Savoy and Savoy-Aosta: Restoration, Succession, Heirs and Conflicts - Page 6

jonnydep · #**101** 09-28-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan

Unfortunately you're right...
I fear that until VE and his son EF will be alive and will continue to proclaim theirself the Heirs to the Italian Throne (and they aren't), we will remain a republic...
Moreover, and unfortunately too, the Aostas are very quiet, and not so much known...sometimes here we can hear something about Amedeo, but his family is rather unknown...

hi, mafan.
what do you mean by "and they aren't." have both princes renounced their rights to the throne etc and if so why are they still proclaiming themselves as heirs to the throne ?. sorry you have a little puzzled here..buddy !!

both princes are the son and grandson of the last king of italy and no matter what thier wrong doing and deeds are....does not alter the fact that both princes are considered the heirs.

however i do admitt that the behaviour of the princes does not help a restoration of the monarchy in italy.

i am pretty sure with you being an italian. you can enlighten me inregards this subject...to be honest i know very little !!

edit.......i would like to add......i forgot to mention that my main source i have of the italian royals......is burkes royal families of the world :volume one europe and latin america (1977), in which it does state "king umberto's heir is his son prince victor emmamual, born in naples in feb 1937.......

**MAfan** · #**102** 09-28-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

what do you mean by "and they aren't."

Well, it is a very long story, in some of the previous 100 posts in this page it is all explained; btw, the Laws of House Savoy state that a member of the Family who marries without asking the permission of the Head of the Family automatically looses his rights to the Throne and all his titles, for himself and his descendants.
Please notice that, according to these rules, even a morganatic marriage needs the permission of the Head of the Family.
In the 1960s King Umberto in several letters, published in the website of Prince Amedeo of Savoy (Real Casa di Savoia - Home) warned his son and at the time heir Vittorio Emanuele that He, the King, would not allow VE's marriage to a woman who was not of royal blood, since the Kings in House Savoy marry only Royal Princesses; in these letters, His Majesty warned VE also that if he would have married a commoner, the King would have informed the other Royal Families and the Italian people about VE violation of the Family Rules, and of his lost of the titles and rights.
In 1970 VE married Marina Ricolfi Doria in Las Vegas, and the following year in Teheran, without having asked the permission to his Father the King.
The logical consequence of the marriage is the lost of the rights and titles for him, and therefore for his future descendants; the other consequence is that the successor of King Umberto was the, at the time, second in the Line of Succession, Prince Amedeo.
Later, the King never recognised in any way the marriage of VE, nor as dinastyc nor as morganatic; moreover He also didn't tell anything against this marriage to the Italian people and the foreign Courts; finally, He gave his grandson Emanuele Filiberto the title of Prince of Venice.
These three facts has been read by VE as a dinastycal legitimation of his marriage, and therefore as a confirmation of his permanence in the Line of Succession and his titles; this reading is clearly against the Family Laws, that the Late King knew and always followed.

Quote:

however i do amitt that the behaviour of the princes does not help a restoration of the monarchy in italy.

unfortunately that's true...and also seriously damage the image of the Royal Family.

Warren · #**103** 09-30-2009, 04:22 AM

The posts discussing the marriage of the first Duke of Aosta have been moved to the Royal House of Savoy History etc thread.

asma · #**104** 01-11-2010, 11:07 AM

what's meant by morganatic marriage and dynastic marriage?

Next Star · #**105** 02-17-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asma

what's meant by morganatic marriage and dynastic marriage?

Morganatic marriage I rather call it non dynastic marriage is when the union of two persons are not equal in rank is approved by the head of the house.
Dynastic marriage is when the union of two persons are equal in rank and is approved by the head of the house.

asma · #**106** 02-17-2010, 06:03 PM

thank you Next star,so it's the opproval of the head of the house that makes the marriage either morganatic or dynastic not a firm bases and if the late king Umberto had approved the marriage of prince VE and Marina Doria,it should be considerd dynastic?!!

Martha · #**107** 02-17-2010, 06:50 PM

Now a days is absolutely ridiculous discuss about one Kingdom that doesn´t exist. There are a few possibilities that Italy will be a monarchy.
On the other morganatic marriage is very common in most royal houses, since many centuries ago.

