Savoy and Savoy-Aosta: Restoration, Succession, Heirs and Conflicts 2: 2022 -

[lucien]

Nothing but good about the dead they say.
I choose to hold my tongue instead.

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you very much for posting the primary documents.

Interesting that as of 1969 Vittorio Emanuele still believed the republican state of Italy and its laws were illegitimate (while deeming his father's dethronement to be legitimate, which seems contradictory on its face), which he has since had a change of heart on.

It seems his and his supporters' primary counterargument is that Umberto II's position allegedly evolved since the 1960s, since Umberto II never explicitly "communicate[d] to each and every member of our House, and to all the Sovereigns and Heads of the Royal families. It would likewise be made known to the Italians" his son's "losing your titles and rank and finding yourself reduced to the condition of a private citizen" upon his unequal marriage, as he had promised to do in the 1960s. Did he at least follow through on his promise to reduce Vittorio Emanuele's monetary inheritance to a share equal to his sisters?

I presume the Aostas and their supporters continue to stand by the interpretation of the family laws expressed by Umberto II in his 1960 letter (whether Umberto himself resiled from this view or not). If so, that is interesting because it means they require marriages to not only be approved by the family head, but also equal (with members of sovereign families, which presumably includes ex-sovereign families), in order for dynastic rights to be conserved, which considerably limits the choice of wife for Aimone's sons.

The constitution of the Kingdom of Italy itself (see an English translation here ) surprisingly does not seem to contain any provision about loss of succession rights in case of an unconsented royal marriage. In this sense, based on the old constitution, Vittorio's marriage to Marina Doria would not seem to affect his position as heir to the throne.

However, as Italy is no longer a monarchy, the question here concerns a claim to the position of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, rather than a claim to the throne of Italy. Are the so-called "family laws" that govern the succession to head of the House published anywhere?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The constitution of the Kingdom of Italy itself (see an English translation here ) surprisingly does not seem to contain any provision about loss of succession rights in case of an unconsented royal marriage. In this sense, based on the old constitution, Vittorio's marriage to Marina Doria would not seem to affect his position as heir to the throne.

However, as Italy is no longer a monarchy, the question here concerns a claim to the position of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, rather than a claim to the throne of Italy. Are the so-called "family laws" that govern the succession to head of the House published anywhere?

His father was alive when he married and didn’t approve of the marriage. A dynastic marriage was expected during the time of the monarchy even if not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

 

[MAfan]

The constitution of the Kingdom of Italy itself (see an English translation here ) surprisingly does not seem to contain any provision about loss of succession rights in case of an unconsented royal marriage. In this sense, based on the old constitution, Vittorio's marriage to Marina Doria would not seem to affect his position as heir to the throne.

However, as Italy is no longer a monarchy, the question here concerns a claim to the position of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, rather than a claim to the throne of Italy. Are the so-called "family laws" that govern the succession to head of the House published anywhere?

The Albertine Statute didn't indeed contaiain any provision of that kind, for a very simple reason: when the statute was promulgated, marriages of members of the Royal Family were regulated by the Royal Patents of 13 September 1780 and 16 July 1782 proclaimed by King Vittorio Amedeo II.

Later on, the 1865 Civil Code contained a provision about marriages of the members of the Royal Family, which was mantained also in the 1942 Civil Code.

The 1780 Royal Patent provided that "it is unlawful for Princes of the Blood to enter into marriage without first having obtained Our permission, or the permission of Our Royal successors, and should any of these fail in his imperative duty he shall be subject to proceedings which We or Our Royal successors consider fitting in his case" and that "if in the fulfillment of this obligation there also exists the quality of marriage with a person of inferior condition and status, both contracting parties and the descendents of the said marriage must consider themselves dispossessed of all property and rights deriving from the Crown and any claim to succeed to same, and likewise all distinctions and prerogatives of the family".

The 1782 Patent basically confirmed the principle expressed two years before.

The 1865 Civil Code provided (art. 69) that "«The King’s consent is a necessity for the validity of the marriages of Royal Princes and Princesses".
This provision was also maintained in the 1942 Civil Code (art. 92, with a slightly different formulation as instead of the King's consent it erequired the consent of the King-Emperor).


