Discussion:
the Head of the Royal House of Savoy
(too old to reply)
m***@btinternet.com
2006-12-01 06:50:34 UTC
Permalink
http://www.realcasadisavoia.org/letteredelre.htm
the 30th november the official site of the Royal House of Savoy
displayed for the very first time the letters of King Umberto II
regarding the succession. text in original scantion and in english +
french vertion , remarcable the letter of 25th jan. 1960.
These letters are indeed remarkable. I am no expert, but was Humbert
II reduced to writing his letters on unheaded sheets using an old
typewriter - how sad? Of course, no letter of 1960 could have
anticipated the actual marriage of the Crown Prince in 1971, although I
appreciate the same principles may have been applied, as intimated by
the alleged letter of 1963.

If the King had decided to communicate his position regarding the Crown
Prince's exclusion from the succession to all Royal Houses, supporters
and Italy at large, how was this accomplished and how and why has it
remained secret (until now)?

Given this allegedly clear exclusion, how did the Crown Prince manage
to succeed, for instance, to the Headship of the Savoy Orders on his
father's death?

Why did the Duke of Aosta make no objections or representations, or
otherwise assert his rights in any way, at the time of Humbert's death?

If the objection to Victor Emmanuel's succession and Headship is that
(to quote "Humbert" in 1960) the Head of the Family must "contract
marriage with the Families of Sovereigns" or lose their succession
rights, how do we account for the continuing Kingship of Victor
Emmanuel II after his marriage to the Countess of Mirafiori in 1869 -
she did not come from a Sovereign family?

More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, how do we allow
the second marriage of the Duke of Aosta himself, in 1987, to Marchesa
Silvia Paterno di Spedalotto? I cannot find the Paterno di Spedalotto
family amongst the Crowned Heads of Europe - over which country do or
did they reign?

MA-R
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-01 11:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
http://www.realcasadisavoia.org/letteredelre.htm
the 30th november the official site of the Royal House of Savoy
displayed for the very first time the letters of King Umberto II
regarding the succession. text in original scantion and in english +
french vertion , remarcable the letter of 25th jan. 1960.
These letters are indeed remarkable. I am no expert, but was Humbert
II reduced to writing his letters on unheaded sheets using an old
typewriter - how sad?
He was writing to his son, and these are the copies retained by Marchese
Falcone Lucifero (Minister of the Royal Household), delivered after the death of
the King to the duke of Aosta. The second letter of the 25th marked
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's acceptance of the first. When the King issued public
statements they were written on paper with the royal arms at the top and the
name Villa Italia, his address.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the King had decided to communicate his position regarding the Crown
Prince's exclusion from the succession to all Royal Houses, supporters
and Italy at large, how was this accomplished and how and why has it
remained secret (until now)?
King Umberto never did convey this information; he did not see it was
necessary in his opinion as he considered his position was clear.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the objection to Victor Emmanuel's succession and Headship is that
(to quote "Humbert" in 1960) the Head of the Family must "contract
marriage with the Families of Sovereigns" or lose their succession
rights, how do we account for the continuing Kingship of Victor
Emmanuel II after his marriage to the Countess of Mirafiori in 1869 -
she did not come from a Sovereign family?
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, how do we allow
the second marriage of the Duke of Aosta himself, in 1987, to Marchesa
Silvia Paterno di Spedalotto? I cannot find the Paterno di Spedalotto
family amongst the Crowned Heads of Europe - over which country do or
did they reign?
I believe you will find that the argument made by the Duke of Aosta was that
in 1983 he became head of the royal house, and in 1987 in a notarised statement
he gave himself permission to marry (this document apparently remains with the
notary).

I think Prince Amedeo would also argue that there were precedents in his family
for marriages to a lady from a princely noble family, if not royal rank, and
that in his second marriage he was not breaching any precedent. The 1st duke of
Aosta married Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo, daughter of the Prince of la Cisterna,
with royal permission. There were also other marriages accepted as dynastic by
past Kings to noble ladies of high rank, notably that of the 3rd duke of Genoa
to Countess Maria Luis Gandolfi di Ricaldone (this marriage was childless).

The issue then, for the House of Savoy is (a) the status of the bride, and (b)
whether permission was given. Prince Vittorio Emanuele would claim that
permission was not necessary, or that he gave himself permission as de jure
King.

In the late 1960s Prince Vittorio Emanuele actually proclaimed himself head of
the House himself, assuming the title Vittorio Emanuele IV, on the basis that
his father had been automatically deposed because by changing the constitution
as lieutenant-general of the kingdom, he had forfeited the throne. This is
obviously an argument that is extrenely hard to sustain, but was nonetheless
used to justify the 16 December 1969 "creation" by Prince Vittorio Emanuele, as
Vittorio Emanuele IV of his future wife as Duchess of S. Anna di Valdieri.

This decree reads as follows: (Translation)

Vittorio Emanuele IV
King of Italy

By virtue of art. 79 of the Statute of the Kingdom

Decree:

Single article.

Upon Marina Doria Ricolfi the title of Duchessa di S. Anna di Valdieri
has been conferred.

Signed in Geneva
On the 16 December
in the year 1969

Royal Edict n. 2

Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
m***@btinternet.com
2006-12-01 12:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
He was writing to his son, and these are the copies retained by Marchese
Falcone Lucifero (Minister of the Royal Household), delivered after the death of
the King to the duke of Aosta. The second letter of the 25th marked
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's acceptance of the first. When the King issued public
statements they were written on paper with the royal arms at the top and the
name Villa Italia, his address.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the King had decided to communicate his position regarding the Crown
Prince's exclusion from the succession to all Royal Houses, supporters
and Italy at large, how was this accomplished and how and why has it
remained secret (until now)?
King Umberto never did convey this information; he did not see it was
necessary in his opinion as he considered his position was clear.
How could his position have been clear, when it was known only to
himself, his son and his chancellery? In the second letter of 1960,
Humbert explicitly outlines his likely action thus:

"I would communicate 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 all the Italians".

yet the only evidence we have is a typed copy of a private letter? Why
was this communication not effected? Why has every reference source
since 1983 recognised the rights and position of the Prince of Naples?
If he ceased to be a dynast in 1971, and became "a private citizen",
why did he continue to be banned from entering the territory of the
Italian republic? Was it because he claimed to be Head of the House?
Given that I have Savoy blood (very distantly and not patrilineally, of
course), if I claimed to be King of Italy would I similarly have been
banned?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the objection to Victor Emmanuel's succession and Headship is that
(to quote "Humbert" in 1960) the Head of the Family must "contract
marriage with the Families of Sovereigns" or lose their succession
rights, how do we account for the continuing Kingship of Victor
Emmanuel II after his marriage to the Countess of Mirafiori in 1869 -
she did not come from a Sovereign family?
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, how do we allow
the second marriage of the Duke of Aosta himself, in 1987, to Marchesa
Silvia Paterno di Spedalotto? I cannot find the Paterno di Spedalotto
family amongst the Crowned Heads of Europe - over which country do or
did they reign?
I believe you will find that the argument made by the Duke of Aosta was that
in 1983 he became head of the royal house, and in 1987 in a notarised statement
he gave himself permission to marry (this document apparently remains with the
notary).
This is at odds with Humbert's own apparent statement in the second
letter of 1960, where he writes in relation to giving permission to
marry outside the rule about 'members of royal families only':

"I have no intention, any more than I have the *right* to change the
law"

Presumably Aosta would argue that Humbert was wrong in this respect -
in which case, why should the rest of his position be treated as
gospel?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I think Prince Amedeo would also argue that there were precedents in his family
for marriages to a lady from a princely noble family, if not royal rank, and
that in his second marriage he was not breaching any precedent. The 1st duke of
Aosta married Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo, daughter of the Prince of la Cisterna,
with royal permission. There were also other marriages accepted as dynastic by
past Kings to noble ladies of high rank, notably that of the 3rd duke of Genoa
to Countess Maria Luis Gandolfi di Ricaldone (this marriage was childless).
Maria Doria, like Amadeo's second and current wife, is a member of an
Italian Marchesal family - i.e. noble, though not of royal rank. Why
the hair-splitting between them?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The issue then, for the House of Savoy is (a) the status of the bride, and (b)
whether permission was given. Prince Vittorio Emanuele would claim that
permission was not necessary, or that he gave himself permission as de jure
King.
The latest letter published is from 1963. While it clearly anticipates
the marriage which took place in 1971, it would be far more useful to
have some evidence about Humbert's views between, say, 1970 and 1983.
Is there anything to suggest that permission was refused? Or that he
did or did not recognise the rights of his grandson?

This kind of silly, undignified squabbling amongst royal dynasts - a la
the Two Sicilies, France, Ethiopia, Annam - only has one consequence in
the public mind: the further erosion of belief in the concept of
hereditary government. As the Romanovs discovered at a terrible cost,
if they can't give loyalty amongst themselves, how can they possibly
expect to receive it from others?

MA-R
François R. Velde
2006-12-01 13:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If he ceased to be a dynast in 1971, and became "a private citizen",
why did he continue to be banned from entering the territory of the
Italian republic? Was it because he claimed to be Head of the House?
Given that I have Savoy blood (very distantly and not patrilineally, of
course), if I claimed to be King of Italy would I similarly have been
banned?
It's pretty easy to answer those questions by looking at the (now repealed)
article XIII of the transitory dispositions: "Agli ex re di Casa Savoia, alle
loro consorti e ai loro discendenti maschi sono vietati l'ingresso e il
soggiorno nel territorio nazionale." The exclusion was based on a genealogical
fact which his marriage could not alter and which does not apply to you.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
m***@btinternet.com
2006-12-01 14:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by François R. Velde
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If he ceased to be a dynast in 1971, and became "a private citizen",
why did he continue to be banned from entering the territory of the
Italian republic? Was it because he claimed to be Head of the House?
Given that I have Savoy blood (very distantly and not patrilineally, of
course), if I claimed to be King of Italy would I similarly have been
banned?
It's pretty easy to answer those questions by looking at the (now repealed)
article XIII of the transitory dispositions: "Agli ex re di Casa Savoia, alle
loro consorti e ai loro discendenti maschi sono vietati l'ingresso e il
soggiorno nel territorio nazionale." The exclusion was based on a genealogical
fact which his marriage could not alter and which does not apply to you.
Thanks, Francois.

