsel

That was a wonderful summary, MAfan.
The King's decision to leave was a courageous and thoughtful one; only a Monarch, who truly cares for his people would prefer an exile to a possible civil war.


I may not think very highly of Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, but Emanuele Filiberto is a charming man and would make a delightful King. Somehow, I am sure that some time in future, the Monarchy in Italy will be reinstated.

I read that Vittorio Enmanuelle isn't the heir of the Crown. I have read that the heir is Amadeo of Aosta, because of the wedding without the allow of Umberto II of V.E. and Marina DOria first in Las Vegas and afterwards in Tehran during the celebrations of the 2.500th anniversary of the Persian Empire.

Regards!!

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by espejor

I read that Vittorio Enmanuelle isn't the heir of the Crown. I have read that the heir is Amadeo of Aosta, because of the wedding without the allow of Umberto II of V.E. and Marina DOria first in Las Vegas and afterwards in Tehran during the celebrations of the 2.500th anniversary of the Persian Empire.

Regards!!

Vittorio Emanuele is widely recognized as the head of the House of Savoy (and thus, heir apparent to the Italian Throne).
Three years ago, Amadeo, 5th Duke of Aosta declared that he was the rightful head of the House of Savoy and the Duke of Savoy. He claimed that Vittorio Emanuele had lost his dynastic rights the moment he married Marina Doria without the permission of King Umberto II. It should be said that Amadeo had/has some support, including that of the President of the Council of the Senators of the Kingdom (Aldo Mola) and Princess Maria Gabriella of Savoy (Vittorio Emanuele's sister).
It should also be noted it was long rumoured that King Umberto II wanted to see Amadeo as his successor, not Vittorio Emanuele. It is said that Vittorio Emanuele declared himself King of Italy (back in 1969) because King Umberto allegedly invited Amadeo to Portugal to discuss the possibilities of naming the latter as his heir, instead of Vittorio Emanuele.

Others, including Sergio Pellecchi (President of the Giunta of the Chivalric Orders of the House of Savoy) criticized Amadeo's actions. Sergio Pellecchi noted that Council of the Senators of the Kingdom (which supported Amadeo) was dissolved in 2002 (before Amadeo's claims) and in any case, it never had any authority in the matters of succession. Some, like Eugenio Dondero (spokesman for the Coordinamento Monarchico Italiano), asked why Amadeo didn’t claim to be head of the House of Savoy following King Umberto II's death (in 1983).

It is probably true that Vittorio Emanuele's marriage was in violation of Savoy dynastic law (notable experts and constitutional jurists, Guido Locatello among them, agree with that). However, Vittorio Emanuele argued that since King Umberto agreed to submit to a referendum on his place as Head of State, he thereby abdicated and he (Vittorio Emanuele) became the head of the House of Savoy and was in his right to confer the title of Duchess of Sant'Anna di Valdieri on his fiancée, Marina Doria.


It should be also noted that when both Vittorio Emanuele and Prince Emanuele Filiberto recognized the Italian Republic in 2002 (in order to be allowed to return to the country), that act could be (and was, by some) interpreted as an official renunciation of their claims on the Throne of Italy. That would seemingly strengthen Amadeo's claims, however Amadeo himself swore loyalty to the Italian Republic as a young man (as a term of his military service in the navy).


Vittorio Emanuele's (and his son's) claims are the most widely recognized and accepted ones. If Monarchy in Italy were to be reinstated tomorrow, I strongly doubt that any other candidate (including Amadeo) but Vittorio Emanuele and his son would get much support. Of course, many (me amongst them) don't find Vittorio Emanuele’s character the most likable one and he is pretty controversial, however his son seems to be popular in Italy.

[MARG]

Hey that's great infomation I am sure, however I am not multi-lingual so for those of us linguistically challenged, could someone translate?

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MARG

Hey that's great infomation I am sure, however I am not multi-lingual so for those of us linguistically challenged, could someone translate?

Here is a brief summary of the post written by Alberto2244.

Alberto2244 starts with the question whether the marriage of Vittorio Emanuele and Marina Doria was morganatic; whether it was or not, it is a matter of debate, however it was certainly a sordid affair (according to Alberto2244. Alberto2244 then reminds us of the events that happened in December of 1969 when King Umberto II called Duke of Aosta to Portugal. It was considered very likely that the King wanted to proclaim Amadeo, Duke of Aosta his Heir, because of the imminent marriage of his son, Vittorio Emanuele and Maria Doria. Learning of his cousin's departure to Portugal, Vittorio Emanuele proclaimed himself King Vittorio Emanuele IV and wrote 2 decrees. In the first decree, he claimed that his father had no right to call the referendum of 1946, as the Monarchy is independent of the popular opinion, and the King's subsequent (voluntary) exile was nothing short of an actual abdication. He signed that document King Vittorio Emanuele IV. The next day, he wrote the 2nd decree, which bestowed Marina Doria with the title of Duchess of SaintAnna di Valdieri.
According to Alberto2244, the greatest jurists and historians of Italy believe that if the Monarchy is restored, then it will be a 'newly established', not reinstated Monarchy, and Princess Maria Gabriella of Savoy agrees with that idea.
Again according to Alberto2244, Prince Vittorio Emanuele broke the 'Savoy traditions' for the beautiful eyes of Marina.

