Savoy and Savoy-Aosta: Restoration, Succession, Heirs and Conflicts

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

With that - like in Romania and Russia - a glass dome has been placed over the monarchy.

The monarchies were fully abolished in all of the said countries. Even the last kings were not permitted to remain under a glass dome, but forced into exile or, in the case of Russia, executed.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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?

I would think that any private person has the power to decide to claim the non-existent Italian throne. If it were a crime, then the heads of both branches would surely have been charged already.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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.

Is that their position? The link posted earlier in the thread claimed that their position was in support of the Aostas.

[maria-olivia]

Why so late ? Is Prince Vittorio Emanuele in bad health ?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Why so late ? Is Prince Vittorio Emanuele in bad health ?

I don't know about the health of Vittorio Emanuele, but he certainly looks immobile and frail. This picture is made in 2017: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/J00A2N/vit...rio-J00A2N.jpg

Now we are three years furtherer.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Why so late ? Is Prince Vittorio Emanuele in bad health ?

It was dated on 28 December 2019; so, on princess Vittoria's 16th birthday. So, while late, at least it wasn't done on a random date.

[eya]

"In January 2020 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, son of the last king of Italy Umberto II, had included the women of the family in the line of succession, making his 17-year-old niece Vittoria the heir of the family."


"Aimone di Savoia-Aosta, manager of Pirelli in Moscow and heir to a cadet branch (ie the descendants of a younger son) of the Savoy, defined the abandonment of the Salic law as “totally illegitimate”. It is the latest chapter in a long feud between the two branches of the family.


https://www.italy24news.com/local/46969.html

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by eya

"In January 2020 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, son of the last king of Italy Umberto II, had included the women of the family in the line of succession, making his 17-year-old niece Vittoria the heir of the family."

The announcement can be read here.

Geneva – January 15th 2020.
PROVISIONS OF H.R.H PRINCE VITTORIO EMANUELE DI SAVOIA

On 28 December 2019, H.R.H. Prince Vittorio Emanuele, Duke of Savoy, Prince of Naples, Head of the Royal House of Savoy, made some important decisions regarding the life of the House of Savoy.

By signing the two resolutions that are reported below, considering the natural evolution of today’s society towards the desirable elimination of all forms of discrimination between persons, H.R.H. Prince Vittorio Emanuele decided to adapt the Law of Succession of the House of Savoy to the spirit of the times. Through these provisions, the Royal House of Savoy will adopt the rule of absolute primogeniture, which will be applied from now on to direct descendants, with lineage prevailing over degree. This rule is already applied by the majority of Royal Houses. [...]

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by eya

"In January 2020 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, son of the last king of Italy Umberto II, had included the women of the family in the line of succession, making his 17-year-old niece Vittoria the heir of the family."

Slight correction but Princess Vittoria is his granddaughter not his niece.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The monarchies were fully abolished in all of the said countries. Even the last kings were not permitted to remain under a glass dome, but forced into exile or, in the case of Russia, executed.



I would think that any private person has the power to decide to claim the non-existent Italian throne. If it were a crime, then the heads of both branches would surely have been charged already.




Is that their position? The link posted earlier in the thread claimed that their position was in support of the Aostas.

My understanding is that Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his son are no longer making any claim to the Italian throne, having publicly acknowledged and accepted that the monarchy became extinct with the creation of the Italian Republic.


So, Vittorio Emanuele is not changing the line of succession to the Italian throne (which is non-existent), but rather the line of succession to the headship of the House of Savoy. That is important because, as Marengo explained, headship of the House implies a series of prerogatives and access to certain assets that are independent of being King of Italy, including for example the grand mastership of the Savoy orders.

[Tatiana Maria]

This is Vittorio Emanuele's decree altering the succession to the headship of the house in December 2019.

We Vittorio Emanuele Duke of Savoy, Prince of Naples
by the Grace of God and by Hereditary Right Head of the Royal House of Savoy
XVII General Grand Master of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus

Given the natural evolution of today's society, which is moving towards the desirable elimination of any form of discrimination between persons, with the desire to adapt the Law of Succession of Our House to the spirit of the times, we, of our own will

have decreed and decree

that from today and in the future, succession in the capacity of Head of Our Royal House and Grand Master of Our Dynastic Orders, with all the privileges, prerogatives, rights and powers associated therewith, shall be reserved to Our descendants of both genders, forever, according to the criterion of absolute primogeniture, with lineage prevailing over degree.