MA-R
c***@yahoo.com
2006-12-11 08:41:05 UTC
Permalink
I feel at some disadvantage for not having seen the actual texts. Are they
available on the Web somewhere, or failing that does someone have a print
reference?
--
François Velde
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
See excerpts from the 1780 and 1782 decrees, along with commentaries by
Italian jurists:
http://www.varesemonarchica.it/Dinastica.html

The 1780 text and its context are remarkably similar to that of Spain.
As there, the law was unilaterally declared by the King in the late
18th century in response to a cadet dynast's determination to wed a
woman lacking in royal blood, and the realization that no law
explicitly accorded the sovereign either authority to forbid or to
penalize such a marriage. The decree itself was probably modeled on
that of Spain in 1776, so similar is the language used -- including the
absence of a specific definition of an "unequal" marriage, and
vagueness about what prerogatives are forfeited when one occurs. But
just as the Spanish king recognized that unequal and unapproved
marriages were still likely to occur, some provision is made to account
for both circumstances. As in Spain, the monarch found room in the law
to deem marriages equal that might have been considered unequal
elsewhere (Spain=Battenberg, Italy=Pozzo della Cisterna) . And also in
Spain, the 19th century decree was not explicitly re-stated in the
monarchy's constitutions, yet the King and at least some jurists
continued to consider it applicable, and capable of exclusion from
succession rights, even after the dynasty's deposition.

I can't lay hands on the 1782 decree, but it seems to have
substantially re-enforced that of 1780.

Below is my very rough translation of the texts cited there.
Corrections invited.

"The Royal Patents
in a document edited by Marine Bon Valsassina

"From the Patents of 7-13-20 September 1780 of King Victor Amadeus III,
who was absolute King, and therefore decreed this act in the fullness
of legislative power."


art. I: "It shall not be lawful for Princes of the Blood to contract
marriage without obtaining Our prior permission or that of our royal
successors, and those failing this requirement must, subject to these
provisions, be treated accordingly by Us or our royal successors".

art II: "If in violation of this obligation matrimony is contracted
with a person of inferior condition and state, the contracting parties,
as well as the descendants of such union, shall be deemed to forfeit
without exception possession of the benefits and rights derived from
the Crown and of the claim to succeed to the same, as well as any honor
and prerogative of the Family".

art. III: "Insofar as response to some singular circumstance may
determine Us, or our royal successors, to allow such unequal marriage
to be contracted, we nonetheless reserve to the sovereign authority to
prescribe in such a case the consequences, conditions, and limitations
that must be observed".

"(That was just what King Victor Amadeus III did the following October
by Royal Warrant relative to the marriage of Prince Thomas Hilarion of
Savoy-Carignan, whose wedding he authorized). Nonetheless, by Royal
Edict of 17 July 1782, Victor Amadeus III also [decreed]:"

art. X: "Marriages of the Princes of our Crown and for the good of
the State, may not be contracted without Our permission, or that of our
Royal successors, and in those cases where Princes fail to comply with
this requirement they shall, subject to these provisions, receive from
Us or our Royal successors, orders pursuant to Our 13 Articles of
September 1780, with restrictions accompanying consent, imposing such
conditions as may be deemed meet and convenient".

Charles Stewart
c***@yahoo.com
2006-12-12 21:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
http://www.varesemonarchica.it/Dinastica.html
Below is my very rough translation of the texts cited there.
Translation corrections per Guy Sainty's citations from the legal
analysis of Franco Adami of the University of Ferrara. Further
corrections still welcomed.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
"The Royal Patents
in a document edited by Marine Bon Valsassina
"From the Patents of 7-13-20 September 1780 of King Victor Amadeus III,
who was absolute King, and therefore decreed this act in the fullness
of legislative power."
art. I: "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".

art II: "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 descendants 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".

art. III: "When however the reflection of some particular circumstance
might determine us, or our Royal successors, to allow an unequal
marriage to be contracted, in this case we reserve the Sovereign
authority to prescribe to this effect the restraints and conditions
which must be observed."

Excerpt from the Royal Patent of 16 July 1782

art. X: "Marriages of the Princes of our Crown and for the good of the
State, they (the said Princes) cannot therefore enter into marriage
without the permission of Ourselves or of our Royal successors, and in
those cases where Princes fail to comply with this requirement they
shall, subject to these provisions, receive from Us or our Royal
successors, orders pursuant to Our 13 Articles of September 1780, with
restrictions accompanying consent, imposing such conditions as may be
deemed meet and convenient".
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Charles Stewart
François R. Velde
2006-12-14 05:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
art. I: "it is unlawful for Princes of the Blood to enter into marriage
^^^^^^^^
non essere lecito, it is not allowed. The word "unlawful"
carries strong connotations in English.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
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
^^^^^^^^^^^
provvedimenti, measures, dispositions. This is more
vague than "proceedings" which implies some sort of formal judicial process.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
consider fitting in his case".
art II: "If in the fulfillment of this obligation there also exists the
^^^^^^^^^^^
inadempimento, the non-fulfillment.
Post by c***@yahoo.com
quality of marriage with a person of inferior condition and status,
both contracting parties and the descendants 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".
art. III: "When however the reflection of some particular circumstance
might determine us, or our Royal successors, to allow an unequal
marriage to be contracted, in this case we reserve the Sovereign
authority to prescribe to this effect the restraints and conditions
which must be observed."
Excerpt from the Royal Patent of 16 July 1782
art. X: "Marriages of the Princes of our Crown and for the good of the
State, they (the said Princes) cannot therefore enter into marriage
without the permission of Ourselves or of our Royal successors, and in
those cases where Princes fail to comply with this requirement they
shall, subject to these provisions, receive from Us or our Royal
successors, orders pursuant to Our 13 Articles of September 1780, with
restrictions accompanying consent, imposing such conditions as may be
deemed meet and convenient".
I think this is garbled: "... they shall be subject to the provisions which
shall be ordained for the occurrences of such cases by us or our royal
successors, and to the tenor of the letters of our patents of 13 September 1780
[not 13 articles!!], reserving [to ourselves and our successors] the possibility
of adding to the consents the restrictions that shall be deemed proper and
convenient."

The structure of articles II and III of 1780 parallels that of articles XI and
XII of the Spanish pragmatica promulgated 4 years earlier: consent of the
sovereign is required for certain marriages, penalties are prescribed for
failure to secure such consent; unequal marriages subject to certain
restrictions in their effects, but the possibility of royal consent to such
marriages nevertheless allowed in special cases.

The Spanish pragmatica, however, is rather more rigid in its consequences as far
as descendants are concerned. When it comes to unequal marriages, with or
without consent, "[no] succederán los descendientes de este matrimonio en las
tales dignidades, honores, vínculos ó bienes dimanados de la Corona [...] ni
podrán tampoco estos descendientes de dichos matrimonios desiguales usar de los
apellidos y armas, de la casa, de cuya succesion quedan privados." In the
Italian case, the consequences are roughly the same without consent, but in the
case of consent the sovereign reserves the right to prescribe the appropriate
restrictions.

It is also noteworthy that the Spanish pragmatica has no consequences for the
individual contracting an unequal marriage, whereas the Sardinian patenti
applies to "tanto i contraenti, che i discendenti da tale matrimonio".
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-01 18:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
King Umberto never did convey this information; he did not see it was
necessary in his opinion as he considered his position was clear.
How could his position have been clear, when it was known only to
himself, his son and his chancellery? In the second letter of 1960,
It was known to a wider circle - his daughters and some of his close
friends and advisers.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
"I would communicate 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 all the Italians".
yet the only evidence we have is a typed copy of a private letter? Why
was this communication not effected? Why has every reference source
since 1983 recognised the rights and position of the Prince of Naples?
If he ceased to be a dynast in 1971, and became "a private citizen",
why did he continue to be banned from entering the territory of the
Italian republic? Was it because he claimed to be Head of the House?
Given that I have Savoy blood (very distantly and not patrilineally, of
course), if I claimed to be King of Italy would I similarly have been
banned?
Strictly speaking all the male line descendants of the House of Savoy were
banned from Italy, but in practice this law was not applied to the duke of
Aosta's father because he had served as an officer in the war and there was a
felling that it would be unproductive to enforce it against him. His son was a
minor, and of course later did his military service in Italy.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I believe you will find that the argument made by the Duke of Aosta was that
in 1983 he became head of the royal house, and in 1987 in a notarised statement
he gave himself permission to marry (this document apparently remains with the
notary).
This is at odds with Humbert's own apparent statement in the second
letter of 1960, where he writes in relation to giving permission to
"I have no intention, any more than I have the *right* to change the
law"
He did not change the law; the law required that princes marry royalty or if not
that they married with permission, but in the latter case the tradition of the
family (and it is to that the King refers) was that they should otherwise
marry only into the high nobility. Hence the wife of the 1st duke of Aosta, who
herself became from 1870-73 Queen of Spain (the first since the crowns of
Castille and Aragon had been united not to have been born a royal princess).
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Presumably Aosta would argue that Humbert was wrong in this respect -
in which case, why should the rest of his position be treated as
gospel?
I do not think he would argue the King was wrong; the king was clearly sdtating
that he was bound by the traditions and precedents of his dynasty.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Maria Doria, like Amadeo's second and current wife, is a member of an
Italian Marchesal family - i.e. noble, though not of royal rank. Why
the hair-splitting between them?
No, that is an extravagant claim made without any substance at all. Her
grandfather was not a Marquess who gave up his title; the family were not
noble.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The issue then, for the House of Savoy is (a) the status of the bride, and (b)
whether permission was given. Prince Vittorio Emanuele would claim that
permission was not necessary, or that he gave himself permission as de jure
King.
The latest letter published is from 1963. While it clearly anticipates
the marriage which took place in 1971, it would be far more useful to
have some evidence about Humbert's views between, say, 1970 and 1983.
Is there anything to suggest that permission was refused? Or that he
did or did not recognise the rights of his grandson?
There is no question about him never having given permission and it is
well-known that he ordered that none of his family attend the reception given in
Europe folloiwing the Teheran wedding.

The question as to the recognition of his grandson as a dynast may be divided
into two parts. First, and this would be the argument of Prince Vittorio
Emanuele, the changing legal situation post 1946 negated the paternal authority
over royal marriages; or, alternatively he was himself already king.
King Umberto did attend his grandson's baptism, and this has been held up as
proof of his reconciliation with the marriage. At this occasion, when asked what
the baby boy should be titled, he is recorded as having said "call him prince of
Venice", but this was never followed by a decree.

It could be argued that the King, if he had intended that his grandson should
not enjoy dynastic status, that he would have followed Vittorio Emanuele II and
Umberto I (and indeed the 18th century precedent of the Soissons title) in
conferring a countly title, rather than a princely one. Against that it has been
said that the King differentiated between his grandson and the duke of Aosta's
son (Prince Aimone) by conferring upon the latter the Collar of the Annunciation
while njot conferring this upon his grandson.