The source for the above is "Umberto II" by Gigi Speroni.



I have to add that although the above is a very interesting, I strongly disagree that if the Monarchy is reinstated in Italy, it will be a 'newly established one', rather than actually 'reinstated' Monarchy. If the Monarchy is ever restored, it is very likely that the new Monarch will be either one of Vittorio Emanuele's direct descendants, or one of the direct descendants of Amadeo, Duke of Aosta.
I've discussed some of the points above in my previous post.

[Alberto2244]

Originally Posted by Marsel

I have to add that although the above is a very interesting, I strongly disagree that if the Monarchy is reinstated in Italy, it will be a 'newly established one', rather than actually 'reinstated' Monarchy. If the Monarchy is ever restored, it is very likely that the new Monarch will be either one of Vittorio Emanuele's direct descendants, or one of the direct descendants of Amadeo, Duke of Aosta.
I've discussed some of the points above in my previous post.

Yes, your post is very good and informative! Congratulations!
I meant Umberto II apparently saw Monarchy in Italy would not be restaured but instaured, like what happenned in Spain in 1975

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Alberto2244

I meant Umberto II apparently saw Monarchy in Italy would not be restaured but instaured, like what happenned in Spain in 1975

Thank you for clarifying, I must have misunderstood your post.

[MAfan]

King Umberto II never abdicated, and remained King until He died in 1983.
The two decrees signed in 1969 by the would-be "Vittorio Emanuele IV, Re d'Italia" (King of Italy) are two juridical monstrosity, without any logical or legal sense.
The wedding of Vittorio Emanuele and Marina was celebrated not only without the permission of the King, but without having asked Him any kind of permission, and I remember without having informed the King; according to the Savoy Family Law, Vittorio Emanuele lost his Rights to the Italian Throne and to the Titles of his Family, and to his personal titles (Prince of Napoli, Prince of Savoy, Royal Prince of Italy) because of he married without asking the permission to the King. His Majesty Himself, some years before, informed in a letter His son that he would have lost his titles and rights if he would have married Marina; and Vittorio Emanuele read that letter.
The Head of the Family since 18th March 1983 is His Royal Highness Prince Amedeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta.

I don't know what happened in 1983, that lead Amedeo and all the Royal Family to recognise Vittorio Emanuele as Head of the Family, I only know something about a wish of Queen Maria José that lead the Family in doing so, but I know what the Savoy Family Law and the Law of the Kingdom of Italy state: Vittorio Emanuele and his descendants has no rights to any title or throne.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MAfan

King Umberto II never abdicated, and remained King until He died in 1983.
The two decrees signed in 1969 by the would-be "Vittorio Emanuele IV, Re d'Italia" (King of Italy) are two juridical monstrosity, without any logical or legal sense.
The wedding of Vittorio Emanuele and Marina was celebrated not only without the permission of the King, but without having asked Him any kind of permission, and I remember without having informed the King; according to the Savoy Family Law, Vittorio Emanuele lost his Rights to the Italian Throne and to the Titles of his Family, and to his personal titles (Prince of Napoli, Prince of Savoy, Royal Prince of Italy) because of he married without asking the permission to the King. His Majesty Himself, some years before, informed in a letter His son that he would have lost his titles and rights if he would have married Marina; and Vittorio Emanuele read that letter.
The Head of the Family since 18th March 1983 is His Royal Highness Prince Amedeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta.

I don't know what happened in 1983, that lead Amedeo and all the Royal Family to recognise Vittorio Emanuele as Head of the Family, I only know something about a wish of Queen Maria José that lead the Family in doing so, but I know what the Savoy Family Law and the Law of the Kingdom of Italy state: Vittorio Emanuele and his descendants has no rights to any title or throne.

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.

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.


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.
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.


Which means that, in theory, the one person (as of now) who has all the legal rights to be recognized as head of the House of Savoy, is Prince Aimone Umberto Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Apulia, Amadeo's only son from his first marriage to Princess Claude Marie d'Orléans (this marriage was in accordance with the rules of the House of Savoy and permission for the marriage was granted by King Umberto II). Prince Aimone married Princess Olga Isabella of Greece in 2008 and has a male Heir (born in 2009). He did receive permission to marriage from both his father and Vittorio Emanuele.


As far as the persons involved are concerned, I would much rather prefer Amadeo, Duke Aosta as head of the House of Savoy; he seems to be a man of integrity and principles (despite the scandals connected with his personal life, especially illegitimate children), which can hardly be said about Vittorio Emanuele. His heir, Prince Aimone, seems at least as likable as Prince Emanuele Filiberto.