Issued in Geneva on the 28th of December of the year 2019

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My understanding is that Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his son are no longer making any claim to the Italian throne, having publicly acknowledged and accepted that the monarchy became extinct with the creation of the Italian Republic.

I am not particularly informed regarding the House of Savoy, but the wording of the decree would appear to back up your statement. Vittorio Emanuele is cited as head of the house and grandmaster of its orders, but not as claimant of the nonexistent throne of Italy.

On the other hand, the decree cites "privileges, prerogatives, rights and powers associated therewith", which I suppose some could interpret as a loophole to make other claims if he later changes his mind.

What is the position of the Aostas? Do they believe they are entitled to the throne of a nonexistent kingdom of Italy, or only the headship of the house of Savoy in the republic of Italy?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

This is Vittorio Emanuele's decree altering the succession to the headship of the house in December 2019.

We Vittorio Emanuele Duke of Savoy, Prince of Naples
by the Grace of God and by Hereditary Right Head of the Royal House of Savoy
XVII General Grand Master of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus

Given the natural evolution of today's society, which is moving towards the desirable elimination of any form of discrimination between persons, with the desire to adapt the Law of Succession of Our House to the spirit of the times, we, of our own will

have decreed and decree

that from today and in the future, succession in the capacity of Head of Our Royal House and Grand Master of Our Dynastic Orders, with all the privileges, prerogatives, rights and powers associated therewith, shall be reserved to Our descendants of both genders, forever, according to the criterion of absolute primogeniture, with lineage prevailing over degree.

Issued in Geneva on the 28th of December of the year 2019

I am not particularly informed regarding the House of Savoy, but the wording of the decree would appear to back up your statement. Vittorio Emanuele is cited as head of the house and grandmaster of its orders, but not as claimant of the nonexistent throne of Italy.

On the other hand, the decree cites "privileges, prerogatives, rights and powers associated therewith", which I suppose some could interpret as a loophole to make other claims if he later changes his mind.

What is the position of the Aostas? Do they believe they are entitled to the throne of a nonexistent kingdom of Italy, or only the headship of the house of Savoy in the republic of Italy?

To be allowed to return to Italy, Vittorio Emanuele and his son had to swear allegiance to the Italian constitution and to the President of the Italian Republic. Since the said constitution bars even the possibility of a constitutional amendment to restore the monarchy, my understanding is that, by pledging allegiance thereto, they have relinquished any claims to the Italian throne or to its restoration.

The constitution also transferred "to the State" all assets on Italian territory held by the formers kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants. That transitional provision (reproduced below in full) ceased to apply in 2002, I think, but the male descendants of King Vittorio Emanuele III never received any compensation from the Republic for their (extensive) assets that were expropriated following the end of the monarchy.

XIII.



The members and descendants of the House of Savoy shall not be voters and may not hold public office or elected offices.



Access and sojourn in the national territory shall be forbidden to the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants.


The assets, existing on national territory, of the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants shall be transferred to the State. Transfers and the establishment of royal rights on said properties after 2 June 1946 shall be null and void.

The Savoy orders, however, predate both the Republic and, indeed, the Kingdom of Italy itself; the Supreme Order of the Most Holy Annunciation for example was established by the then Counts of Savoy in 1362 (being almost as old as the Order of the Garter) and the Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus, which absorbed in Italy the assets of the old Crusader order of St Lazarus from the 12th century, was constituted by the Pope under the Crown of Savoy in 1572. Although the Italian Republic does not recognize either the right to wear those orders in public in its national territory, it cannot prevent the Savoy orders from existing as a charitable international organization based overseas, which is its current legal status, I think.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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?

I don't know about Romania, but, as far as Italy is concerned, that is correct, I believe. The succession to the Italian Crown was governed by the Albertine Statute, which was the written constitution originally of the Savoyard Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont and later of the Kingdom of Italy. It was actually a flexible constitution that could be changed by ordinary law (which helps to explain how Mussolini, with the cumplicity of King Vittorio Emanuele III, could change Italy from a parlamentary democracy into a one-party fascist state within the framework of the Statute). Nevertheless, even though amending the succession rules was relatively easy, it still required an act of Parliament passed by both chambers (the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies); it could not be changed by the King alone.

[Addapalla]

Originally Posted by MAfan

IIRC the seal was placed in one of the King's armpit.

Well that is certainly one way to make a statement!

