Discussion:
Savoy wedding - Italian reaction?
(too old to reply)
Frank H. Johansen
2003-08-29 20:42:50 UTC
Permalink
How is the news of the Prince of Venice's forthcoming nuptials playing in Italy?
Is it getting much attention or not?
Do people feel the prince is marrying "beneath" him, or are they enchanted by the
glamour of a prince marrying a movie star? Do people there frown on the fact that
the bride is pregnant? Will this help or hurt the royalist cause?
I think a pregnant bride looks a bit... eermm... well, even
in this modern day and age it makes me think "I guess they
are in a hurry to get married."

I have no problems with unmarried couples getting babies,
but just a small touch of family planning would be enough
to avoid a wedding ceremony in the last six months of the
pregnancy...

I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
***@chello.no
Francesino
2003-08-31 09:19:33 UTC
Permalink
How is the news of the Prince of Venice's forthcoming nuptials playing in Italy?
Is it getting much attention or not?
Do people feel the prince is marrying "beneath" him, or are they enchanted by the
glamour of a prince marrying a movie star? Do people there frown on the fact that
the bride is pregnant? Will this help or hurt the royalist cause?
There is a rather high attention on the point, but I believe that the thing
will boost when the ceremony details will be released, and if the
celebration will be "grand".

My personal feelings are decidedly low on this matter: it is apparent that
the choice of the Prince is well beneath the traditions of the Royal House,
already weakened by the marriage of the Crown Prince in 1970.

As for the pregnancy matter, while having no problem absolutely with the
general principle, I cannot refrain to think back to the glorious past of
the House of Savoy and chill...

Best regards,

H.
David / Amicus
2003-09-03 08:32:41 UTC
Permalink
<<I cannot refrain to think back to the glorious past of the House of
Savoy>>

Invading and annexing the Papal States and making the Holy Father a
"prisoner" of the Vatican. Some glorious past there!

And overthrowing other rightful rulers like in Naples, Tuscany and
stealing their lands etc.!
julian
2003-09-01 20:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
How is the news of the Prince of Venice's forthcoming nuptials playing in Italy?
Is it getting much attention or not?
Do people feel the prince is marrying "beneath" him, or are they enchanted by the
glamour of a prince marrying a movie star? Do people there frown on the fact that
the bride is pregnant? Will this help or hurt the royalist cause?
I think a pregnant bride looks a bit... eermm... well, even
in this modern day and age it makes me think "I guess they
are in a hurry to get married."
I have no problems with unmarried couples getting babies,
but just a small touch of family planning would be enough
to avoid a wedding ceremony in the last six months of the
pregnancy...
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================

If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?

Just wondering.
Frank H. Johansen
2003-09-02 14:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.

And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
***@chello.no
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-02 14:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
In that case, all illegitimate children recognized by their father are also
legitimate: that is not how "legitimate" is understood when dealing with
traditional law of succession.

Pierre
Frank H. Johansen
2003-09-02 17:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Frank H. Johansen
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
In that case, all illegitimate children recognized by their father are also
legitimate: that is not how "legitimate" is understood when dealing with
traditional law of succession.
OK, but I find it rather offensive that by 5 months old
nephew can be called "illegitimate".
My understanding of the word "illegitimate" about a child,
is when that child indeed did not have inheritance rights
from its father, and thus not a legal heir.
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
***@chello.no
Kelly
2003-09-02 17:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Frank H. Johansen
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
In that case, all illegitimate children recognized by their father are also
legitimate: that is not how "legitimate" is understood when dealing with
traditional law of succession.
OK, but I find it rather offensive that by 5 months old
nephew can be called "illegitimate".
My understanding of the word "illegitimate" about a child,
is when that child indeed did not have inheritance rights
from its father, and thus not a legal heir.
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
Saying someone is illegitimate doesn't mean that you think that person is a
bad person or anything. It's not a reflection on that person's character; it
simply tells that said person's parents weren't married when s/he was born
and didn't marry afterwards. It has nothing to do with whether a father's
name is on the birth certificate; it has to do with whether the parents were
married at the time or later married.

The term "bastard" or phrase "bastard-born" are also used in conversation
where I live. They irritate the more politically correct ppl, even though
they are meant the same way "illegitimate" is meant.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Gillian White
2003-09-02 17:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
My understanding of the word "illegitimate" about a child,
is when that child indeed did not have inheritance rights
from its father, and thus not a legal heir.
The Merriam Webster definition is :

'Not recognised as lawful offspring; specifically, born of parents not
married to each other'.