Basically the two Royal Patents were dynastical acts, but they were still considered as effective also during the Kingdom of Italy.

It is interesting to note that - while the general rule was that Princes had (have) to marry equally in order to keep their succession rights - still if the King authorized a non-equal marriage the succession rights could be kept anyway.
It happened in 1938, when the Duke of Genova married to Maria Luisa Alliaga Gandolfi.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The constitution of the Kingdom of Italy itself (see an English translation here ) surprisingly does not seem to contain any provision about loss of succession rights in case of an unconsented royal marriage. In this sense, based on the old constitution, Vittorio's marriage to Marina Doria would not seem to affect his position as heir to the throne.

However, as Italy is no longer a monarchy, the question here concerns a claim to the position of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, rather than a claim to the throne of Italy. Are the so-called "family laws" that govern the succession to head of the House published anywhere?

MAfan already provided a nice summary, but to answer your question, the old website of the Savoy Aosta family (which published the letters Benjamin linked above) also published a collection of house laws and state laws regarding marriages of royal princes and princesses: The royal patents of 1780, the royal edict of 1782, the Albertine Statute of 1848, and the Kingdom of Italy's civil codes of 1865 and 1942.

Italian

https://web.archive.org/web/2007050...files/ufficiostudi/normativa_matrimoni_it.pdf

French translation

https://web.archive.org/web/2009092...files/ufficiostudi/normativa_matrimoni_fr.pdf

English translation

https://web.archive.org/web/2007070...files/ufficiostudi/normativa_matrimoni_en.pdf


The 1780 patent seems to be the only one concerning the requirement of equal marriages. Article 2 seems to stipulate that even an unequal marriage approved by the king will result in the loss of rights to the crown and the loss of family honors and prerogatives, but then there is Article 3, which I am not sure how to interpret.

THE ROYAL PATENTS of 13 September 1780, of King Vittorio Amedeo III

Art. 1 It shall not be permissible for Princes of the Blood to contract marriage without previously obtaining Our approval, or that of our royal successors, and should any of the foresaid fail in this indispensable duty he will be subject to such provisions deemed appropriate in his case by Us and by the foresaid royal successors.

Art. 2 If in the fulfilment of this duty a marriage should be contracted with a person of inferior condition and status, both the contractors and the descendents of the marriage will unfailingly become destitute of such goods and rights as derive from the Crown, and the right to succeed as such, likewise to any honours and prerogatives of the Family.

Art. 3 If, in the event however consideration of some singular circumstance should persuade Us, or Our royal successors, to permit an unequal marriage to take place, in this case we reserve the sovereign authority to prescribe conditions for such effects and cautions which must be observed.
​

It is interesting to note that - while the general rule was that Princes had (have) to marry equally in order to keep their succession rights - still if the King authorized a non-equal marriage the succession rights could be kept anyway.
It happened in 1938, when the Duke of Genova married to Maria Luisa Alliaga Gandolfi.

Interesting! Do you have any information or documentation concerning this marriage and the King's decisions on the couple's status?

 

[MAfan]

Unfortunately no, I don't have documentation about it. I remember (though I should check the exact sources) that King Vittorio Emanuele III gave his authorization to the marriage, so that Prince Ferdinando could keep his titles and rank and his wife became HRH the Duchess of Genova.
Their marriage was a case of art. 3 of the 1780 Royal Patents: the King permitted an unequal marriage to take place, considering it dynastically valid so that the bride became a member of the Royal Family.

Another interesting situation was that regarding Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of Abruzzi: he wanted to marry to American Katherine Elkins, but the King refused to acconsent to the marriage. The prince eventually didn't marry her, because it would have implied his authomatic loss of titles and rank.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Unfortunately no, I don't have documentation about it. I remember (though I should check the exact sources) that King Vittorio Emanuele III gave his authorization to the marriage, so that Prince Ferdinando could keep his titles and rank and his wife became HRH the Duchess of Genova.
Their marriage was a case of art. 3 of the 1780 Royal Patents: the King permitted an unequal marriage to take place, considering it dynastically valid so that the bride became a member of the Royal Family.