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

To be allowed to return to Italy, Vittorio Emanuele and his son had to swear allegiance to the Italian constitution and to the President of the Italian Republic. Since the said constitution bars even the possibility of a constitutional amendment to restore the monarchy, my understanding is that, by pledging allegiance thereto, they have relinquished any claims to the Italian throne or to its restoration.

Were the Aostas subject to the same requirements?

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The constitution also transferred "to the State" all assets on Italian territory held by the formers kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants. That transitional provision (reproduced below in full) ceased to apply in 2002, I think, but the male descendants of King Vittorio Emanuele III never received any compensation from the Republic for their (extensive) assets that were expropriated following the end of the monarchy.

XIII.

The members and descendants of the House of Savoy shall not be voters and may not hold public office or elected offices.

Access and sojourn in the national territory shall be forbidden to the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants.

The assets, existing on national territory, of the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants shall be transferred to the State. Transfers and the establishment of royal rights on said properties after 2 June 1946 shall be null and void.

Did the term which is translated here as "descendants" mean something other than what we would understand it to mean? If a single ancestor from the House of Savoy, regardless of how remote, was grounds for loss of the right to vote, I imagine a broad section of the Italian population would have been banned from voting until 2002, given that the House of Savoy is centuries-old and intermarried with a variety of Italian families.

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

The Aoste were alowed to return in Italy and the savoie were banned !

But the wording "the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants" should ostensibly have applied to the Aostas, given their descent from the first Savoy king of Italy.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The problem is, however, that the question here is not succession to the throne of Italy, which unfortunately was irrevocably abolished by the republlican constitution of 1947. Instead, the dispute between the two branches is about the succession to the position of head of the family and grand master of the Savoy orders and, in this case, it is somewhat odd that Vittoria di Savoia's descendants should become heads of a family to which they do not belong.

I assume it is implicit in the decree declaring that "succession in the capacity of Head of Our Royal House and Grand Master of Our Dynastic Orders, with all the privileges, prerogatives, rights and powers associated therewith, shall be reserved to Our descendants of both genders, forever" that for the senior branch, its rules of House membership are modified to include "Our descendants of both genders, forever".

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Were the Aostas subject to the same requirements?

Although the Aostas were male descendants as you said of a former King of Italy (Vittorio Emanuele II), the ban on Paragraph 2 of Art. XIII of the Transitional Provisions, as far as I understand, applied only to King Vittorio Emanuele III and King Umberto II (i.e. the living former kings at the time), their spouses and their male line descendants.

Did the term which is translated here as "descendants" mean something other than what we would understand it to mean? If a single ancestor from the House of Savoy, regardless of how remote, was grounds for loss of the right to vote, I imagine a broad section of the Italian population would have been banned from voting until 2002, given that the House of Savoy is centuries-old and intermarried with a variety of Italian families.

I don't know, but the original text, reproduced below from the website of the Italian Senate, says the same as in the English translation.

I membri e i discendenti di Casa Savoia non sono elettori e non possono ricoprire uffici pubblici né cariche elettive.

[Mbruno]

The Italian dynastic question is rather complex, but, just to inform the discussion, see below a list of the legal instruments that regulated royal marriages and succession in the Savoyard Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont and its legal successor, the Kingdom of Italy.



1) The royal patent letters of September 13 1780, issued by King Vittorio Amedeo III of Sardinia:

Art. 1. Non sarà lecito a Principi del Sangue contrarre matrimonio senza prima ottenere il permesso Nostro o dei reali nostri successori, e mancando alcuni di essi a questo indispensabile dovere soggiacerà a quei provvedimenti, che da Noi o da reali successori, si stimeranno adatti al caso.

Art. 2. Se nell'inadempimento di questa obbligazione si aggiungesse la qualità di matrimonio contratto con persona di condizione e stato inferiore, tanto i contraenti che i discendenti da tale matrimonio si intenderanno senz'altro decaduti dal possesso dei beni e dei diritti provenienti dalla Corona e dalla ragione di succedere nei medesimi, come pure da ogni onorificenza e prerogativa della Famiglia.

Art. 3. Quando però il riflesso di qualche singolare circostanza determinasse Noi, od i reali nostri successori, a lasciare che si contragga matrimonio disuguale, riserviamo in tale caso alla sovrana autorità di prescrivere per gli effetti di esso le condizioni, e cautele, che dovranno osservarsi.