That could be open to interpretation. How is a child recognised as lawful
offspring?

I would add, however, that the standard definition refers to a child born
out of wedlock.

Gillian
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-02 21:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Frank H. Johansen
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
In that case, all illegitimate children recognized by their father are also
legitimate: that is not how "legitimate" is understood when dealing with
traditional law of succession.
OK, but I find it rather offensive that by 5 months old
nephew can be called "illegitimate".
My understanding of the word "illegitimate" about a child,
is when that child indeed did not have inheritance rights
from its father, and thus not a legal heir.
That is a problem since, indeed, today legislations of European countries
give almost everywhere the same rights to legitimate and illegitimate but
recognized children. I am a lawyer and can not say if you are right in your
understanding of "illegitimate", particularly in relation with the law of
your own country. Nevertheless, the historical sense of "illegitimate" is
"born out of wedlock", and it has a juridical and not a moral meaning
(although it certainly has at the beginning). Under some legislation,
illegitimate but recognized children have the same inheritance rights as
legitimate children, in other they have less rights, but some nevertheless.



Pierre
A Tsar Is Born
2003-09-03 23:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Frank H. Johansen
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
In that case, all illegitimate children recognized by their father are also
legitimate: that is not how "legitimate" is understood when dealing with
traditional law of succession.
OK, but I find it rather offensive that by 5 months old
nephew can be called "illegitimate".
My understanding of the word "illegitimate" about a child,
is when that child indeed did not have inheritance rights
from its father, and thus not a legal heir.
True, and Marius of course is heir to his father's entire position should he
wish to be. As that position is "convicted felon," he will probably decline.

Nowadays, Marius's delicate position (shared, according to the NYTimes, by
half the babies born in Norway nowadays) is "out of wedlock," which is not
the same as illegitimate.

By the way, "illegitimacy" ceased to exist in the United States some 30
years ago, though "out of wedlock" continues. I do not know what the
situation is in European countries, but I imagine it is similar. Royal and
noble titles, of course, do not come within the purview of such legal
changes but must follow the rules of their original patents or creations.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Francois R. Velde
2003-09-04 15:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Nowadays, Marius's delicate position (shared, according to the NYTimes, by
half the babies born in Norway nowadays)
And a quarter of babies born in Europe (1/3 in France and the UK).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
2003-09-04 16:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Nowadays, Marius's delicate position (shared, according to the NYTimes, by
half the babies born in Norway nowadays)
And a quarter of babies born in Europe (1/3 in France and the UK).
Here are some statistics, for 1996/97, from Eurostat. These numbers
have all been increasing in recent years, and they change quickly
(in France, the figure for 2001 is 44%; for Spain, it is 16%), so
the current numbers must be even higher. There's a Council of Europe
publication that would have more recent data, but I don't have ready
access to it.

% births out of wedlock
Greece 3
Italy 8
Switzerland 8
Spain 11
Belgium 15
Luxemburg 17
Germany 18
Netherlands 19
Portugal 20
Ireland 27
Austria 29
Canada 31
US 32
Finland 37
UK 37
France 39
Denmark 46
Norway 49
Sweden 54
Iceland 65
EU average 24

The sociological meaning of births out of wedlock is quite different in the US,
where it is taken to imply being raised by a single (usually poor) parent.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Guy Stair Sainty
2003-09-05 08:05:12 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Francois R. Velde
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Nowadays, Marius's delicate position (shared, according to the NYTimes, by
half the babies born in Norway nowadays)
And a quarter of babies born in Europe (1/3 in France and the UK).
Here are some statistics, for 1996/97, from Eurostat. These numbers
have all been increasing in recent years, and they change quickly
(in France, the figure for 2001 is 44%; for Spain, it is 16%), so
the current numbers must be even higher. There's a Council of Europe
publication that would have more recent data, but I don't have ready
access to it.
The sociological meaning of births out of wedlock is quite different in the US,
where it is taken to imply being raised by a single (usually poor) parent.
True, but relationships between unmarried parents are likely to end
after a shorter period and these same parents are more likely then
to form other less stable relationships, with possibly severe consequences
for their children whose effects have not begun to be felt yet, but
are likely to severely impact their education, and future relationships.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-05 08:57:47 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
True, but relationships between unmarried parents are likely to end
after a shorter period
<...>

Considering the high level of divorce in European countries, I am not sure
that is statistically true.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
and these same parents are more likely then
to form other less stable relationships, with possibly severe consequences
for their children whose effects have not begun to be felt yet, but
are likely to severely impact their education, and future relationships.
I am not convinced of that. At least, I know children of married parents who
have relationship problems and children of unmarried parent who have none.



Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2003-09-05 10:49:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <3f585002$0$946$***@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, Pierre Aronax
says...
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
True, but relationships between unmarried parents are likely to end
after a shorter period
Considering the high level of divorce in European countries, I am not sure
that is statistically true.
Divorce rates are indeed rising, but according to a recent statistical
survey that I read (I wish I could cite the reference, but it was
something I just took note of in passing), "partnership" relationships
are of much shorter duration. I am not sure that this is altogether
surprising - such arrangements often begin unplanned, and then are
continued precisely because the parties wish to avoid the permanence
and legal obligations imposed by marriage.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
and these same parents are more likely then
to form other less stable relationships, with possibly severe consequences
for their children whose effects have not begun to be felt yet, but
are likely to severely impact their education, and future relationships.
I am not convinced of that. At least, I know children of married parents who
have relationship problems and children of unmarried parent who have none.
Of course there are plenty of examples in one's own experience of
dysfunctional families where parents are married, and stable and
good parenting with well-brought up children in unregulated "partnership"
arrangements. But nonetheless, the tendency for such relations to
be less permanent has obvious costs for the children.

I would still argue that the consequences of this massive social shift
have not been felt yet, but IMO they are more likely to be harmful
than beneficial to the generation born to them.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
julian
2003-09-02 19:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
=================================================

I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-02 21:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
=================================================
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2003-09-02 21:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Nor will it in Italian law (art. 283 of the civil code,
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/Obiter_Dictum/codciv/Lib1.htm )
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
julian
2003-09-03 06:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Nor will it in Italian law (art. 283 of the civil code,
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/Obiter_Dictum/codciv/Lib1.htm )
===============================================

I don't read Italian so kindly inform: does that article of the civil
code state that children born out of wedlock have every single legal
right as far as property and inheritance as children born in marriage
to the same parents? And without having to prove paternity or
maternity or any other verification of their identity?

Thank you.
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-03 10:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Nor will it in Italian law (art. 283 of the civil code,
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/Obiter_Dictum/codciv/Lib1.htm )
===============================================
I don't read Italian so kindly inform: does that article of the civil
code state that children born out of wedlock have every single legal
right as far as property and inheritance as children born in marriage
to the same parents? And without having to prove paternity or
maternity or any other verification of their identity?
No, the article is dealing with children whose parents marry after their
birth, not with children whose parents are not married.

Pierre
Lorenzo Da Pra Galanti
2003-09-03 10:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Pierre Aronax
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
As they are Italian citizens, the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the
Italian civil law.
Post by julian
Post by Francois R. Velde
Nor will it in Italian law (art. 283 of the civil code,
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/Obiter_Dictum/codciv/Lib1.htm )
===============================================
I don't read Italian so kindly inform: does that article of the civil
code state that children born out of wedlock have every single legal
right as far as property and inheritance as children born in marriage
to the same parents? And without having to prove paternity or
maternity or any other verification of their identity?
Thank you.
Art. 283 regards children "legitimized" by the wedding of their
parents occurred after their birth (even years after).

The case of Emanuele Filiberto is very different, as the wedding will
occur before the birth. In this case art. 233 applies: if a child is
born within the 180 days after the wedding, the child is born
legitimate unless either parent declares not to recognize him/her.

In any case Italian law provides for absolutely equal property and
inheritance rights for legitimate and natural children (art. 537,
second paragraph, and 542, first paragraph). Of course, natural
children have to be regognized by their parent(s) or have to obtain a
judgement by a competent court. The only legal difference as far as
inheritance rights are concerned regards the possibility for
legitimate children to liquidate the share of natural children in cash
or real estate. The purpose of this provision is to avoid the
coexistence of legitimate and natural children in a business run by
the family. It is a provision inspired by the intent of avoiding the
tensions between shareholders and the negative consequences for the
business itself and not by the purpose of advantaging legitimate
children.