Another interesting situation was that regarding Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of Abruzzi: he wanted to marry to American Katherine Elkins, but the King refused to acconsent to the marriage. The prince eventually didn't marry her, because it would have implied his authomatic loss of titles and rank.

Ferdinando’s wife was an aristocrat just like the Duke of Aosta’s wife, Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo. Anyways, Ferdinando didn’t have children.

I think the Kings made a distinction between marriage to aristocracy vs commoners hence Ferdinando being allowed to marry his wife vs the Duke of Abruzzi who wanted to marry an American but wasn’t allowed to.

 

[MAfan]

Ferdinando’s wife was an aristocrat just like the Duke of Aosta’s wife, Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo. Anyways, Ferdinando didn’t have children.

I think the Kings made a distinction between marriage to aristocracy vs commoners hence Ferdinando being allowed to marry his wife vs the Duke of Abruzzi who wanted to marry an American but wasn’t allowed to.

I'm not sure about that.
It's true that both Maria Vittoria and Maria Luisa were born into noble families, but both were far from being considered as equal to the Savoys.
In Maria Vittoria's case, actually, King Vittorio Emanuele II at the beginning wasn't much in favour of the match, because of her non-royal status - in spite of being born into a noble and respected family. In the event he agreed to the marriage, partly because Maria Vittoria was the sole heiress to an enormous wealth, partly because of the insistence of Prince Amedeo.

As for Miss Elkins, IIRC the main problem that justified the opposition to the marriage was linked to her father's past and career, rather than to the mere fact that she was an American. In this case, the King could have simply allowed the marriage to take place as a morganatic marriage (like, previously, the marriage of Prince Eugenio of Savoy-Villafranca to Felicita Crosio).

My point, anyway, was that without any form of consent from the King - both to an equal marriage or to a morganatic union - the consequences of the marriage would have been extremely heavy for the Prince; he would lose his titles, rank and succession rights.
Possibly the marriage would have been considered also nulla and void in Italy, due to art. 69 of the (then) Civil Code, but this provision has neve been actually applied.

 

[Mbruno]

The Albertine Statute didn't indeed contaiain any provision of that kind, for a very simple reason: when the statute was promulgated, marriages of members of the Royal Family were regulated by the Royal Patents of 13 September 1780 and 16 July 1782 proclaimed by King Vittorio Amedeo II.

Later on, the 1865 Civil Code contained a provision about marriages of the members of the Royal Family, which was mantained also in the 1942 Civil Code.

The 1780 Royal Patent provided that "it is unlawful for Princes of the Blood to enter into marriage without first having obtained Our permission, or the permission of Our Royal successors, and should any of these fail in his imperative duty he shall be subject to proceedings which We or Our Royal successors consider fitting in his case" and that "if in the fulfillment of this obligation there also exists the quality of marriage with a person of inferior condition and status, both contracting parties and the descendents of the said marriage must consider themselves dispossessed of all property and rights deriving from the Crown and any claim to succeed to same, and likewise all distinctions and prerogatives of the family".

The 1782 Patent basically confirmed the principle expressed two years before.

The 1865 Civil Code provided (art. 69) that "«The King’s consent is a necessity for the validity of the marriages of Royal Princes and Princesses".
This provision was also maintained in the 1942 Civil Code (art. 92, with a slightly different formulation as instead of the King's consent it erequired the consent of the King-Emperor).


Basically the two Royal Patents were dynastical acts, but they were still considered as effective also during the Kingdom of Italy.

It is interesting to note that - while the general rule was that Princes had (have) to marry equally in order to keep their succession rights - still if the King authorized a non-equal marriage the succession rights could be kept anyway.
It happened in 1938, when the Duke of Genova married to Maria Luisa Alliaga Gandolfi.

Thank you, MAfan.

The Albertine Statute was a so-called flexible constitution in the sense that it could be amended by an ordinary act of Parliament. A royal patent, however, is not an act of Parliament, so, legally speaking, it is doubtful if it could impose a restriction on the law of succession to the Crown that is not contemplated in the constitution or in any other primary legislation. That would be equivalent to the King being able to amend the law of succession by rpyal patent, which could be considered unconstitutional. Besides, the said royal patents predate the creation of the Kingdom of Italy and it is not clear to what extent they were incorporated into Italian law. A similar discussion, in another country, is how the Pragmatic Sanctions that regulated dynastic marriages in Spain have been overruled by subsequent written Spanish constitutions.