**MAfan** · #**108** 02-17-2010, 06:52 PM

All the marriages of a Royal Prince or Royal Princess of Italy had to be allowed by the King in order to be legally valid, according to article 92 of the Italian Civil Code ("Per la validità dei matrimoni dei Principi e delle Principesse Reali è richiesto l'assenso del Re Imperatore").
This means that both morganatic and equal marriages needed the allowance of the King to be legally valid.
Now, if a Royal Prince married without asking the permission to the King, the law regulated two possibilities:
1- if the Royal Prince married a Princess, whose rank is equal to his, the decision of the measures against this Prince were up to the King;
2- if the Royal Prince married a commoner, or however a woman whose rank is not equal to his rank, the Royal Prince would lose automatically all his titles and rights to the Throne, as well as the exclusion of all the descendants from this marriage to any title or right to the Throne.

Some examples of all that:
1- the marriage of the then Prince Umberto to Princess Maria José of Belgium, the Prince asked the permission to the King, who allowed the marriage as a equal one; therefore Umberto maintained his titles and rights to the Throne, Maria José became a full-title member of the Royal Family and their children were by birth Princes of Savoy, with their rights to the Throne;
2- the marriage of Prince Eugenio Emanuele of Savoy, Count of Villafranca, to Felicita Crosio: the Prince asked the permission to marry to the King, who allowed the marriage as morganatic: the Prince maintained his titles and rights to the Throne, but his wife didn't become a Princess of Savoy and member of the Royal Family, and their descendants were not Princes of Savoy and didn't have rights to the Throne;
3- similar to the previous situation, the marriages of Princess Maria Gabriella to Robert Zellinger de Balkany and of her sister Maria Beatrice to Luis Reyna Corvalan: both the Princesses asked the permission to their Father the King, who allowed the marriages as morganatic: the Princesses maintained their titles, and remained members of the Royal Family;
4- the marriage of Vittorio Emanuele to Marina Ricolfi Doria: Vittorio Emanuele didn't ask the permission to his Father the King - as Vittorio Emanuele himself wrote in his autobiography, he went to Las Vegas with Marina and a couple of friends in order to marry her, and without informing his parents of the forthcoming marriage - and therefore, since Marina was not a Royal Princess but a commoner, he lost de jure his titles and rights to the Throne, according to the Laws of the Royal Family (and the above mentioned article 92); and therefore, his son has no titles by birth nor rights to the Throne.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

Next Star · #**109** 02-18-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asma

thank you Next star,so it's the opproval of the head of the house that makes the marriage either morganatic or dynastic not a firm bases and if the late king Umberto had approved the marriage of prince VE and Marina Doria,it should be considerd dynastic?!!

No I made a mistake on my previous post but I corrected it even if Victor Emmauel had got permission from his late father King Umberto.
His marriage to Marina Doria would still be morgantic (non dynastic) because she is a commoner and he was royal.

**MAfan** · #**110** 02-18-2010, 05:18 PM

Yes, Next Star, you're perfectly right. Even if VE had asked the permission to the King, the marriage would have been morganatic; in this way, Vittorio Emanuele would be now the Head of the Royal Family, but his son Emanuele Filiberto would however had no rights to the Throne.

asma · #**111** 02-22-2010, 04:39 PM

Very interesting,if this rule applied in the current monarchies,all the children of crown princes would never had rights to the thrones as all of them are the results of morganatic marriages.

**MAfan** · #**112** 02-22-2010, 05:13 PM

Well, each monarchy has its rules; for example, morganatic marriages never existed in the British Monarchy; and in some monarchy what is important and fondamental is only the permission of the Sovereign and/or the parliament.

Marc23 · #**113** 03-02-2010, 12:12 AM

Can anyone tell me something about personal relation between Emanuele Filiberto and Aimone?I am puzzled because I thought that they are on "war terms",but saw in asmallworld.net that they are connected(friends) there...

Count · #**114** 03-04-2010, 04:19 PM

They are not in good relations...