Lorenzo
julian
2003-09-03 07:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child? I
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
=================================================
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Pierre
==========================================

On another note: what do you think about the claim of some that the
Prince of Naples married "without" his father's permission makes him
now non-dynastic?
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-03 09:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it in
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy where a
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child?
I
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and it
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
=================================================
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Pierre
==========================================
On another note: what do you think about the claim of some that the
Prince of Naples married "without" his father's permission makes him
now non-dynastic?
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
case of the Duke of Savoy's wedding since:

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
Venice.



Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2003-09-03 15:06:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <3f55bad0$0$13577$***@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, Pierre Aronax
says...
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
Venice.
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
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Francesino
2003-09-04 15:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Pompeo Brambilla is a nickname. The original was an important 18th Century
Herald of the House of Savoy, to whose doctrine the CNICG Forum participant
wish to refer.

As the other poster pro-Vittorio Emanuele in the said discussion, I too have
been surprised by the lack of support shown to HRH in the forum... While
still considering the legal dissertations pro-Aosta there presented to be in
contrast with the evidence of the facts, I can only speculate that this lack
of support is mainly due to HRH personal standing and personality (not to
speak of the Prince of Venice).

I can also add that, as it seems to me, this dispute is rather meaningless
to the monarchical John Doe, and the position of the Crown Prince almost
unchallenged.

Regards,

H.
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-04 21:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francesino
I can only speculate that this lack
of support is mainly due to HRH personal standing and personality (not to
speak of the Prince of Venice).
What nuance do you put exactly between them? You seems to be a little less
sceptical about the duke than about the prince.

Pierre
Francesino
2003-09-05 21:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
What nuance do you put exactly between them? You seems to be a little less
sceptical about the duke than about the prince.
Pierre
Indeed. Given that I support VE because I am convinced he is the rightful
head of the family and heir to the Throne, it is my sad feeling that such
dignities are not represented at best with him (for various reasons that
depends on himself only partially). But he is nevertheless his father's son
and had part of a "royal training", that still shows.

I, along with some other friends who think that the House of Savoy could
have a role in contemporary Italy, hoped that the Prince of Venice would
have proved better - referring to the best traditions of the House and of
Italy. We are all - perhaps too stiff, I know - disappointed by the last
developments: too many mistakes in a short time!

Regards,

H.
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-05 21:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francesino
We are all - perhaps too stiff, I know - disappointed by the last
developments: too many mistakes in a short time!
Do you mean his marriage? Sorry to be a little inquisitorial, but since you
seem to be the only Italian who supports the Savoy cause in this group, I am
curious of your opinion on the princes.

Pierre
francesino
2003-09-08 08:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Do you mean his marriage? Sorry to be a little inquisitorial, but since you
seem to be the only Italian who supports the Savoy cause in this group, I am
curious of your opinion on the princes.
Well, I did'nt mean to be elusive - it's that often I do not have many time
to dedicate to the forum.

Yes, I mean the marriage above all. Given my personal opinion on the
succession matter, it is anyway a fact that there is a growing group
contesting the headship of the House. In this situation the choice of this
bride, and the out-and-abouts of the marriage is extremely impolitic to say
the least (and only strenghten the idea that EF is untenable).

This, summed up with the last choices of the Crown Prince "counselors" (a
bunch of fool parvenus) re: the House of Savoy and the present Republic ,
has greatly harmed the House consideration...

But you are French, if I understand correctly: what do you say on the
marriage de l'autre côté des Alpes?

Regards,

H.
Lorenzo Da Pra Galanti
2003-09-09 08:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by francesino
Post by Pierre Aronax
Do you mean his marriage? Sorry to be a little inquisitorial, but since
you
Post by Pierre Aronax
seem to be the only Italian who supports the Savoy cause in this group, I
am
Post by Pierre Aronax
curious of your opinion on the princes.
I also put myself in the group of the Savoy supporters, as they
represent the unity and independence of Italy. The fact that the
present representatives of the family (all but, as far as I know, the
Duke of Apulias) apear to be inadequate to the task is a shame, and
surely reduces the already slim possibilities of a restablishment of
the monarchy in Italy (from 0.1% to 0.0001%...).