There is a further argument, that in making his last testament as he did - by
dividing his inheritance equally among his four children, instead of giving
preference to his son, he was following through with what he had stated he would
do in his 1960 letter. He neither bequeathed to his son the collars of the Order
of the Annunziata (which he left to a trust) nor the royal seal, which he
ordered destroyed. Perhaps he considered this was enough? In 1983 the duke of
Aosta had been divorced by his first wife, Princess Claude of Orleans, and was
awaiting an annulment which did not come through until 4 years after the King's
death.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
This kind of silly, undignified squabbling amongst royal dynasts - a la
the Two Sicilies, France, Ethiopia, Annam - only has one consequence in
the public mind: the further erosion of belief in the concept of
hereditary government. As the Romanovs discovered at a terrible cost,
if they can't give loyalty amongst themselves, how can they possibly
expect to receive it from others?
That is a reasonable view; unfortunately history has shown that every dynasty
has been the victim of the ambitions of varying lines. One may see this in the
Royal House of Great Britain in the late Plantagenet period, under the Tudors
and the Stuarts, while the first three Georges all fell out with their eldest
sons. In Italy the Carignano line had long been at odds with the senior Savoy
line that expired in 1834. The Spanish and Portuguese divisions led to civil
wars that laid the seeds of destruction for the monarchy. The French was marked
by the ambitions of the Orleans branch, culminating in their replacement of the
senior line in 1830.

There are plentiful other examples.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
j***@gmail.com
2006-12-04 07:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Hence the wife of the 1st duke of Aosta, who
herself became from 1870-73 Queen of Spain (the first since the crowns of
Castille and Aragon had been united not to have been born a royal princess).
And what was Julie Clary?
CJ Buyers
2006-12-11 15:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
There is no question about him never having given permission and it is
well-known that he ordered that none of his family attend the reception given in
Europe folloiwing the Teheran wedding.
The question as to the recognition of his grandson as a dynast may be divided
into two parts. First, and this would be the argument of Prince Vittorio
Emanuele, the changing legal situation post 1946 negated the paternal authority
over royal marriages; or, alternatively he was himself already king.
King Umberto did attend his grandson's baptism, and this has been held up as
proof of his reconciliation with the marriage. At this occasion, when asked what
the baby boy should be titled, he is recorded as having said "call him prince of
Venice", but this was never followed by a decree.
It could be argued that the King, if he had intended that his grandson should
not enjoy dynastic status, that he would have followed Vittorio Emanuele II and
Umberto I (and indeed the 18th century precedent of the Soissons title) in
conferring a countly title, rather than a princely one. Against that it has been
said that the King differentiated between his grandson and the duke of Aosta's
son (Prince Aimone) by conferring upon the latter the Collar of the Annunciation
while njot conferring this upon his grandson.
This is sounding a lot more shaky than either other supporters, or you
for that matter, had attempted to show previously.

Attendance at the baptism doesn't say anything whatever. I am sure that
Charles II attended at least some of the baptisms of some of his
children. That does not mean that they derive succession rights from
such an occurrence. It is merely a "family" event and a recognition of
blood relationship, not of dynastic rights, rights to titles or
succession rights to the crown.

It is now seems to be clear that there was no creation or bestowal of a
title on the grandson. Simply telling someone else that they should
call their son "Prince of Venice" is meaningless. Especially since U2
was used to regularly conferring titles of nobility. The absence of a
decree or document bestowing a title in any formal sense speaks
volumes. Indeed, it means that he went one step further than his
earlier namesake, UI. He did not confer a countly title, true. It seems
that he went further and did not confer any title at all, princely,
countly, or anything else.
k***@politik.dk
2006-12-11 15:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
There is no question about him never having given permission and it is
well-known that he ordered that none of his family attend the reception given in
Europe folloiwing the Teheran wedding.
The question as to the recognition of his grandson as a dynast may be divided
into two parts. First, and this would be the argument of Prince Vittorio
Emanuele, the changing legal situation post 1946 negated the paternal authority
over royal marriages; or, alternatively he was himself already king.
King Umberto did attend his grandson's baptism, and this has been held up as
proof of his reconciliation with the marriage. At this occasion, when asked what
the baby boy should be titled, he is recorded as having said "call him prince of
Venice", but this was never followed by a decree.
It could be argued that the King, if he had intended that his grandson should
not enjoy dynastic status, that he would have followed Vittorio Emanuele II and
Umberto I (and indeed the 18th century precedent of the Soissons title) in
conferring a countly title, rather than a princely one. Against that it has been
said that the King differentiated between his grandson and the duke of Aosta's
son (Prince Aimone) by conferring upon the latter the Collar of the Annunciation
while njot conferring this upon his grandson.
This is sounding a lot more shaky than either other supporters, or you
for that matter, had attempted to show previously.
Attendance at the baptism doesn't say anything whatever. I am sure that
Charles II attended at least some of the baptisms of some of his
children. That does not mean that they derive succession rights from
such an occurrence. It is merely a "family" event and a recognition of
blood relationship, not of dynastic rights, rights to titles or
succession rights to the crown.
I fully agree.
Post by CJ Buyers
It is now seems to be clear that there was no creation or bestowal of a
title on the grandson. Simply telling someone else that they should
call their son "Prince of Venice" is meaningless. Especially since U2
was used to regularly conferring titles of nobility. The absence of a
decree or document bestowing a title in any formal sense speaks
volumes. Indeed, it means that he went one step further than his
earlier namesake, UI. He did not confer a countly title, true. It seems
that he went further and did not confer any title at all, princely,
countly, or anything else.
Perhaps. But see my quote from a decree supposedly issued in 1984 by
VE which at least seems to indicate that VE believed that such a title
had been granted:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/a1aa809467093110

By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
CJ Buyers
2006-12-11 16:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@politik.dk
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
There is no question about him never having given permission and it is
well-known that he ordered that none of his family attend the reception given in
Europe folloiwing the Teheran wedding.
The question as to the recognition of his grandson as a dynast may be divided
into two parts. First, and this would be the argument of Prince Vittorio
Emanuele, the changing legal situation post 1946 negated the paternal authority
over royal marriages; or, alternatively he was himself already king.
King Umberto did attend his grandson's baptism, and this has been held up as
proof of his reconciliation with the marriage. At this occasion, when asked what
the baby boy should be titled, he is recorded as having said "call him prince of
Venice", but this was never followed by a decree.
It could be argued that the King, if he had intended that his grandson should
not enjoy dynastic status, that he would have followed Vittorio Emanuele II and
Umberto I (and indeed the 18th century precedent of the Soissons title) in
conferring a countly title, rather than a princely one. Against that it has been
said that the King differentiated between his grandson and the duke of Aosta's
son (Prince Aimone) by conferring upon the latter the Collar of the Annunciation
while njot conferring this upon his grandson.
This is sounding a lot more shaky than either other supporters, or you
for that matter, had attempted to show previously.
Attendance at the baptism doesn't say anything whatever. I am sure that
Charles II attended at least some of the baptisms of some of his
children. That does not mean that they derive succession rights from
such an occurrence. It is merely a "family" event and a recognition of
blood relationship, not of dynastic rights, rights to titles or
succession rights to the crown.
I fully agree.
Post by CJ Buyers
It is now seems to be clear that there was no creation or bestowal of a
title on the grandson. Simply telling someone else that they should
call their son "Prince of Venice" is meaningless. Especially since U2
was used to regularly conferring titles of nobility. The absence of a
decree or document bestowing a title in any formal sense speaks
volumes. Indeed, it means that he went one step further than his
earlier namesake, UI. He did not confer a countly title, true. It seems
that he went further and did not confer any title at all, princely,
countly, or anything else.
Perhaps. But see my quote from a decree supposedly issued in 1984 by
VE which at least seems to indicate that VE believed that such a title
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/a1aa809467093110
I did see that, but it does not add anything to the picture. Whatever
VE may or may not have believed isn't very material. It does not
substitute for a a document or decree of creation in any way. This
still remains wanting.

Furthermore, in this particular case we seem to have someone who
believes whatever he wants to believe, when the moment suits.

Here we have a man who "believed" that he was now the authority capable
of creating his future wife a Duchess. He could only do so if he
believed that his father no longer had the authority to create titles.
Then how can his father suddenly be in a position to create anything at
a later date, official, unofficial or otherwise?
George Lucki
2006-12-12 01:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by k***@politik.dk
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
There is no question about him never having given permission and it is
well-known that he ordered that none of his family attend the reception given in
Europe folloiwing the Teheran wedding.
The question as to the recognition of his grandson as a dynast may be divided
into two parts. First, and this would be the argument of Prince Vittorio
Emanuele, the changing legal situation post 1946 negated the paternal authority
over royal marriages; or, alternatively he was himself already king.
King Umberto did attend his grandson's baptism, and this has been held up as
proof of his reconciliation with the marriage. At this occasion, when asked what
the baby boy should be titled, he is recorded as having said "call him prince of
Venice", but this was never followed by a decree.
It could be argued that the King, if he had intended that his grandson should
not enjoy dynastic status, that he would have followed Vittorio Emanuele II and
Umberto I (and indeed the 18th century precedent of the Soissons title) in
conferring a countly title, rather than a princely one. Against that it has been
said that the King differentiated between his grandson and the duke of Aosta's
son (Prince Aimone) by conferring upon the latter the Collar of the Annunciation
while njot conferring this upon his grandson.
This is sounding a lot more shaky than either other supporters, or you
for that matter, had attempted to show previously.
Attendance at the baptism doesn't say anything whatever. I am sure that
Charles II attended at least some of the baptisms of some of his
children. That does not mean that they derive succession rights from
such an occurrence. It is merely a "family" event and a recognition of
blood relationship, not of dynastic rights, rights to titles or
succession rights to the crown.
I fully agree.
Post by CJ Buyers
It is now seems to be clear that there was no creation or bestowal of a
title on the grandson. Simply telling someone else that they should
call their son "Prince of Venice" is meaningless. Especially since U2
was used to regularly conferring titles of nobility. The absence of a
decree or document bestowing a title in any formal sense speaks
volumes. Indeed, it means that he went one step further than his
earlier namesake, UI. He did not confer a countly title, true. It seems
that he went further and did not confer any title at all, princely,
countly, or anything else.
Perhaps. But see my quote from a decree supposedly issued in 1984 by
VE which at least seems to indicate that VE believed that such a title
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/a1aa809467093110
I did see that, but it does not add anything to the picture. Whatever
VE may or may not have believed isn't very material. It does not
substitute for a a document or decree of creation in any way. This
still remains wanting.
Furthermore, in this particular case we seem to have someone who
believes whatever he wants to believe, when the moment suits.
Here we have a man who "believed" that he was now the authority capable
of creating his future wife a Duchess. He could only do so if he
believed that his father no longer had the authority to create titles.
Then how can his father suddenly be in a position to create anything at
a later date, official, unofficial or otherwise?
Exactly!
(Chris and Peter, we find ourselves all three in apparent basic agreement -
an uncommon experience. :)
George Lucki
CJ Buyers
2006-12-11 16:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
It would appear that the Kingdom of Italy was in reality the Kingdom of
"Greater" Sardinia, and the constitution basically inherited from that
state. It would therefore follow that whatever rules applied to
Sardinia continued into the successor state of "Italy", legally
speaking the "new name" adopted for the Kingdom of Sardinia following
the annexation, absorption or votes in favour of joining that kingdom
by the other provinces of Italian speaking states.