I'm also a member of ASW and I have connections with people that I never meet, maybe Emanuele Filiberto has forgotten to cancel Aimone, as you can see Emanuele has more than 2000 contacts there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc23

Can anyone tell me something about personal relation between Emanuele Filiberto and Aimone?I am puzzled because I thought that they are on "war terms",but saw in asmallworld.net that they are connected(friends) there...

Marc23 · #**115** 03-04-2010, 04:36 PM

True,Emanuele has more than 2000 and Aimone has only 13...and one of them is Emanuele

Count · #**116** 03-08-2010, 08:14 AM

Right, Aimone probably doesn't care about ASW, he thinks to work hard in Moscow...

Odette · #**117** 03-18-2010, 06:42 PM

I just read in the Point de Vue that the courts in Italy decided in favour of Victor Emanuele and against the Aostas. How is this taken among the Aostas' supporters.?

**MAfan** · #**118** 03-19-2010, 11:23 AM

This decision has nothing to do with the succession conflicts, or at least it shouldn't have anything to do with them.

The Court decided in favour of Vittorio Emanuele and against Amedeo and Aimone about using Savoy surname in Italy; in Italy, or more precisely in Italian Republic, VE's legal surname is "di Savoia", while Amedeo and Aimone's surname is "di Savoia-Aosta". Therefore Amedeo and Aimone can't use as surname "di Savoia", and this is the content of the decision of the Court.

This decision doesn't pertain to the succession to the Headship of Savoy Family for two reasons:
1- a Court of the Italian Republic (which doesn't recognize any headships to families, nor any family rules, nor anything similar, that is proper matter of aristocracy, royal families and monarchies) has no jurisdiction about this item;
2- Amedeo and Aimone, on a monarchist point of view, are without any doubt Princes of Savoy, not Princes of Savoy-Aosta; and more, Amedeo's legal surname before the Republic was "di Savoia".

As an Aostas' supporter, I can't do anything but agree with the decision of the Court, since Amedeo and Aimone have a certain legal surname and can't use a different one; but it would be very uncorrect to ascribe to them the title "Prince of Savoy-Aosta", since a similar title never existed. Their surname is "di Savoia-Aosta", their title (although not recognized in Italy) is Prince of Savoy.

wok_kym · #**119** 06-28-2010, 03:23 PM

My question might irritate you... and many people may have asked this before but i haven't found this in the thread!
I'm italian, and i've seen there are a few otheres here, and i love and i'm interested in royal houses!
What i'm asking you is why do you consider Vittorio Emanuele and Emanuele Filiberto part of the Royal House?
They are not... and i'm not saying this because Italy voted in 1946 for Republic and abolished every noble title because this is something only related to Italian law, but i'm saying this because Vittorio Emanuele had lost his dynastic rights when he married without the permission of his father former king Umberto II, excluding V E and his son from the royal house which made Amedeo duke of Savoia the only heir
Actually, the former king, when he died, wanted to be buried with the royal insignia which ends the Savoia as a Royal House.
Furthermore even Umberto's daughters don't recognize Vittorio Emanuele as part f the royal family!
What do you think?

asma · #**120** 06-28-2010, 07:47 PM

hello wok,your question was killed at discussion in trf and again if late king Umberto did recognised duke of Aosta as his heir why didn't he declare this clearly and give the royal insignia to him?and why didn't Amedeo,duke of aosta claim his right of throne immediatly after king Umberto death? this issue didn't explore till quuen Marie jose death.regarding the marriage rules in the royal house of savoy,the late king had had all rights to change in them and the right to approve the marriage which is considered unequal and we didn't know what was going on and maybe the late king approved the marriage of VE and Marina.another thing,if the late king wanted the royal insgnia to be buried with him then it means neither Amedeo nor VE have the rights of throne.regarding,VE and EF being part of the royal house of savoy,this fact will never be affectd by their rights of throne and if you are believing both have no rights then their positions will be similar to prince Friso von orange and prince Louis de Nassu.regarding king Umberto's daughters, as far as I kmow,troubles with their brother VE began after the queen death and the conflict was about the queen jewels.