My impression, without any documentary support, is that Vittorio
Emanuele is better than they represent him, but his personality is too
weak and he is easily manipulated by some of his advisors. These
aspects are worsened in Emanuele Filiberto. Moreover, his sole
interests until very recently were women and cars. I hope his future
wife is not going to have a hard life with him.
Post by francesino
Well, I did'nt mean to be elusive - it's that often I do not have many time
to dedicate to the forum.
Yes, I mean the marriage above all. Given my personal opinion on the
succession matter, it is anyway a fact that there is a growing group
contesting the headship of the House. In this situation the choice of this
bride, and the out-and-abouts of the marriage is extremely impolitic to say
the least (and only strenghten the idea that EF is untenable).
This, summed up with the last choices of the Crown Prince "counselors" (a
bunch of fool parvenus) re: the House of Savoy and the present Republic ,
has greatly harmed the House consideration...
But you are French, if I understand correctly: what do you say on the
marriage de l'autre côté des Alpes?
Regards,
H.
Pierre Aronax
2003-09-04 16:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...
<...>
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
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.
Thank you very much for the link to the forum: it is extremely interesting,
and I didn't realized that the Victorian Statute deprived not only the
posterity of the dynast marrying unequally but also himself, which changes a
little the picture! It is clear that things are much more complex than I
thought. We are perhaps dealing with a "Pragmatica-like" debate: did the
Albertinian Statute erase the Victorian Laws, like the Spanish Constitutions
erased (in my opinion) all previously existing rule of succession
contradicting them? Things are a little different here nevertheless, since
the Spanish Constitution detailed carefully the rules of succession, leaving
no space for a "pragmatical" succession, when the Albertinian Statute only
says vaugely that "the throne is hereditary according to the Salic law" ("il
Trono è ereditario secondo la legge salica"), which gives more field for the
survival of pre-Constitutional rules of succession: one can argue
nevertheless that, even if "Salic law" does not mean here a particular law
(one would have expected rather the Burgondian law than the salic :) ), it
shapes nevertheless an order of succession (since "according to the Salic
law" can be seen as an improper but quicker way to say: "by male
primogeniture and the women being forever excluded") and so excludes any
other order (and between them the order "according to the Salic law AND to
the Victorian Laws").

Nevertheless, I need some time to read and understand all that before
reformulating my opinion (and perhaps transferring my invaluable support to
the duke of Aoste), so I hope we will speak of the subject sooner (for
example for the wedding).



Pierre
julian
2003-09-04 00:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by julian
in
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
(If not legal heirs, they do seem to be better
representatives of the monarchist tradition...)
=========================================
If that is your p.o.v. in this situation, then how do you apply it
in
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
the far more notable instance of your own (reigning) monarchy
where a
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
crown prince has married a party girl with an illegitimate child?
I
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
think if one maintains that she (Hoiby) had done nothing wrong and
it
Post by julian
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by julian
Post by Frank H. Johansen
Post by julian
was "all in the past" (albeit she accumulated that past all in
twenties), then why the crocodile tears performance on the eve of
their wedding?
Just wondering.
If you read my post, you'll notice that I said that I have
absolutely no problem with couples getting children without
being married. I just find that a highly pregnant bride
looks a bit strange.
And Marius Borg Høiby is not "illegitimate" - he was a legal
father and a legal mother.
=================================================
I would find it far more stranger if they waited to have their child
and then got married. Perhaps in Norwegian law that would not make
the child illegitimate but I think it's a bit different in Italian law
and probably in the house laws of Savoy as well.
If the matrimonial law of the Savoys is the law of the Church, which is
probable, it will make no difference.
Pierre
==========================================
On another note: what do you think about the claim of some that the
Prince of Naples married "without" his father's permission makes him
now non-dynastic?
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).
================

This is what I had also thought to myself, however the Italian poster
I was in discussion about this with elsewhere was one of those adamant
that the late Umberto II had given no permission (although he could
neither discount the granting of the Venice title nor produce any
statement by the King de-dynatizing his son). So thank you for
clarifying this point.
Post by julian
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
Venice.
Pierre
====================

Thank you again for pointing this out also. Also, was the Duke of
Aosta's own(second) marriage ever approved by either Umberto II or the
Prince of Naples? If he sought that approval from the Prince of
Naples, then he would of course be recognising his cousin as still
being the legitimate throne claimant.
Francois R. Velde
2003-09-02 19:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank H. Johansen
I believe it will strengthen the cause of the Aostaists...
Whoa, too many vowels. Augustists? Augustians? Augustistas?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...