Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria
The argument in the UMI's reaction is not too viable: It "seems evident to anyone who has a limited knowledge of the law, and of the constitutional law in particular", that "the forms proper to the State" have not only "modif[ied] the succession to the throne", but abolished the throne altogether.
With that - like in Romania and Russia - a glass dome has been placed over the monarchy.
The other end is that one accepts a private person has dicatorial powers and decides how, when and who. Holding powers that even reigning Kings never ever have had. Reigning King Umberto II or reigning King Michael never had any authority to change a comma in the succession, but when non-reigning, suddenly all divine powers befell them or their issue?
The position of the monarchist alliance that it is ultimately to the Italians to decide if, and when, and how, the monarchy will be restored is actually the democratically and constitutionally correct one.