Savoy and Savoy-Aosta: Restoration, Succession, Heirs and Conflicts 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
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?


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.


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.


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".
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
:previous: 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_statici/costituzione/Statutoalbertino.pdf
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/costituzione/costituzione.pdf
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/en/costituzione_inglese.pdf


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



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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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)
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited:
King Umberto is buried with the Royal Seal . (JR76 -257)
He knew the future of the Italian Monarchy....
Amen
 
King Umberto is buried with the Royal Seal . (JR76 -257)
He knew the future of the Italian Monarchy....
Amen

To be fair: the dispute was in King Umberto's very own making.

He was not clear about the status of the union between Prince Vittorio Emanuele and Marina Doria. Was it dynastic or not?

(Like he was not clear about the ownership of the royal jewels, now in a safe of the Italian National Bank, collecting dust and cobwebs).

Because of this lack of clarity, King Umberto gave way to disputes between members of the royal family and to disputes with the State of Italy.
 
To be fair: the dispute was in King Umberto's very own making.

He was not clear about the status of the union between Prince Vittorio Emanuele and Marina Doria. Was it dynastic or not?

(Like he was not clear about the ownership of the royal jewels, now in a safe of the Italian National Bank, collecting dust and cobwebs).

Because of this lack of clarity, King Umberto gave way to disputes between members of the royal family and to disputes with the State of Italy.
he was against the union of his son and Marina Doria but you can’t stop people from being entitled and doing their own things.
As for the jewels, some of them were state jewels but the government is refusing to even show them
 
he was against the union of his son and Marina Doria but you can’t stop people from being entitled and doing their own things.
As for the jewels, some of them were state jewels but the government is refusing to even show them

Maybe King Umberto very much thought Marina Doria was a mésalliance indeed but he did not act as Chef of the House of Savoy. There is no undoubted, signed and sealed decision with which the King declared, for once and for all, the union as undynastic, meaning that Prince Vittorio Emanuele has lost all his rights.
 
Last edited:
In 1970 Their Wedding took place without nobody of his family at Téhéran because he was working for the Shah.
As far as I remember Marina Doria was a great swiss waterskying Performer, which ended because of a car crash. Who was the driver , At that time they spoke a lot about it but now no word , it is the hidden past.
With all his Justice Problems Vittorio Emanuele is a bad Head of his House and his Father King Umberto knew it.
When Prince Amedeo of Aoste and Princess Claude de France divorced King Umberto was very angry and against it.
 
Last edited:
When Prince Amedeo of Aoste and Princess Claude de France divorced King Umberto was very angry and against it.
I've read somewhere that the divorce was the main reason behind King Umberto not proclaiming the Duke of Aosta his heir.
 
Statement from Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy
"Geneva, October 16, 2022