I believe, however, that Art. 69 of the 1865 Civil Code (or Art. 92 of the 1942 Civil Code), as you have described them, were compatible with the Albertine Statute and, if applied in this case, would have made the children of Vittorio and Marina's marriage illegitimate (hence, with no succession rights), but would not have affected Vittorio's succession rights properly. It would be analogous, in this sense, to the consequences of the now repealed Royal Marriages Act 1772 in the United Kingdom.

I accept the argument, however, that the said royal patents can be considered part of the "family law" regulating the status of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, which is the relevant discussion here (as there is no Crown of Italy anymore). However, as Tatiana Maria said, it appears that King Umberto II never formally communicated to all royal houses of Europe that his son had been disinherited, so it is unclear if the sanctions in the royal patents ever occurred. If not, Vittorio inherited the headship of the House when his father died and, as head of the House, he could change the House rules and overrule the former royal patents.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I'm not sure about that.
It's true that both Maria Vittoria and Maria Luisa were born into noble families, but both were far from being considered as equal to the Savoys.
In Maria Vittoria's case, actually, King Vittorio Emanuele II at the beginning wasn't much in favour of the match, because of her non-royal status - in spite of being born into a noble and respected family. In the event he agreed to the marriage, partly because Maria Vittoria was the sole heiress to an enormous wealth, partly because of the insistence of Prince Amedeo.

As for Miss Elkins, IIRC the main problem that justified the opposition to the marriage was linked to her father's past and career, rather than to the mere fact that she was an American. In this case, the King could have simply allowed the marriage to take place as a morganatic marriage (like, previously, the marriage of Prince Eugenio of Savoy-Villafranca to Felicita Crosio).

My point, anyway, was that without any form of consent from the King - both to an equal marriage or to a morganatic union - the consequences of the marriage would have been extremely heavy for the Prince; he would lose his titles, rank and succession rights.
Possibly the marriage would have been considered also nulla and void in Italy, due to art. 69 of the (then) Civil Code, but this provision has neve been actually applied.

My point was that there’s a difference between the two because one marriage was allowed to happen and the other wasn’t allowed. I never said Maria Vittorio dal Pozzo was of equal status to her husband, what I meant was that the marriage of Maria Vittoria was more acceptable to the Savoys because the marriage was not declared morganatic and she was noble aside from her being an heiress. Of course, the family weren’t accepting initially, but marriage to a noble in their minds was more socially acceptable than marriage to a commoner albeit from an American wealthy family because the Duke of Aosta’s descendants have succession rights and ducal titles, Prince Eugenio’s descendants don’t have succession rights but have a countly title.

The Duke of Abruzzi was actually prepared to lose his titles but was convinced by his brother not to do so.

 

[MAfan]

My point was that there’s a difference between the two because one marriage was allowed to happen and the other wasn’t allowed. I never said Maria Vittorio dal Pozzo was of equal status to her husband, what I meant was that the marriage of Maria Vittoria was more acceptable to the Savoys because the marriage was not declared morganatic and she was noble aside from her being an heiress. Of course, the family weren’t accepting initially, but marriage to a noble in their minds was more socially acceptable than marriage to a commoner albeit from an American wealthy family because the Duke of Aosta’s descendants have succession rights and ducal titles, Prince Eugenio’s descendants don’t have succession rights but have a countly title.

The Duke of Abruzzi was actually prepared to lose his titles but was convinced by his brother not to do so.

Thanks for the clarification, I must have somehow partly misunderstood the sense of your previous post.

As for the Duke of Abruzzi, I don't remember the detail you mention, but this is a good chance for me to refresh my memory by re-reading some books I have at home.

 

[MAfan]

I accept the argument, however, that the said royal patents can be considered part of the "family law" regulating the status of head of the House of Savoy and Grand Master of the Savoy orders, which is the relevant discussion here (as there is no Crown of Italy anymore). However, as Tatiana Maria said, it appears that King Umberto II never formally communicated to all royal houses of Europe that his son had been disinherited, so it is unclear if the sanctions in the royal patents ever occurred. If not, Vittorio inherited the headship of the House when his father died and, as head of the House, he could change the House rules and overrule the former royal patents.