2) The royal edict of July 16, 1782, also issued by Vittorio Amedeo III:

Art. 10. I maritaggi dei Principi della nostra Casa, interessando essenzialmente il decoro della Corona ed il bene dello Stato, non potranno perciò contrarsi senza la permissione Nostra, o dei Reali successori, e mancando alcuni di essi Principi a questo indispensabile dovere, soggiacerà a quei provvedimenti, che all'occorrenza dei casi, sì da Noi, che dà Reali successori verranno ordinati, anche a tenore delle Patenti Nostre del 13 settembre 1780, con riserva pure di accompagnare le permissioni con le condizioni che si giudicheranno proprie e convenienti.

3) The Albertine Statute of March 4, 1848 (i.e. the constitution of the Kingdom of Sardinia and, later, of the Kingdom of Italy).

Art. 2. Lo Stato è retto da un Governo Monarchico Rappresentativo. Il Trono è ereditario secondo la legge salica.

4) The Civil Code of April 2, 1865:

Art. 69. Per la validità dei matrimoni dei Principi e delle Principesse Reali è richiesto l'assenso del Re.
Art. 81. Il consenso degli ascendenti, qualora non sia dato personalmente davanti l'uffiziale civile, deve constare da atto autentico, il quale contenga la precisa indicazione tanto dello sposo al quale si dà il consenso, quanto dell'altro.

5) The Civil Code of March 16, 1942:

Art. 92. Per la validità dei matrimoni dei Principi e delle Principesse Reali è richiesto l'assenso del Re Imperator

[Tatiana Maria]

Interesting, thank you.

Here are the links to the Albertine Statute and to the present Constitution, including the transitional provision regarding the Savoys.

https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_st...oalbertino.pdf
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_st...stituzione.pdf
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_st...ne_inglese.pdf

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Although the Aostas were male descendants as you said of a former King of Italy (Vittorio Emanuele II), the ban on Paragraph 2 of Art. XIII of the Transitional Provisions, as far as I understand, applied only to King Vittorio Emanuele III and King Umberto II (i.e. the living former kings at the time), their spouses and their male line descendants.

I suppose then that "former King" meant (or was interpreted to mean) in Italian a monarch who had been removed from the throne during his lifetime.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I suppose then that "former King" meant (or was interpreted to mean) in Italian a monarch who had been removed from the throne during his lifetime.

would have been the same as if the had said it without the former as King Vittorio Emanule III. had only one son who also had been King.

[maria-olivia]

If I am right King Vittorio Emanuele II had the Savoie and succeeded to reunify whole Italy even the Vatican in his Kingdom.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I suppose then that "former King" meant (or was interpreted to mean) in Italian a monarch who had been removed from the throne during his lifetime.

Exactly, that's the meaning of the provision. It was limited to the two still living former Kings, Vittorio Emanuele III and Umberto II, their spouses and male-line male descendants (i.e. Queen Elena, Queen Maria José, Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto).
This meant that the Savoy Princesses were all able to live in and travel to Italy; also the wives of the male descendants of the two former Kings were exempted from the ban (i.e. Marina, wife of Vittorio Emanuele).
The other male members of the House of Savoy were allowed to stay in Italy.

Princess Irene, Duchess of Aosta, got the permission to reside in Italy for his son Amedeo in 1948 IIRC; also other Princes could stay to live in Italy (the Duke of Genova and his brothers, the Duke of Pistoia and the Duke of Bergamo).

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Exactly, that's the meaning of the provision. It was limited to the two still living former Kings, Vittorio Emanuele III and Umberto II, their spouses and male-line male descendants (i.e. Queen Elena, Queen Maria José, Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto).
This meant that the Savoy Princesses were all able to live in and travel to Italy; also the wives of the male descendants of the two former Kings were exempted from the ban (i.e. Marina, wife of Vittorio Emanuele).
The other male members of the House of Savoy were allowed to stay in Italy.

Princess Irene, Duchess of Aosta, got the permission to reside in Italy for his son Amedeo in 1948 IIRC; also other Princes could stay to live in Italy (the Duke of Genova and his brothers, the Duke of Pistoia and the Duke of Bergamo).

Thank you for the clarification. I assume then that paragraph three of Transitional Provision XIII only confiscated the Italian assets of Vittorio Emanuele III and Elena, Umberto II and Maria José, and Vittorio Emanuele.

What was the meaning of the first paragraph of Transitional Provision XIII? Was the ban on voting applied to all Italian citizens with a Savoy ancestor, or was it interpreted in a more narrow fashion?