There are some notes on the Italian constitution at
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy598.html
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-11 19:53:49 UTC
Permalink
CJ Buyers
2006-12-11 20:01:29 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".

As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2006-12-11 20:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.

For what is of the distinction Sardinia/Italy, you may be right and I
have no opinion on the subject, but others, who may be wrong, obviously
disagree and think the post-Risorgimento Italian kingdom was not
concerned by rules concocted for the kingdom of Sardinia and was only
ruled by its own constitution.

Pierre
CJ Buyers
2006-12-11 21:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.
Post by ***@hotmail.com
For what is of the distinction Sardinia/Italy, you may be right and I
have no opinion on the subject, but others, who may be wrong, obviously
disagree and think the post-Risorgimento Italian kingdom was not
concerned by rules concocted for the kingdom of Sardinia and was only
ruled by its own constitution.
I do not know of any author or authorities named "others". Either name
someone or don't bother, we have been here with this sort of nonsense
before.
George Lucki
2006-12-12 01:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the
hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
CJB> Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.

-----------------------

Of course Christopher is correct. Later laws supercede earlier ones. The
question here is whether the laws of 1780 still bound the Savoy (now Italian
Royal House) in the 1960's. More and more it is clear that Umberto saw
himself bound by these laws and certainly it is not clear that they were
superceded by any other laws or that their practice had lapsed. The
consequence of this would be Amedeo's succession if VE's marriage was not
accepted and as I have earlier argued such an interpretation is in line with
a reasonable understanding of VE's owna ction through the period 1967- after
the death of Umberto. It is unfortunate that there is not an unambigious
statement on Umberto's part - and here I am leaning in the direction that as
he wrote in his letter to his son he saw the consequences of the unequal
marriage as automatic - and this appears to be the literal text of the house
law as well. Exceptions were permitted but these required a poitive action
and there was no such positive action on Umberto's part.

George Lucki
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-13 10:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
CJB> Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.
-----------------------
Of course Christopher is correct. Later laws supercede earlier ones.
Later laws supercede earlier ones only if 1) the one who changes the
law has the power to do so, and 2) they have the same object. For
example, the law of succession of the Crown of the Two-Sicilies has no
effect on the succession to the grand-mastership of the Constantinian
Order, although the King of the Two-Sicilies and the grand-master
happen to be the same man. The House of Savoy preexisted the access of
its head to a Royal Crown pf Sardinia, and the devolution to his
headship followed rules which are probably unaffected by the the modern
laws of transmission of that modern crown.

Pierre
George Lucki
2006-12-13 15:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
<...>
Post by k***@politik.dk
By the way: Charles Stewart has published translated excepts from the
1780s decrees from the King of Sardinia--but where these also
applicable to the Savoy monarchy of Italy? Or where there similar (or
different) rules in operation with regard to princes having to obtain
the prior, explicit permission of the King?
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
CJB> Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.
-----------------------
Of course Christopher is correct. Later laws supercede earlier ones.
Later laws supercede earlier ones only if 1) the one who changes the
law has the power to do so, and 2) they have the same object. For
example, the law of succession of the Crown of the Two-Sicilies has no
effect on the succession to the grand-mastership of the Constantinian
Order, although the King of the Two-Sicilies and the grand-master
happen to be the same man. The House of Savoy preexisted the access of
its head to a Royal Crown pf Sardinia, and the devolution to his
headship followed rules which are probably unaffected by the the modern
laws of transmission of that modern crown.
Pierre

------------------------

Pierre,
Later laws supecede earlier ones and you need to read them plainly. The
Savoy House Laws do not somehow exclude the succession to the headship of
the house as distinct from the succession to the crown. The notion you
present that 'devolution to his headship followed rules which are probably
unaffected by the the modern
laws of transmission of that modern crown' is nothing but silly and baseless
speculation without pointing to how the laws of 1780, 1782 were not intended
to regulate dynastic marriages within this family. In any case I am not
clear what argument you are making - are you for example suggesting that VE
is the head of the pre-Italian 'house of Savoy' but not the titular king of
Italy (that he has kept the headship of the non-sovereign house of Savoy by
virtue of some ancient surviving law to which you cannnot point while losing
of course the right to the headship of the Savoy royal house by virtue of
the 1780, 1782 laws)?
Comparisons to the Two Sicilies crown and Constantinian Order are not apt -
those have continued to exist as separate dynastic properties following
different succession rules.
George Lucki
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-13 19:33:06 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by George Lucki
Post by ***@hotmail.com
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
CJB> Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.
-----------------------
Of course Christopher is correct. Later laws supercede earlier ones.
Later laws supercede earlier ones only if 1) the one who changes the
law has the power to do so, and 2) they have the same object. For
example, the law of succession of the Crown of the Two-Sicilies has no
effect on the succession to the grand-mastership of the Constantinian
Order, although the King of the Two-Sicilies and the grand-master
happen to be the same man. The House of Savoy preexisted the access of
its head to a Royal Crown pf Sardinia, and the devolution to his
headship followed rules which are probably unaffected by the the modern
laws of transmission of that modern crown.
Pierre
------------------------
Pierre,
Later laws supecede earlier ones and you need to read them plainly. The
Savoy House Laws do not somehow exclude the succession to the headship of
the house as distinct from the succession to the crown. The notion you
present that 'devolution to his headship followed rules which are probably
unaffected by the the modern
laws of transmission of that modern crown' is nothing but silly
If you can refrain from using this kind of vocabulary I am sure your
argumentation will not lose its weight.
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
and baseless
speculation without pointing to how the laws of 1780, 1782 were not intended
to regulate dynastic marriages within this family.
You need first to demonstrate how the King of Sardinia had power to
regulated who can or can not be the head of the house of Savoy.
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
In any case I am not
clear what argument you are making - are you for example suggesting that VE
is the head of the pre-Italian 'house of Savoy' but not the titular king of
Italy
I am not suggesting that such is the case: I don't pretend to have read
carefully the texts, or to be competent on the subject. I was just
suggesting that such COULD be the case and so that this distinction can
be discussed and, if needed, dismissed. You seem to be absolutely sure
that such was not the case
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
that he has kept the headship of the non-sovereign house of Savoy
I would not call it "non-sovereign": it was as sovereign as the House
of Bavaria for example (although this sovereignty was of a different
kind than the Sardinian sovereignty). And it was already "Royal" before
Sardinia entered in the game.
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
by
virtue of some ancient surviving law to which you cannnot point
"To which you can not point?" Are you suggesting there was no
succession rules before 1780? As far as I can tell, Savoy has an
ancient tradition of succession rules and was the first of the French
speaking principalities to formalise the Salic law.
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
while losing
of course the right to the headship of the Savoy royal house
by virtue of
the 1780, 1782 laws)?
Would it not better to call this second one the Royal House of
Sardinia/Italy?
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Comparisons to the Two Sicilies crown and Constantinian Order are not apt -
those have continued to exist as separate dynastic properties following
different succession rules.
Why would it not be the same for Savoy and Italy?

Pierre
George Lucki
2006-12-13 20:09:43 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.fr> wrote in message news:***@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
PA> You need first to demonstrate how the King of Sardinia had power to
regulated who can or can not be the head of the house of Savoy.

GL> The head of the Savoy house was placed on the throne of Sardinia and
these two were united. Succession to both Savoy and Sardinia followed the
same rules. These were ammended and affected both. There was no indication
that that these monarchs held their Savoy title differently than Sardinia
and Italy became a continuation fo the Sardinian Savoy dynasty.
Post by George Lucki
In any case I am not
clear what argument you are making - are you for example suggesting that VE
is the head of the pre-Italian 'house of Savoy' but not the titular king of
Italy
PA> I am not suggesting that such is the case: I don't pretend to have read
carefully the texts, or to be competent on the subject. I was just
suggesting that such COULD be the case and so that this distinction can
be discussed and, if needed, dismissed. You seem to be absolutely sure
that such was not the case

GL> There is no point considering things that are not known to be. I could
absurdly suggest that anything COULD be the case but without some indication
that it actually was the case there would be no point.
Post by George Lucki
that he has kept the headship of the non-sovereign house of Savoy
PA> I would not call it "non-sovereign": it was as sovereign as the House
of Bavaria for example (although this sovereignty was of a different
kind than the Sardinian sovereignty). And it was already "Royal" before
Sardinia entered in the game.

GL> Only briefly as their titular royal succession (Jerusalem, Cyprus,
Armenia) was different than succession to the Savoy title although they
continued to assume it.
Post by George Lucki
by
virtue of some ancient surviving law to which you cannnot point
PA> "To which you can not point?" Are you suggesting there was no
succession rules before 1780? As far as I can tell, Savoy has an
ancient tradition of succession rules and was the first of the French
speaking principalities to formalise the Salic law.

GL> Not at all. What I am suggesting is that the rules of 1780, 1782
replaced the earlier practices in the areas they regulated - specifically
the requirement for permission for dynastic marriges, etc.
Post by George Lucki
while losing
of course the right to the headship of the Savoy royal house
by virtue of
the 1780, 1782 laws)?
PA> Would it not better to call this second one the Royal House of
Sardinia/Italy?

GL> There is only one.
Post by George Lucki
Comparisons to the Two Sicilies crown and Constantinian Order are not apt -
those have continued to exist as separate dynastic properties following
different succession rules.
PA> Why would it not be the same for Savoy and Italy?

GL> What indication do you have that Savoy and Sardinia were intended to
descend by separate rules within this family?

George Lucki
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2006-12-14 22:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-15 16:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
GL> The head of the Savoy house was placed on the throne of Sardinia and
these two were united. Succession to both Savoy and Sardinia followed the
same rules. These were ammended and affected both. There was no indication
that that these monarchs held their Savoy title differently than Sardinia
and Italy became a continuation fo the Sardinian Savoy dynasty.
I am under the impression that the facts can be presented in a slightly
different way. For example, what means "united" here? Of course, the
same man was Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia and exercised full
authority on those both regions, but, at least until the Restauration,
it would not be correct to assert he did so in virtue of the same
right. He was king of Sardinia by virtue of a new right, founded on the
Treaties of Utrecht and of the Treaty of London. But he was reigning in
Savoy by virtue of being heir of the previous rulers of Savoy,
following rules of succession which had been fixed by tradition (and,
incidentally, as such he was more specifically titled duke by virtue of
an act of Emperor Sigismund). Of course, absolutism made that in
practice there was little difference in the exercise of the power by
the sovereign on his various possession in the 18th century a create a
de facto unity, but the diversity of rights which founded that power
had not stopped to exist for that, particularly in the consciousness of
the inhabitants of those territories (it is clear for example that
Savoyard aristocrats like Joseph de Maistre considered themselves as
subjects not of an abstract king, but of the duke of Savoy, who
happened to be also the king of Sardinia). My point is not that the
*intention* of the sovereign who promulgated the letter patent
reshaping the rules of succession was to apply those rules only to part
of his territories, it is that the possibility can perhaps be envisaged
that he was not rightful to do so indistinctly for all the various
parts of his composite historical inheritance. After all, when we
discuss this kind of successions here in that group, we always
implicitly take the line that the succession must be reasoned not
according simply to the fact but according to a theoretical right: so
for example the abolition by the Italian republic not only of the
monarchy but of all kind of legal distinction for the royal house does
not count in our reasoning of who is the rightful head of the Royal
house (a concept which, if I am not wrong, itself has no significance
in present law). So why would we me more relaxed toward the violation
of the tradition by an absolute monarch than to its violation by a
Republic? Clearly in 1780 the king wanted to modify the succession to
all his territories as a whole, but had he simply the right (not the
practical right at the time, but the historical right) to do so? After
all, Louis XIV, an absolute monarch, changed the rules of succession to
make his bastards potential heirs of the Crown, but this was contrary
to tradition and so ipso facto void. In other word, I am wondering if
Savoy is closer to France (where the sovereign has not the power to
change tradition) or to Russia (where the tradition is that the
autocrat can change the tradition). I think it is a question which need
a closer look to the nature of the Savoyard tradition, and that the
answer "it was decided by the king of the time which thought it worked
like that, so don't ask more" is a little short.
I think you make an important point and it goes in part to determining whether
the Savoy Dukes, later Kings of Sardinia, were indeed bound to follow some set
of rules, not necessarily codified, limiting their marriage options. I believe
that even the French kings believed this in some way - hence the secret
marriages, whose real effects we cannot determine because we do not know what
would have happened to any issue born of these since there was none. in the case
of Savoy we see that Victor Amedeus II consaidered it necessary to make his
second marriage a secret one and, when it was published, make it clear that it
was morganatic and that his wife would not enjoy any of the royal titles should
would have done as an equal spouse.

I had thought there status as holders of an imperial fief and title might have
made them subject to imperial jurisdiction but Francois has assured me that this
would not include jurisdiction over the marriages of members of families
reigning over neighbouring states. We do see that every chief of the family from
Aimone I, Count of Savoy (1291, succeeded 1323, died 1343) married into a
reigning house, with the single exception of the Philip, duke from 1496-1513,
who as his second wife married Claudine de Brosse de Bretagne, and his son of
this marriage ultimately succeeded as duke (Charles III, who married Beatrice of
Portugal). This may have been seen as a demanding precedent.

Even the junior Carignano line, from which the present branch stems, married
extremely well - unless one considers the marriage of the 1st of this line to
Marie de Bourbon-Soissons as a lesser match, or the marriage of Prince Victor
Amedeus (1690-1741) who married the legitimated daughter of Victor Amedeus II,
as not royal. Even the daughters married well from the reigning and Carignano
branch, unless one considers the marriage of Leopoldina of Savoy-Carignano to
Pricne Gian Andrea Doria Pamfilij in 1767 to have been a step down. The only
real modest marriage was that in 1682 of Luigi Tommaso, Count of Soissons (elder
brother of the famous Prince Eugene) to Uranie de la Cropte, but for this he had
asked and received the then Duke's permission. The la Cropte family had actually
married into very prominent families (la Rochefocauld and Durfot-Civrac, and
Fenelon's mother was a la Cropte), but were nonetheless a surprising choice for
a Savoy prince.

Clearly the marriage in 1779 of Prince Eugenio Ilarione to Elisabeth Magon was a
step too low, and conducted without the King's permission Victor Amedeus III had
to take steps to make it clear what the consequences were. I do not believe this
was against precedent and suspect the issues were two fold - the need for
authorisation on the one hand and the low birth on the other. There was no
appeal to higher authority, such as the Emperor and the Prince accepted the
king's authority. The political circumstances were quite different to those
which had impelled Charles III to refuse his brother's two requests for royal
marriages, forcing him to make an unequal marriage which he then outlawed.

The later demorganaticsation was because in 1834 the king's sons were as yet
unmarried and without this, there was a risk the dynasty would become extinct.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-14 20:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by George Lucki
that he has kept the headship of the non-sovereign house of Savoy
I would not call it "non-sovereign": it was as sovereign as the House
of Bavaria for example (although this sovereignty was of a different
kind than the Sardinian sovereignty). And it was already "Royal" before
Sardinia entered in the game.
Francois Velde has explained to me that states of the Empire outside Germany -
such as Lorraine and Savoy - were treated differently in respect of marriages,
etc, than states within Germany. The royal patent of 1780/82 was clearly
intended to encompass all the various crowns and territories to which the Savoys
laid claim. Did anything change with the expansion of Sardinia to encompass all
of Italy? I do not believe that one could argue, for example, that the
succession to the French Crown changed by the expansion of its boundaries.

It would have been quite different, for example, if VE II had after deposing
Francesco II, assumed the Crown of the Two Sicilies with its historic traditions
and different succession system.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2006-12-14 22:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Don Aitken
2006-12-12 02:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
Perhaps then you could explain why any earlier rules should apply and
name your authority.
Post by ***@hotmail.com
For what is of the distinction Sardinia/Italy, you may be right and I
have no opinion on the subject, but others, who may be wrong, obviously
disagree and think the post-Risorgimento Italian kingdom was not
concerned by rules concocted for the kingdom of Sardinia and was only
ruled by its own constitution.
I do not know of any author or authorities named "others". Either name
someone or don't bother, we have been here with this sort of nonsense
before.
"In 1861 the Constitution of Piedmont was adopted, with slight
variations, as the Constitution of Italy" (Hazen, "Europe Since
1815"). Unless anyone is in a position to show that any of these
"slight variations" affected the position of the Monarchy, I think we
must presume that the pre-1861 rules continued to apply. As you
correctly stated, "Italy" was not a new kingdom, it was the Kingdom of
Sardinia renamed.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
The Man
2006-12-12 03:25:33 UTC
Permalink
When will the "new/correct" Duke of Savoy begin admissions to the
Order of St Maurice and Lazarus? Will he/can he start conferring
titles as well?

Also, what about all of VE's Knights and Dames? Where does this
situation leave them?
CJ Buyers
2006-12-12 06:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Man
When will the "new/correct" Duke of Savoy begin admissions to the
Order of St Maurice and Lazarus? Will he/can he start conferring
titles as well?
Also, what about all of VE's Knights and Dames? Where does this
situation leave them?
Nowehere really, but if the DoS has any brains, he would issue new
certificates in his own name straight away and with effect from exactly
the same dates as their original appointments. He would thus win every
one of them over with a single stroke.
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-12 08:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
"In 1861 the Constitution of Piedmont was adopted, with slight
variations, as the Constitution of Italy" (Hazen, "Europe Since
1815"). Unless anyone is in a position to show that any of these
"slight variations" affected the position of the Monarchy, I think we
must presume that the pre-1861 rules continued to apply. As you
correctly stated, "Italy" was not a new kingdom, it was the Kingdom of
Sardinia renamed.
Please see my previous post, which discusses this and in particular reference to
the still valid Italian civil code and the article on marriages of the King and
Royal Princes.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-12 07:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
That is absolutely correct since the Albertine Constitution was simply adopted
by the new Italian state - one of the few changes made post unification was in
regard to nobiliary jurisdiction; the new monarchy made an effort to unify the
system which had varied across Italy. This was not very successful and has led
to many anomalies - further more a good number of old noble families chose not
to submit themselves to the checks and proofs demanded by the new authorities,
which meant they did not appear in some of the provincial listings or the two
versions of the Elenco Ufficiale della Nobilta Italiana produced post WWI.
Post by ***@hotmail.com
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
That is true, and of course the dukedom of Savoy was an Imperial title, as were
several of the Italian subsidiary titles, while Sardinia had been acquired in
full sovereignty. But as Charles Stewart has pointed out, Victor Amadeus I had
to keep his marriage to a lady from the lesser nobility secret for a year,
although there were strong protests when he published it which led to it being
de facto morganatic (although such a legal principle did not formally exist in
the non-German states of the Empire). I would differ with Charles Stewart over
his conclusion that these led to his departure for Chambery - he had already
decided to give up the throne before publicising the marriage - but the royal
family and court were outraged at the suggestion that the publicastion of the
marriage would lead to it beign treated as "equal" and the bride as Queen. What
is interesting here is that the "secret marriage" was something that also
existed in France (Louis XIV's second marriage, and the father of Philippe
Egalite), and was intended so the king or prince could regularise a situation
that left him in grave sin without giving the lady in question any of the titles
or precedence she would enjoy as his wife. In none of these cases was any issue
born of the marriage so it is impossible to state with certainty that such issue
would not have enjoyed dynastic rights, but I believe the answer is probably not
- at least any claim to such would not have been acknowledged by the Crown.
There are examples in German families where such marriages did not confer eqwual
status on the wife nor dynastic status on the children - the treatment of the
wife of the Elector Palatine Friedrich I, Klara Tott, whom he married after the
birth of his son (founder of the family of Loewenstein-Wertheim), is a good
exmaple where there was not a formal contract of morganaticisation but where the
Elector was forced, by family and other pressures, to declare the issue
incapable of succession and his wife unentitled to royal styles, and rexognise
his nephew as his heir. The

One may also consider that the dynastic law that governed the house of Savoy
preceded the promulgation of the 1780 patent, and (like that of France) was
based on long standing historic precedent. Of course one may consider that the
succession to the duchy of Savoy was ruled by the terms of imperial investiture,
but that is not true of many of the other territorial titles of the family,
which passed to Carlo Alberto, despite him being 13 degrees of consanguinity
removed from his predecessor. Thus one may consider that the system of salic law
had been imposed even on these successions, by family traditions which had
become dynastic law.

One may conclude therefore that the treatment of Prince Eugenio-Ilarione of
Savoy-Carignano was in accord with established dynastic principles and not a de
novo principle imposed by an autocratic monarch.
Post by ***@hotmail.com
For what is of the distinction Sardinia/Italy, you may be right and I
have no opinion on the subject, but others, who may be wrong, obviously
disagree and think the post-Risorgimento Italian kingdom was not
concerned by rules concocted for the kingdom of Sardinia and was only
ruled by its own constitution.
The Italian Civil Code of 1942 (still extant and not repealed, although in
modern reprinting of the code this article is only given in its title) by
article 92 (formerly article 65 of the Italian Civil Code of 1865) states,
"Marriage of the King (Emperor) and the Royal Princes" then "The King’s consent
is a necessity for the validity of the marriages of Royal Princes and
Princesses“. Thus what already existed as a principle of dynastic law was now
also incorporated into the system of state law.

I am quoting from a scholarly text (by Professor Franco Adami, of the University
of Ferrara) here:

In consideration of the "Royal Patents of 13 September 1780 and 16 July 1782
proclaimed by the King of Sardinia, Vittorio Amadeo III of Savoy (in Raccolta
per ordine di materie delle Leggi, Editti, Manifesti ecc. pubblicati dall’anno
1681 sino agli 8 dicembre 1798, ed. by F. Amato Duboin, Vol. VII, Vol. IX ,
Turin 1831, pp. 49-54). The first of these – which anticipated more generalized
measures on the subject of marriage and was issued two years later by means of
the second – contained a series of dispositions exclusively for members of the
Royal House. On the whole, it consisted of two basic principles: the first being
the general regulations, while the second appeared to be a hypothetical special
case termed as “aggravating”. Above all, it established the fundamental
principle, according to which “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”. In view of these terms – and it is self-evident that here
we have the case of a marriage between “equals”, though unauthorized – it
likewise becomes evident that the Sovereign (Head of the House) possesses the
right to deal with such proceedings according to each individual case and to
apply whatever sanctions he deems most appropriate. The second is that of a
marriage which has not only not been granted the royal consent, but which is
moreover a marriage where the parties are “unequal” – “if in the fulfilment 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”. In this case the sanction is
not left to the King’s discretion (who would also be unable to apply it in the
case of marriage between peers) but it is expressly and unavoidably foreseen in
the norm which functions as a sort of “latae sententiae” penalty, i.e. as though
sentence had already been pronounced, and where, for the sole fact of having
celebrated the marriage, the penalty is incurred without the necessity of any
provision to inflict it."

Continuing this same text:

"Regie Patenti at 16 July 1782; likewise issued by Vittorio
Amedeo III, contains a disposition to this effect in §10, which concerns
“marriage of the Princes of Our House”. Here we find express confirmation of the
principle in the very same interests: “essentially the decorum of the Crown and
the good of the State”, and for this reason it is claimed that “they (the said
Princes) cannot therefore enter into marriage without the permission of the
Royal successors” adding, with reference to the Patenti of 1782, the same
sanction previously provided in this text. Here we have explicit reference both
to “the good of the State” and to the “decorum of the Crown” which, in regard to
the Patenti of 1782 (as we saw in those of two years before) allows us to
differentiate the hypothetical case of a marriage between “peers” which must
first have the Sovereign’s approval since there may a possibility of causing
“damage of a political nature” (e.g. marriage with a Prince or Princess of a
Reigning House with which the country is at war); and also the case of an
“unequal” marriage which might particularly jeopardize “the prestige and honour
of the Dynasty”. On the other hand, official disapproval of marriage with
persons of inferior rank had remained linked to the mediaeval Consuetudines
feudorum, where we find the ruing that children procreated from a wife “minus
nobilis” were considered unfit to succeed to feudal property: “licet legitimi
sint, tamen in beneficio nullatenus succedunt” (cf. VACCARI, item: Matrimonio
morganatico in Nss. Dig. It., vol.X, Turin 1964, p.439). The concept of a
marriage which regards one of the contractors as “unworthy” (this has a much
wider scope in respect to Dynastic law, but also applies here) was succinctly
stated in the 17th century by Cardinal Gian Battista de Luca (Theatrum veritatis
et iustitiae, Romae 1669-1677, lib. VI, [disc. = disciplina ? = disposition]I,
n, 24 p.4, as well as [disc.] CXLII, n. 21, p. 216) when, as an illustration of
the “verior ac recepta” view, he wrote that “ indignus dicatur ille cui mulier,
attenta progenie, divitiis, moribus, aliisque circumstantiis, absque parentum ac
parentelae dedecore copulare non potest”. This explains the intervention of
many legislators, especially in the 18th century when “unequal “ marriages were
on the increase, in an attempt to put a stop to marriages between nobles and
non-nobles by means of heavy sanctions. On this matter we may recall the law of
the Duchy of Modena 12 July 1740 (included in the Modena Costituzioni of 1771)
which provided for the deprivation of noble status and rights of succession for
young nobles who married beneath them against their parents’ wishes (cf.
LOMBARDI, Matrimoni di antico regime, Bologna 2001, p.400, note 84). The same
might be said of Spain where the above mentioned Pragmatic Sanction went so far
as “to extend this same disposition - originally intended as a warning for the
Infantes - to the Grandees of Spain”. In the Kingdom of Naples legislation to
prevent “unequal” marriages was contained in the Pragmatic Sanction of 10 April
– 26 June 1771, followed by another two in 1780 and 1783 (in Nuova collezione
delle prammatiche del Regno di Napoli, ed. L.Giustiniani, Naples 1804, pp.
205-212); the same occurred in Austrian Lombardy where, in the edict of 17
September 1784 the Costituzione on marriages was published; this declared
marriages between minors without the father’s consent “radically invalid but
null and void” (cf. GUERCI, La sposa ubbediente. Donna e matrimonio dell’Italia
del Settecento, Turin 1988, pp. 184 ff.)."

"Article 3 of the Regie Patenti of 13 September 1780, states that “ when however
the reflection of some particular circumstance might determine us, or our Royal
successors, to allow an unequal marriage to be contracted, in this case we
reserve the Sovereign authority to prescribe to this effect the restraints and
conditions which must be observed.”. The application of this provision to the
marriage, in France, of Prince Eugenio Ilarione di Carignano-Villafranca to
Elisabetta Anna Magon Boisgarin under the Regio Brevetto of 28 October 1780,
offers considerable clarification of the above situation: The Royal concession
of “being able to rehabilitate, for reasons of conscience or other, the
marriage invalidly contracted by him,” was restricted to the sole person of the
Prince, and to none other. He alone was allowed to “ retain and keep - but, be
it noted, not to pass down to his children - the rights of succession,
prerogatives and distinctions of the family”.

"Vittorio Amedeo III’s Regie Patenti, the religious regulation of marriage was
assumed as still being in force and applicable, in respect to which a Catholic
Sovereign had no power to interfere. If, according to Tridentine procedure, the
sacrament of marriage from a canonist’s point of view was perfectly valid, and
independent of the consent of any third party, the Head of the Royal House was
obliged to impose sanctions which, although powerless to nullify the validity of
the union, could bring influence to bear (in a negative sense) on the personal
position of the Prince contracting the marriage. In special cases the King, when
confronted with an “unequal” marriage, could concede the celebration of the
marriage in “morganatic” form (but, as we have seen, only in an express and
formal way). But if the Sovereign refused his consent the sanction resulted in
the removal of the Prince from the Royal Family, with attendant loss of every
right and prerogative he had enjoyed as a Member."

It has been argued that the Civil Code and the introduction of civil marriage
invalidates the Royal Patent of 1780/82. But that supposes that there is a
conflict between the two. It was impossible for a decision of the king to
withhold consent to invalidate the marriage from a canonical point of view, nor
did the marriage itself become invalid from a civil viewpoint, but only from a
dynastic point of view.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-13 11:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by ***@hotmail.com
Post by CJ Buyers
Good question! As I try to say from time to time, it would be useful to
clarify about what all this is: the succession to the headship of the
House of Savoy, to the titular crown of Sardinia or to the hypothetical
titular crown of Italy. All those claims does not necessarily operate
in the same way.
The answer is relatively simple, as I have explained in a previous post
above. Legally speaking Italy wasn't a new state, it was "Greater"
Sardinia renamed as "Italy".
As is obvious from the previous post by Charles Stewart, the laws of
the House of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia were one and the same.
That is absolutely correct since the Albertine Constitution was simply adopted
by the new Italian state
Yes but some consider the Albertinian Constitution already contradicted
(and superceded) the rules of succession edicted at the end of the 18th
century (I don't say it is correct: my point was just there is a
discussion about the appliability of the old rules to the modern
Kingdom, being it called Sardinia or Italia).


<...>
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by ***@hotmail.com
The House of Savoy obviously followed other rules in a more remote
past: it is difficult to imagine that the historical succession to the
headship of a family whose leadership goes so far back in the past can
be bound by a rococo legislation of the late 18th century.
That is true, and of course the dukedom of Savoy was an Imperial title, as were
several of the Italian subsidiary titles, while Sardinia had been acquired in
full sovereignty. But as Charles Stewart has pointed out, Victor Amadeus I had
to keep his marriage to a lady from the lesser nobility secret for a year,
although there were strong protests when he published it which led to it being
de facto morganatic (although such a legal principle did not formally exist in
the non-German states of the Empire).
Precisely: it looks like a de facto case.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I would differ with Charles Stewart over
his conclusion that these led to his departure for Chambery - he had already
decided to give up the throne before publicising the marriage - but the royal
family and court were outraged at the suggestion that the publicastion of the
marriage would lead to it beign treated as "equal" and the bride as Queen. What
is interesting here is that the "secret marriage" was something that also
existed in France (Louis XIV's second marriage, and the father of Philippe
Egalite), and was intended so the king or prince could regularise a situation
that left him in grave sin without giving the lady in question any of the titles
or precedence she would enjoy as his wife. In none of these cases was any issue
born of the marriage so it is impossible to state with certainty that such issue
would not have enjoyed dynastic rights, but I believe the answer is probably not
- at least any claim to such would not have been acknowledged by the Crown.
There are examples in German families where such marriages did not confer eqwual
status on the wife nor dynastic status on the children - the treatment of the
wife of the Elector Palatine Friedrich I, Klara Tott, whom he married after the
birth of his son (founder of the family of Loewenstein-Wertheim), is a good
exmaple where there was not a formal contract of morganaticisation but where the
Elector was forced, by family and other pressures, to declare the issue
incapable of succession and his wife unentitled to royal styles, and rexognise
his nephew as his heir.
There was a convention between the parties, according to the German
principle which gives extansive power to the princely families to
regulate their own businesses. That's different.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
One may also consider that the dynastic law that governed the house of Savoy
preceded the promulgation of the 1780 patent, and (like that of France) was
based on long standing historic precedent. Of course one may consider that the
succession to the duchy of Savoy was ruled by the terms of imperial investiture,
Indeed. After all, that is precisely the title claimed today by both
rival pretenders.

<...>

Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-14 17:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
That is absolutely correct since the Albertine Constitution was simply ad=
opted
by the new Italian state
Yes but some consider the Albertinian Constitution already contradicted
(and superceded) the rules of succession edicted at the end of the 18th
century (I don't say it is correct: my point was just there is a
discussion about the appliability of the old rules to the modern
Kingdom, being it called Sardinia or Italia).
I agree that this is a matter which is now in dispute, with some asserting that
the Albertine statute entirely replaced the patent of 1780 / 82, because nothing
in the statute referred to this patent. But why should the statute have
repealed, by implication, the law of 1780 and not the thousands of other laws
which are also not mentioned in the Albertine statute but whose effects are in
some way touched on by the statute? This discussion, when applied to the Spanish
situation, led several commentators (of whom I was not one) to conclude that the
1776 prammatica of Charles III had been applied invalidly because the later
constitutions, imposing different conditions for princes or princesses marrying,
were therefore considered to have replaced the prammatica. I disagreed with this
view, not only pointing out that the actions of the Crown in applying the
prammatica were in every case supported by the government and never challenged
successfully in court (the only attempt to do so, in the early 1920s, by the
duke of Seville, failed), but suggesting that in fact the constitutional
provisions might be considered merely supplementary requirements in addition to
the already existing and not repealed prammatica. In the same way, the
provisions of the italian Civil Code were supplementary to and not intended to
replace the existing restrictions serving from the prammatica.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2006-12-14 22:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-15 16:52:53 UTC
Permalink
As you know, I have been plainly convinced in the pas by a line of
argumentation which can looks similar concerning the Spanish
succession. However, I think the Spanish case is fundamentally
different for two reasons at least: firstly the Pragmatic Sanction
makes no mention of the succession to the crown (when the Sardinian
1780 letter patent seem to have been intended precisely for that).
Moreover, and more important here, the Spanish Constitutions of the
19th century carefully enumerates who is in line of succession and who
is not and how one can be excluded from the succession, which clearly
would supersede any preexisting legislation (if it was one who
preexisted). Nothing of that kind for Sardinia, only a very general
sentence about the Salic law which can perhaps only mean here that
women are excluded. So I think the two cases are not at all equipollent
and, indeed, to pretend that the Albertinian Statute changed the rule
of succession is to make a difficult case.
And, as I have done, one cannot ignore the fact that despite the postulation
regarding the effects of the Spanish constitutions on the 1776 pragmatic decree,
which were first I think considered by Francois and later accepted by you, the
reality was that the 1776 pragmatic's requirements continued to be imposed,
successive governments sustained them and in 1876 and 1915 the ministry of
Justice issued statements that it was still binding. The sole legal attempt to
challenge this, in the early 1920s, failed in the courts. So for some reason the
Spanish did consider the provisions remained valid, and I am reluctant myself to
assert that for the century from 1837 until 1931 (or 1978, or whenever), they
all got it wrong.

The
question one can ask is supplementary of what (again, in the mind of
their conceptors)? Of the 18th century absolutist rules of succession
(but in that case their usefulness is not absolutely evident) or of a
very broad Salic law, so broad that it needed to be restricted by
extraconstitutional means, namely civil law?
Perhaps because it was felt that it was necessary to give the king this
authority after the introduction of civil marriages?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-13 11:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Guy Stair Sainty a écrit :


<...>
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by ***@hotmail.com
For what is of the distinction Sardinia/Italy, you may be right and I
have no opinion on the subject, but others, who may be wrong, obviously
disagree and think the post-Risorgimento Italian kingdom was not
concerned by rules concocted for the kingdom of Sardinia and was only
ruled by its own constitution.
The Italian Civil Code of 1942 (still extant and not repealed, although in
modern reprinting of the code this article is only given in its title) by
article 92 (formerly article 65 of the Italian Civil Code of 1865) states,
"Marriage of the King (Emperor) and the Royal Princes" then "The King's consent
is a necessity for the validity of the marriages of Royal Princes and
Princesses". Thus what already existed as a principle of dynastic law was now
also incorporated into the system of state law.
Does it not say more? In that case, that article can not exclude
Umberto II's son from the succession for his unequal marriage, but only
his posterity. One can claim that he was nevertheless excluded by the
"principle of dynastic law", but so was his posterity: so what was the
use to reinforce the exclusion of the posterity but not of the prince
himself if the old rule was still effective in modern Italy?
Of course, the purpose of that article is only the validity of
marriages and not the succession law, but that dissymmetry is
nevertheless strange. One can argue that the succession was ruled only
by the constitution (succession to males born in lawful wedlock) and so
that the only way to exclude posterity from unequal marriage was to
make the marriage invalid in civil law.

An other point: can the civil law of the Italian State have an effect
on (as opposed to the succession to the Italian Crown) the headship of
a house whose princely status pre-exists for many centuries the
existence of the Italian State and which was originally ruling a
territory which is not even part of the Italian State?

Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-14 20:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Does it not say more? In that case, that article can not exclude
Umberto II's son from the succession for his unequal marriage, but only
his posterity. One can claim that he was nevertheless excluded by the
"principle of dynastic law", but so was his posterity: so what was the
use to reinforce the exclusion of the posterity but not of the prince
himself if the old rule was still effective in modern Italy?
Of course, the purpose of that article is only the validity of
marriages and not the succession law, but that dissymmetry is
nevertheless strange. One can argue that the succession was ruled only
by the constitution (succession to males born in lawful wedlock) and so
that the only way to exclude posterity from unequal marriage was to
make the marriage invalid in civil law.
I do not think this was a necessity; for example unauthorised marriages by
Archdukes or Archduchesses in Austria were not invalid in civil law, they were
fully valid, likewise in canon law. The House Law of 1839 which proscribed
unequal marriages was not even published.
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
An other point: can the civil law of the Italian State have an effect
on (as opposed to the succession to the Italian Crown) the headship of
a house whose princely status pre-exists for many centuries the
existence of the Italian State and which was originally ruling a
territory which is not even part of the Italian State?
I think one has to look at the text in the civil code as putting a further
obligation upon the King and Royal Princes and Princesses in respect of the
Italian succession. The question as to whether the royal patent of 1780 was an
act de novo or an effective codification of existing traditions may be worth
discussing. But the decision of Victor Amadeus II to treat his second marriage
as first of all secret and then morganatic suggests strongly that the principle
of inequality was well-established. Hence the exclusion of Prince Eugenio
Ilarione, following his marriage, may have been a predictable consequence of
this tradition.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
k***@politik.dk
2006-12-01 13:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by m***@btinternet.com
http://www.realcasadisavoia.org/letteredelre.htm
the 30th november the official site of the Royal House of Savoy
displayed for the very first time the letters of King Umberto II
regarding the succession. text in original scantion and in english +
french vertion , remarcable the letter of 25th jan. 1960.
These letters are indeed remarkable. I am no expert, but was Humbert
II reduced to writing his letters on unheaded sheets using an old
typewriter - how sad?
He was writing to his son, and these are the copies retained by Marchese
Falcone Lucifero (Minister of the Royal Household), delivered after the death of
the King to the duke of Aosta. The second letter of the 25th marked
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's acceptance of the first. When the King issued public
statements they were written on paper with the royal arms at the top and the
name Villa Italia, his address.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the King had decided to communicate his position regarding the Crown
Prince's exclusion from the succession to all Royal Houses, supporters
and Italy at large, how was this accomplished and how and why has it
remained secret (until now)?
King Umberto never did convey this information; he did not see it was
necessary in his opinion as he considered his position was clear.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the objection to Victor Emmanuel's succession and Headship is that
(to quote "Humbert" in 1960) the Head of the Family must "contract
marriage with the Families of Sovereigns" or lose their succession
rights, how do we account for the continuing Kingship of Victor
Emmanuel II after his marriage to the Countess of Mirafiori in 1869 -
she did not come from a Sovereign family?
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, how do we allow
the second marriage of the Duke of Aosta himself, in 1987, to Marchesa
Silvia Paterno di Spedalotto? I cannot find the Paterno di Spedalotto
family amongst the Crowned Heads of Europe - over which country do or
did they reign?
I believe you will find that the argument made by the Duke of Aosta was that
in 1983 he became head of the royal house, and in 1987 in a notarised statement
he gave himself permission to marry (this document apparently remains with the
notary).
What were the actual rules regarding the marriage of dynasts prior to
1946? I presume that there--contrary to Umberto II's
formulations--were no explicitly constitutional/succesion law specified
rules insisting on spouses being derived from royal families, but was
there any requirement that a dynast seek the king's permission to
marry?