Dear Aimone,
I am forced in spite of myself to return to issues on which I have long remained silent and on which I would no longer be forced to intervene, especially in such a complex moment for our homeland, where the attention of all of us is rightly directed to very different urgencies .
However, if I am induced to do so, it is because, in the last few days, I have viewed some acts made public by you and which arouse my profound perplexity. Once again, they go in the direction of continuing in that senseless dynastic opposition which I hope will be overcome by the incontrovertible facts, common sense and also by a renewed spirit of family unity.
I therefore feel obliged to intervene with this letter which I wish to be made public, to clarify the responsibilities of each one in front of family, friends and those who respect our home.
As I also publicly manifested a few days ago, during the General Chapter of the Dynastic Orders of the House of Savoy held in Geneva, your statements made in July in an interview with a well-known Italian weekly, represented an important pacifying signal for me. A gesture that in no way meant that you would deny some disruptive paternal choices which, despite the respect and affection I have for the memory of Your Father Amedeo, obviously I could not in the past but stigmatize as damaging the unity of the House. Savoia and which have always represented the best weapon available to those who enjoy seeing our family in conflict. You declared in this interview: “Enough arguing with my cousin Vittorio Emanuele, let's defend the dynasty together”. I completely agree.
As you know and as I was able to express to you last year, during a telephone conversation, I have always shared this wish for unity. For my part and as you have been able to find out as a new Duke of Aosta, there has never been a hostile act, indeed our conversation a few months ago and your meeting with my son Emanuele Filiberto in Russia seemed to go to the direction to lead to an intelligent overcoming of this harmful contrast.
However, I have seen deeds, documents and web pages (including a new site) that seem to me to propose again sic et simpliciter the old pattern of the sterile opposition that has often been fueled by both parties not so much by us, but by people who have many cases jumped between the two branches of the family in the last forty years - depending on the moment - following only their own convenience in seeking personal interests.
In particular, I see with regret how an alleged private correspondence between myself and the King my Father, on which I have never intervened, is repeated at every turn. I do it reluctantly because I am tired of reading imaginative reconstructions by people that Umberto II has never even met. In this letter of 1960, moreover not concerning my wife, the King wrote: "[...] Such an irrevocable decision [a possible exclusion from the succession], which I should reach with pain, but firmly, would be communicated by me to the individual members of our house, to all the Sovereigns and the Heads of the Royal families, as well as brought to the attention of the Italians, also in relation to your forfeiture from the current title of Prince of Naples ". My Father was very scrupulous and precise about all this: being his son, more than any other I know the rigor (he defined it precisely as 'firmness') with which he would have followed up any measures in this regard; this condition, as you well know, has never occurred. Indeed, the baptism of my son, ten years before his death, was the occasion in which the family was able to truly find each other. A situation confirmed in the following years by some unequivocal gestures of Umberto II, above all public, visible and documented, not the result of suppositions or singular reconstructions, such as for example his last public speech in Beaulieu-sur-Mer, on 4 June 1978, and which many call your "testament to the Italians", where he also wanted my wife next to him.
Finally, as I have told several times, my Father, who I assisted with my Sisters in His painful last months of life between London and Geneva, entrusted me with this task shortly before dying: "Take care of our family, entrust my Collar of the Santissima Annunziata to Emanuele Filiberto and carries on the House of Savoy ”.
I do not intend to withdraw from this legacy that Umberto II passed on to me and which I have always tried to honor since 1983, despite many difficulties, as Head of the family, a role that was ratified by my Mother and my Sisters the next day. of the disappearance of the Sovereign and confirmed by Your Father, at least until 2006, in many circumstances.
Precisely because I understand the deep love you have for Your Father Amedeo, you can perfectly understand my feelings when I read these bizarre stories about the relationship between myself and my August Parent by people completely unknown to me who continue to look through the hole. of the lock, investigating family matters that only we - the Family - should be dealing with.
I am sure that it is the desire of all those who look with trust and affection at the House of Savoy to finally be able to make sense of what I have hoped for for years and of Your July words, but to do this it is appropriate and no longer postponable to finally put an end to certain trifles. which, in fact, represent the nourishment of this dynastic opposition.
It is right that everyone knows that on my part there is not only no hostility towards you, but a sincere affection: my arms will always be open to build something useful, in the custody of dynastic memory and in the right distinction of roles. But recalling the motto "Italy first" cannot be just a rhetorical exercise.
For example, our Dynastic Orders, scattered all over the world with dozens of Delegations, carry out many charitable works in the name of the House of Savoy, bringing a message of hope wherever it is needed, updating the great values ​​of the knightly tradition. It is a tangible and concrete reality that I wanted to consolidate over time through a patient and demanding daily work, collecting it from the hands of the King my Father and whose work cannot be interrupted.
In 1973, on the occasion of the Chapter for the four hundred years since the establishment of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, to which as Hereditary Prince I was next to my Parent (your Father was also present, along with other Princes of our House), the Sovereign he entrusted us Knights with the task of perpetuating the great Mauritian heritage. Moreover, it is a reality that even the late Amedeo knew very well, since in the following decades, Your Father was often present at the subsequent Chapters I called and in 1988 I was happy to grant his wife Silvia the Grand Cross of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, exactly how I would be delighted to be able to welcome your wife and, when they are old, your children into our orders today.
Having reached eighty-five years and about forty years since I was called to succeed my August Parent, it is more than ever my precise duty today to make this last appeal to family unity.
I feel the need to ask you to accompany my son Emanuele Filiberto, also in view of the task that awaits him, because I believe that together you can do a lot for the future of the House of Savoy.
I believe it is possible to take steps forward together, but that everyone knows that peace is built in two and I cannot do it alone.
With love and consideration.

VITTORIO EMANUELE"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom