In article <email@example.com>, Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
Having considered a little more the precedent which occurred in the 19th
century, I think (but I am perhaps wrong) that if a prince marries without
the consent of the head of house, it deprives the posterity of dynastic
right, but not the prince himself. Anyway, that has no importance in the
1) That is the lake of consent which has to be proven, and not the consent.
The lake of consent of King Humbert II is, at least, dubious (particularly
considering that he gave to his grandson a title of prince).
2) Anyway, even admitting that the King refused his consent to his son's
marriage, it is without any importance in the present case, since consent
can be given and dynastical rights restored retroactively, as is clearly
shown by the case of the Carignan-Villafranca branch. So, if the Duke of
Savoy, now head of house, considers his own marriage as dynastic and his son
as a prince, and it is obvious that he do, then so they are. Note however
that the question would have been much more complex if the present Duke of
Savoy had died before is father: the question to know if the King did or not
refuse his marriage would have been crucial to determine if the King's
successor was the prince of Venice or the Duke of Savoy. But that did not
happen, and so their is no problem about the dynasticity of the prince of
I am personally in agreement that King Umberto II did not take effective
action to make his son's marriage non-dynastic, but in arguing this
in a recent corpo della nobilta circolo giovanile forum (see
http://www.cnicg.net then go to questioni technici, forum, and then to the
upper of the two choices, then page 2, you will find under the post
Chi e il Capo della Casa Savoia a very lengthy exchange, with some
extremely erudite arguments to the contrary, citing laws and examples.
I would urge you to consider this, particularly the very lengthy
comments of Pompeo Brambilla, whom I do not know but who is evidently
very well informed and knowledgeable.
These arguments were essentially that the statute of Vittorio Amadeo
of 1780 was still valid and that it applied automatically, without
any need for any action or declaration and that therefore the lack
of any decree, act or official statement to the effect that King
Umberto II considered his son's marriage non dynastic because he
had refused his permission was irrelevant, and that it was prima
facie non dynastic precisely because it did not have his authorization,
required under this decree. To my surprise the majority of commentators
agreed that on the death of Umberto II he was succeeded legally
by the duke of Aosta and not by Vittorio Emanuele. I disagreed,
but my italian being imperfect to say the least was not altogether
satisfied with my presentation of the contrary view. Nonetheless,
out of some 85 responses, only the four by me and four or five
by one other argued for Vittorio Emanuele. There was some discussion
of the statute in the context of the Carlo Alberto constitution,
which of course became the constitution of Italy.
This is actually a good and interesting forum (it was on vacation
in late July and august, so the last post on the Savoia subject,
which in any case the moderator has closed, came only slightly
after the announcement by EF of his engagement) and interesting
on a number of other subjects also.
I look forward to reading what you think of the arguments.
Guy Stair Sainty