The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 06-06-2021, 09:41 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 6,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.

De facto it applied only to the Italian assets of Umberto II.
The Italian Constitution enterd into force on 1 January 1948, three days after Vittorio Emanuele III died.
His heirs were his four surviving children Jolanda, Umberto II, Giovanna and Maria, as well as his four Hessen grandchldren (children of Princess Mafalda, who had predeceased the King).
When the Transitional Provision XIII came into force, it applied to the assets of King Umberto II, which by then included also 1/5 share of the assets of the late King Vittorio Emanuele III.


By the way, later the other co-heirs of Vittorio Emanuele III decided to share 1/5 of their shares of inheritance with King Umberto II.
The assets of King Vittorio Emanuele III included Villa Savoia and its park in Rome, the castles of Pollenzo and Sarre, the estates of Capocotta and Castel Bufalaro (near Castelporziano, Rome), the estate of Sant'Anna di Valdieri (near Cuneo). It also included a huge amount of money deposited at Hambros Bank in London, as well as part of the late King's exceptional coin collection.


As for Umberto II's assets in Italy, the most prominent part of it was the Castle of Racconigi, which was confiscated by the Italian government.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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?

It was interpreted in a narrow way; it basically applied only to those who were also exiled in force of the second paragraph.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-06-2021, 10:46 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,157
The Savoias seem to have been able to retain some wealth, probably also thanks to Marina Doria, born in a wealthy family.

The Savoia-Aostas used to be wealthy, but like in so many royal families, lack of a good financial management has exhausted the fortune. The new Duke however is almost 10 years CEO of Pirelli Tyre Russia / Nordic region. And for 15 years the new Duke is vice president of the Association of Italian companies in Russia, Gim-Unimpresa, an aggregate partner of Confindustria.

According to the Pirelli annual financial overview, regional CEO's have an annual salary of 2,4 million Euro. With that the Duke of Aosta actually earns more private income than European Governments grant to their reigning Sovereigns...

So when the new Duke has a good advisor (he himself has worked at J.P
Morgan & Co) he must be able to grown a new fortune for the Savoia-Aostas.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-06-2021, 10:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,988
Thank you for the reply, MAfan, very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 10-21-2021, 12:45 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles area, United States
Posts: 100
Sort of a random question, but here goes: In the event that the Italian monarchy would have actually survived up to the present-day (the 1946 referendum goes the other way, for instance) and allowed female succession, would there have ever been a chance of the Savoy-Aosta branch being completely removed from the line of succession to the Italian throne if the senior branch of the House of Savoy would have ever had enough heirs (including female heirs, of course) of its own?

I know that in Japan in 1947, for instance, all of the Japanese cadet branches were made commoners in order to significantly reduce the size of the Japanese royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 10-22-2021, 05:17 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Sort of a random question, but here goes: In the event that the Italian monarchy would have actually survived up to the present-day (the 1946 referendum goes the other way, for instance) and allowed female succession, would there have ever been a chance of the Savoy-Aosta branch being completely removed from the line of succession to the Italian throne if the senior branch of the House of Savoy would have ever had enough heirs (including female heirs, of course) of its own?

I know that in Japan in 1947, for instance, all of the Japanese cadet branches were made commoners in order to significantly reduce the size of the Japanese royal family.

I think the Savoia-Aostas would not be excluded for the simple reason that in 1946 there were already an extremely limited number of successors (after 1948 even only two children):

Line of succession in 1946
Umberto di Savoia, XXV Duca di Savoia, Re d'Italia
1 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, Principe di Napoli (9 years old)
2 Aimone di Savoia-Aosta, IV Duca d'Aosta (46 years old) *
3 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta (3 years old)

* Aimone died two years later

Line of succession in 1948
Umberto di Savoia, XXV Duca di Savoia, Re d'Italia
1 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, Principe di Napoli (11 years old)
2 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta, V Duca d'Aosta (5 years old)


Line of succession in 1983 (after the death of Umberto II)
Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, XXVI Duca di Savoia
1 Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, Principe di Venezia (9 years old)
2 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta, V Duca d'Aosta (40 years old)
3 Aimone di Savoia-Aosta, Duca delle Puglie (16 years old)
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 10-23-2021, 01:05 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 6,292
Actually in 1946 there were several more successors: the Duke of Genova, the Duke of Bergamo, the Duke of Pistoia and the Duke of Ancona.
Eventually their branch became extinct in the male line, but in 1946 at least the Duke of Ancona could potentially have had more children (he was already father of a 3 year old daughter).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 10-23-2021, 01:29 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
Actually in 1946 there were several more successors: the Duke of Genova, the Duke of Bergamo, the Duke of Pistoia and the Duke of Ancona.
Eventually their branch became extinct in the male line, but in 1946 at least the Duke of Ancona could potentially have had more children (he was already father of a 3 year old daughter).
That is true, I indeed preluded on the extinction of their lines. The Savoias have been exiled. The Savoia-Aostas not. So if the State wanted to exclude a line, in my logic, they would have excluded the already banned Savoias.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 10-23-2021, 11:12 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Los Angeles area, United States
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I think the Savoia-Aostas would not be excluded for the simple reason that in 1946 there were already an extremely limited number of successors (after 1948 even only two children):

Line of succession in 1946
Umberto di Savoia, XXV Duca di Savoia, Re d'Italia
1 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, Principe di Napoli (9 years old)
2 Aimone di Savoia-Aosta, IV Duca d'Aosta (46 years old) *
3 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta (3 years old)

* Aimone died two years later

Line of succession in 1948
Umberto di Savoia, XXV Duca di Savoia, Re d'Italia
1 Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, Principe di Napoli (11 years old)
2 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta, V Duca d'Aosta (5 years old)


Line of succession in 1983 (after the death of Umberto II)
Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia, XXVI Duca di Savoia
1 Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, Principe di Venezia (9 years old)
2 Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta, V Duca d'Aosta (40 years old)
3 Aimone di Savoia-Aosta, Duca delle Puglie (16 years old)
But if the succession laws would have been changed, then Umberto II's daughters and/or their descendants could have also been put in the line of succession to the Italian throne. Umberto II had three daughters.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old Today, 09:49 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
He's not my favorite either,but he is the legitimate claimant to the defunct Italian Throne being the eldest son of the late King Umberto and Queen Maria José.
The Savoia Aosta 's have always thought they are far above anyone else on the planet but that's just what they think

It was a totally disfunctional family at the time and still to this day,so no surprises in the siblings department there.
He stopped being the legitimate claimant because he made a non-dynastic marriage which he was warned against by his father and his only son has no sons so it’s a moot point.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old Today, 09:50 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
But if the succession laws would have been changed, then Umberto II's daughters and/or their descendants could have also been put in the line of succession to the Italian throne. Umberto II had three daughters.
But the succession laws did not change and those princesses and their descendants are not in the succession.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old Today, 10:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
But the succession laws did not change and those princesses and their descendants are not in the succession.
Futurist's comment was posted in the context of a hypothetical situation in which the Italian monarchy was not abolished. Of course, nobody is actually in the line of succession to the Italian throne as there is no longer any such throne. As for succession to the headship of the house, the senior branch has changed their house laws to include daughters and their descendants beginning with the descendants of Emanuele Filiberto, but the Aosta branch has not.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old Today, 10:43 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Futurist's comment was posted in the context of a hypothetical situation in which the Italian monarchy was not abolished. Of course, nobody is actually in the line of succession to the Italian throne as there is no longer any such throne. As for succession to the headship of the house, the senior branch has changed their house laws to include daughters and their descendants beginning with the descendants of Emanuele Filiberto, but the Aosta branch has not.
I understood the context of the comment. The senior branch can do what it likes, won’t change the fact that Vittorio Emanuele’s rights to do so are disputed.
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old Today, 10:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
I understood the context of the comment. The senior branch can do what it likes, won’t change the fact that Vittorio Emanuele’s rights to do so are disputed.
The same applies to the Aosta branch and any other pretenders.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old Today, 11:32 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The same applies to the Aosta branch and any other pretenders.
Not really, firstly Vittorio Emanuele married non-dynastically that’s strike one against him, secondly his own son too has married non-dynastically and he has no sons. If Vittorio Emanuele had married dynastically and if his son had a son he wouldn’t be changing the succession to suit his descendants but he’s deliberately changed it.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old Today, 11:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The same applies to the Aosta branch and any other pretenders.
Not really, firstly Vittorio Emanuele married non-dynastically that’s strike one against him, secondly his own son too has married non-dynastically and he has no sons. If Vittorio Emanuele had married dynastically and if his son had a son he wouldn’t be changing the succession to suit his descendants but he’s deliberately changed it.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old Today, 11:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Not really, firstly Vittorio Emanuele married non-dynastically that’s strike one against him, secondly his own son too has married non-dynastically and he has no sons. If Vittorio Emanuele had married dynastically and if his son had a son he wouldn’t be changing the succession to suit his descendants but he’s deliberately changed it.
I didn't say that both sides advanced their claims on the same bases or comment on Vittorio Emanuele's motivations. I only responded to your comment "The senior branch can do what it likes, won’t change the fact that Vittorio Emanuele’s rights to do so are disputed" by pointing out that each branch disputes the "rights" of the other.

Perhaps we are talking past one another. I must admit I still do not understand the point you intended to make in your reply to Futurist.
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old Today, 12:16 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 7,104
King Umberto is buried with the Royal Seal . (JR76 -257)
He knew the future of the Italian Monarchy....
Amen
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
amedeo, duke amedeo, duke of aosta, prince vittorio emanuele, savoy, savoy-aosta


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 25 (4 members and 21 guests)
prince.of.preslav, WillVictoria
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta and Princess Olga of Greece, September 2008 Benjamin Weddings: Non-Reigning Houses & Nobility 136 03-24-2022 10:43 AM
HRH Duke Amedeo (1943-2021) and the Savoy-Aosta Family Julia Royal Families of Italy 429 07-09-2021 02:29 PM
Prince Aimone and Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta and Family (2008-2021) Benjamin Royal Families of Italy 371 06-09-2021 01:18 PM
Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta engaged to Princess Olga of Greece, May 2005 bigheadshirmp Royal Families of Italy 176 09-20-2008 06:09 AM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday abdullah ii albert prince consort all tags austria braganza british royal family cadwallader camilla castile charles congo danish royal family de la cerda denmark dubai expo duchess of kent duke of cambridge guzman hamdan bin ahmed henry viii history identifying india ingrid-alexandra ivrea japanese imperial family japan history jordan royal family king edward iii king henry iii king philippe king willem-alexander louis mountbatten maria ii monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten nara period need help noble families norway crown princely couple official visit orleans-braganza pedro ii politics portugal prince andrew prince charles prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria samurai state visit tokugawa uae wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×