That's one of the aspects that puzzle me.
King Umberto was very clear about his thoughts and his intentions in his letters, where at some point his openly referred to Marina Doria and to a possible marriage between Vittorio Emanuele and her.
The Royal Patents are also quite clear: the consequences about a Prince who marries without the King's consent seem to apply authomatically, without the need of formal measures. On the contrary, a Prince needs to have the King's formal approval in order to maintain his title, status, succession rights.
So, one can argue that a formal act of disinheritance and exclusion wasn't necessary.

That said, I also think that a very significant fact was that the late King had the seal of the Kings of Italy (and previously of Sardinia and previously Dukes of Savoy) buried with him: somehow, this marked the end of a dinasty and of an institution, leaving behind him just his family. It clearly prevented Vittorio Emanuele (and Emanuele Filiberto after him) to have and use the royal seal, but this act also prevented anyone else to have it: but it was a symbol of political power and relevance of the House of Savoy which didn't (and doesn't) exist anymore.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That's one of the aspects that puzzle me.
King Umberto was very clear about his thoughts and his intentions in his letters, where at some point his openly referred to Marina Doria and to a possible marriage between Vittorio Emanuele and her.
The Royal Patents are also quite clear: the consequences about a Prince who marries without the King's consent seem to apply authomatically, without the need of formal measures. On the contrary, a Prince needs to have the King's formal approval in order to maintain his title, status, succession rights.
So, one can argue that a formal act of disinheritance and exclusion wasn't necessary.

True, but as you pointed out, Article 3 of the patent of 1780 muddies the waters a bit by seemingly authorizing the King to make exceptions to the automatic exclusion from all dynastic rights, which I suppose allows Vittorio Emanuele or his supporters to claim that his father did make an exception in his case. (Did Umberto II ever refer to the married Vittorio Emanuele or his wife and children by a title?)

That said, I also think that a very significant fact was that the late King had the seal of the Kings of Italy (and previously of Sardinia and previously Dukes of Savoy) buried with him: somehow, this marked the end of a dinasty and of an institution, leaving behind him just his family. It clearly prevented Vittorio Emanuele (and Emanuele Filiberto after him) to have and use the royal seal, but this act also prevented anyone else to have it: but it was a symbol of political power and relevance of the House of Savoy which didn't (and doesn't) exist anymore.

Along those same lines, I wonder if at some level Umberto II resigned himself to the fact that his family's dynastic status had come to an end and was unlikely to be restored, and so his "failure" to make clear pronouncements about whom he saw as his successor was simply a choice to prioritize family harmony over a technical dispute over a to all purposes empty position (since, as Emanuele Filiberto mentioned in that recent interview, even the private dynastic orders had dwindled to almost nothing by the time Umberto II died).

 

[MAfan]

True, but as you pointed out, Article 3 of the patent of 1780 muddies the waters a bit by seemingly authorizing the King to make exceptions to the automatic exclusion from all dynastic rights, which I suppose allows Vittorio Emanuele or his supporters to claim that his father did make an exception in his case. (Did Umberto II ever refer to the married Vittorio Emanuele or his wife and children by a title?)

If such an exception was actually made, then there is by now no trace of it (at least no trace made public of it).
It is also odd that there is no trace of any written document about the alleged bestowal of the title of Prince of Venice in favour of Emanuele Filiberto. Allegedly (as claimed by Emanuele Filiberto) the King conferred him the title on the day of his christening, but - while usually the King issued written documents when granting titles - in Emanuele Filiberto's case such document doesn't appear to exist (on that matter, Olghina di Robilant - who knew quite well the late King and his family - once wrote in her blog that the title of Prince of Venice was a joke: when asked if his grandson was a Prince, the King replied joking "Yes, Prince of Venice": a joke because historically Venice never had princes, nor it was a title linked to the House of Savoy).

 

[maria-olivia]

Would Emanuele Filiberto be Prince of Naples ? Yes Venice never had a Prince !

 

[Stefan]

Would Emanuele Filiberto be Prince of Naples ? Yes Venice never had a Prince !

Traditionally he would be Prince of Piedmont as that was the usually Title of the Crown Prince

 

[JGio]

Traditionally he would be Prince of Piedmont as that was the usually Title of the Crown Prince

In the Kingdom of Italy the title of Crown Prince alternated between Prince of Piedmont and Prince of Naples, to stress the unity of the recently unified country.
In a statement, it appears that now Emanuele Filiberto is referred to “Duke of Savoy and Prince of Venice”, meaning that the title of Prince of Piedmont “reverted to the Crown” with the passing of Prince Vittorio Emanuele. So is now Princess Vittoria the Princess of Naples?

 

[An Ard Ri]

I would have thought that 'Duke of Savoy' would be more appropriate for the heir given the families historic ties to the duchy of Savoy.

I've never understood the Prince of Naples or Prince of Venice titles.

 

[Stefan]

I would have thought that 'Duke of Savoy' would be more appropriate for the heir given the families historic ties to the duchy of Savoy.

I've never understood the Prince of Naples or Prince of Venice titles.

I have read that the started to use Prince of Naples to show that they where no reigning over entire Italy not only the part from where they came. And Prince of Venice was never used during the monarchy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In a statement, it appears that now Emanuele Filiberto is referred to “Duke of Savoy and Prince of Venice”, [...]

Yes, he is referred to as such in the family's announcement of his father's funeral arrangements.

https://www.ordinidinasticicasasavoia.it/esequie-di-s-a-r-il-principevittorio-emanuele-di-savoia/

If such an exception was actually made, then there is by now no trace of it (at least no trace made public of it).
It is also odd that there is no trace of any written document about the alleged bestowal of the title of Prince of Venice in favour of Emanuele Filiberto. Allegedly (as claimed by Emanuele Filiberto) the King conferred him the title on the day of his christening, but - while usually the King issued written documents when granting titles - in Emanuele Filiberto's case such document doesn't appear to exist

I assume Emanuele Filiberto cannot remember his own christening, so who informed him of it?

(on that matter, Olghina di Robilant - who knew quite well the late King and his family - once wrote in her blog that the title of Prince of Venice was a joke: when asked if his grandson was a Prince, the King replied joking "Yes, Prince of Venice": a joke because historically Venice never had princes, nor it was a title linked to the House of Savoy).

Assuming she is correct that he said so jokingly, it sounds as if he still did not accept his grandson as a dynastic heir but, in contrast to what he promised in his letters in the 1960s, decided not to push the issue publicly.

The duke of Aosta has released a statement with his condoleances.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753852110733484095

Very kind of Aimone to refer to his counterparts as Princes and Princess, when in light of his own pretense to the throne they would not be that - but private citizens. At this difficult time he is putting aside hatred and pain points..

Interesting detail. It seems the current version of his official family website also omits the documents relating to the disputed headship which were formerly included (refer to the earlier posts). I wonder if Aimone and Emanuele Filiberto might reach an agreement similar to that of the two Borbone Two Sicilies headship claimants (even if it did little good for that family's conflict), where they agree to continue to disagree on who is the rightful head of the house but recognize one another as "princes and princesses" of the house and collaborate to preserve the family legacy.

 

[Prinsara]

Interesting detail. It seems the current version of his official family website also omits the documents relating to the disputed headship which were formerly included (refer to the earlier posts). I wonder if Aimone and Emanuele Filiberto might reach an agreement similar to that of the two Borbone Two Sicilies headship claimants (even if it did little good for that family's conflict), where they agree to continue to disagree on who is the rightful head of the house but recognize one another as "princes and princesses" of the house and collaborate to preserve the family legacy.

Perhaps there's not quite as much bad blood between these cousins and branch heads as between their fathers, and that might bode more harmoniously for the future?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Perhaps there's not quite as much bad blood between these cousins and branch heads as between their fathers, and that might bode more harmoniously for the future?

The two of them don’t personally have any issues with each other

 

[maria-olivia]

King Umberto was so glad about the Wedding of Duke Amedeo and Princess Claude of Orléans and SO angry because after 7 years Claude asked for divorce, her husband had a Child with another Lady.