Best wishes,

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-01 18:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@politik.dk
What were the actual rules regarding the marriage of dynasts prior to
1946? I presume that there--contrary to Umberto II's
formulations--were no explicitly constitutional/succesion law specified
rules insisting on spouses being derived from royal families, but was
there any requirement that a dynast seek the king's permission to
marry?
King Umberto II considered the 1780 patent still bound the family; this required
that princes marry royal princesses, but allowed the king discretion
to give or withhold his permission to marry non royals. But the King considered
the family was bound by precedent and one may see that the marriage of the first
duke of Aosta, accepted as equal, is consistent with (for example) a marriage to
a member of the Paterno family, dukes and princes several times over. Prince
Vittorio Emanuele maintains that the constitution of 1848 rendered the 1780
patent null and void. Against this is the decision of Vittorio Emanuele II to
marry his mistress (because he lived with her openly, had several children by
her, and was hoping for reconcilaition with the Pope - so was urged to marry by
his government; he did so making it clear it was morganatic and the children had
new names and titles).
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
2006-12-01 18:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by m***@btinternet.com
http://www.realcasadisavoia.org/letteredelre.htm
the 30th november the official site of the Royal House of Savoy
displayed for the very first time the letters of King Umberto II
regarding the succession. text in original scantion and in english +
french vertion , remarcable the letter of 25th jan. 1960.
These letters are indeed remarkable. I am no expert, but was Humbert
II reduced to writing his letters on unheaded sheets using an old
typewriter - how sad?
He was writing to his son, and these are the copies retained by Marchese
Falcone Lucifero (Minister of the Royal Household), delivered after the death of
the King to the duke of Aosta. The second letter of the 25th marked
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's acceptance of the first. When the King issued public
statements they were written on paper with the royal arms at the top and the
name Villa Italia, his address.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the King had decided to communicate his position regarding the Crown
Prince's exclusion from the succession to all Royal Houses, supporters
and Italy at large, how was this accomplished and how and why has it
remained secret (until now)?
King Umberto never did convey this information; he did not see it was
necessary in his opinion as he considered his position was clear.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
If the objection to Victor Emmanuel's succession and Headship is that
(to quote "Humbert" in 1960) the Head of the Family must "contract
marriage with the Families of Sovereigns" or lose their succession
rights, how do we account for the continuing Kingship of Victor
Emmanuel II after his marriage to the Countess of Mirafiori in 1869 -
she did not come from a Sovereign family?
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, how do we allow
the second marriage of the Duke of Aosta himself, in 1987, to Marchesa
Silvia Paterno di Spedalotto? I cannot find the Paterno di Spedalotto
family amongst the Crowned Heads of Europe - over which country do or
did they reign?
I believe you will find that the argument made by the Duke of Aosta was that
in 1983 he became head of the royal house, and in 1987 in a notarised statement
he gave himself permission to marry (this document apparently remains with the
notary).
I think Prince Amedeo would also argue that there were precedents in his family
for marriages to a lady from a princely noble family, if not royal rank, and
that in his second marriage he was not breaching any precedent. The 1st duke of
Aosta married Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo, daughter of the Prince of la Cisterna,
with royal permission. There were also other marriages accepted as dynastic by
past Kings to noble ladies of high rank, notably that of the 3rd duke of Genoa
to Countess Maria Luis Gandolfi di Ricaldone (this marriage was childless).
The issue then, for the House of Savoy is (a) the status of the bride, and (b)
whether permission was given. Prince Vittorio Emanuele would claim that
permission was not necessary, or that he gave himself permission as de jure
King.
In the late 1960s Prince Vittorio Emanuele actually proclaimed himself head of
the House himself, assuming the title Vittorio Emanuele IV, on the basis that
his father had been automatically deposed because by changing the constitution
as lieutenant-general of the kingdom, he had forfeited the throne. This is
obviously an argument that is extrenely hard to sustain, but was nonetheless
used to justify the 16 December 1969 "creation" by Prince Vittorio Emanuele, as
Vittorio Emanuele IV of his future wife as Duchess of S. Anna di Valdieri.
This decree reads as follows: (Translation)
Vittorio Emanuele IV
King of Italy
By virtue of art. 79 of the Statute of the Kingdom
Single article.
Upon Marina Doria Ricolfi the title of Duchessa di S. Anna di Valdieri
has been conferred.
Signed in Geneva
On the 16 December
in the year 1969
Royal Edict n. 2
Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
I was rather hoping that the discussions regarding the House of Savoy would
not take the form of exposes of private correspondence - that is unfortunate
but it is now our there for dscussion so I will weigh in with my two cents
worth.

The correspondece on Price Amedeo's site is relatively clear. Umberto did
not wish his son to marry except into a sovereign house and threatened his
son with consequences of exclusion from the succession. There are of course
instances of non-dynastic marriages by Victor Emmanuel II and others
including Prince Amedeo's as well. The question (whose answer can only be
inferred) is whether in the end Umberto implemented his dire warning to his
son and excluded him passing the succession to Amedeo. I don't see clear
evidence from his actions that he did. There was no notification of other
sovereign houses, etc. - in fact no clear announcemnet. Neither was there
clear indication of the acceptance of Victor Emmanuel's marriage. Umberto's
response is to some extent areflection of his character and perhaps even
more so the nature of his relationship with his son. Ultimately Victor
Emmanuel's position as the senior biological heir of Umberto creates a
strong claim for him - one that is difficult to undermine simply on the
basis of his marriage.

I also wonder whether Umberto was correct in his view that Victor Emmanuel
was excluded from succesison by virtue of his marriage. It would be more
cogent that the issue of such a marriage would be excluded. That is
consistent with how Victor Emmanuel II handled the question. I have little
difficulty with thte argument that if Victor Emmanuel's marriage was illegal
vis a vis the Savoy House Laws that the issue of the marriage could not
succeed to the headship of the house. There is also some question in my mind
as to whether the reading of the House laws of Savoy led to such an
inflexible interpretation - that Umberto was powerless to alter this - which
of course if correct would have meant that Victor Emmanuel and Amedeo would
also have been powerless to alter this rule in their favour - and I do not
see any advantage for either of the sides of this dispute to make such a
claim.

It is again difficult to understand from Umberto's actions whether he
actually acknowledged Filibert Emmanuel's place in the succession to the
House of Savoy. On balance the acts of a grandfather - attending a
christening seem to be more visible than the acts of a sovereign - the
absence of documents that would set out his title as Prince of Venice,
omitting his appointment at majortity to the Annunziata, etc.

The clearer issue for me is the treacherous decree issued by "Victor
Emmanuel IV" in which he deposed his father and then his subsequent decree
granting status to his spouse. This for me is clear evidence that he tried
by usurpation to achieve whta his father would not give him - if his father
had acknowledged his marriage and was supportive of it there would have been
no sense in the usurpation - just as if he was clearly the intended
successor then there is no sense in the usurpation. You do not have to try
and steal what is yours. If the headship of the house was inevitably Victor
Emmanuel's he would have been a fool to try and steal it. If he was
concerned that the succession was not inevitably his, his action as an
usurper of his father makes more sense. As I consider this usurpation I am
amazed that Italian monarchists did not to a man rise to condemn such an act
and denounce Victor Emmanuel. Such an act would seem to in itself exclude a
son from lawful succession (although history does know numerous examples of
successful usurpers who de facto claimed their thrones).

I cannot hold it against a father that he was not more assertive in publicly
putting his son in his place. It seems that he had from his now published
correspondence preferred to deal with his son in private. It is clear that
Victor Emmanuel's actions were oppressive and if the example of the
interview and subsequent letter were to be taken at face value also
deceitful - and that while was still under his father's rule as his
sovereign he was unwilling and unable to abide by his father's wishes and
act in accordance with the House Laws. In the normal course had his father
been reigning an attempted coup would have been a trasonous act with
profound consequences for the son - that the king was not reigning and there
was no easy mechanism to hold the son accountable does not change the nature
of the act. If the act was an illegal one it would seem to offend natural
justice that Victor Emmanuel could profit from his illegal acts - that he
could effect what he had been appparently forbidden by his father and
soveriegn to effect. This is different than Price Amedeo's approval for his
own second marriage - if he was the heir to Umberto then the marriage
occured after Umberto's death and the decision about the marriage would have
belonged to Amedeo if it was his to make (and I disagree with the view of
Umberto that the issue was inflexibly settled by the House laws).

Finally I think I would have some sympathy (given Victor Emmanuel's
usurpation of his father) for Victor Emmanuel to experience a taste of the
same medicine - and if Prince Amedeo were to follow his lead he could simply
overthrow Victor Emmanuel (whether he accepts that he was ever lawfully Duke
of Savoy or not) on the basis that by Victor Emmanuel's renunciation of his
pretensions to the throne Victor Emmanuel had forfeited position as Duke of
Savoy. That would be the same argument that Victor Emmanuel had used in the
late 1960's wouldn't it? If Victor Emmanuel was Umberto's lawful successor
despite the problems with that view of things he has through his uusurpation
created the precedent for such an action and should be vulnerable to it
himself.

Of course the issues here are not simply legal ones but about the prestige
and reputation fo the House of Savoy that has been badly damaged by the
actions of Victor Emmanuel as well as by the charges (still under
investigation) that hang over the Prince.

That's my two cents worth in this discussion.
George Lucki
c***@yahoo.com
2006-12-02 08:05:00 UTC
Permalink
+Antiocheno
2006-12-02 11:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Gentlemen,

all of these answers are elegant words but no more than speculations.

the King words are clear:

1- I am not allowed to change the transmission rules as 44th head of
the house , and i will not able to do it for you my son;
2 - in case you will mary outside the rules of the house you will loose
your rights to follow me as head of the house and the Title of Prince
of Neaples;
the tilte pass automatically to my nefew Prince Amedeo;
3 - after my death my goods will be divided in equal parts between you
and your sister , because you do not have any right more then them;
4 - the italian monarquists are already informed by my volunty.


as an italian moraquist i knew the general meaning of the Monarc's
orders on the matter and many with me never recognized other persons
except Prince Amedeo from the 19th march 1983 as Head of the House.
After the death of the Monarch (18th march 1983) many monarquist
refused to accept or being involved in the "crosses" issued by the son
of the Monarc Victor Emanuel. many others did accept them, and the
prince Amedeo wrote "we will re-connsider all the positions of the
persons who were involved with the dinastic orders after the Monarc's
death analizing case by case".

regarding the position of the Royal House it resolutive what happened
in september by the Superga Basilica celebration for the burial mass of
the dukes of Genoa where Prince Amdeo was there as Head of the House
with the formal presence of the whole Royal Family of Savoy, and also
members of other royal families too (Absburg, Spain, Yugoslavia)
please see:
http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/showthread.php?t=286632.

Going back to the queen mother of England' funeral in 2002 ca the
british protocol placed in church Amedeo 2 lines in front to his cousin
VE, at the level of the other european monarcs, and everybody know the
brits protocol is very proper and well aware of the status of the
person in such formal public cerimony.

the letters were almost unknown under the point of view of its
explicity form, but known in their meaning for the fact the monarc did
inform the monarquist at that time of his volunty.

what happened afterwoods is knew.

the referred and showed papers indicating an attempt of treachery with
the self promulgation in 1969 of "Vicotr em. IV King of Italy" ,
recorded by the notary Du Pont (Swiss) and the following issue of 2
"royal decrees" by VE is in my eyes even more important than the rest
in considering this matter.

a last observation on the marriages: once a Savoy king re-amrried a
"unpair" lady it was considered morganatic and the issue were titled
but were outside the royal line;

the Royal Family of Savoy does have what we call "Subcession titles"
they are Prince of Piedmont, Prince of Neaples, Duke of Aosta, Duke of
Abruzzi, Duke of Apuglia, Count of Turin - never, never existed before
Emanuel Fil., as formal savoyard subcession title, a "Prince of Venice"
. Under this point see the next passage:

the family Villafranca-Soisson are 100% Savoy- Carignan, but they
changed their surname because the prince falled in love to a countes ,
asked the permission to get merired, he's got it, but his issue lost
the name of Savoy and become Count Villafranca Soisson,( Eugenio, 1st
Conte di Villafranca 1778, *21.10.1753, +30.6.1785; m.20.11.1779
Elizabeth Anne Magon de Boisgarin (*1765 +9.7.1834)- the descendant
they are still alive in many branches in lombardy;

the wedding of prince Amedeo from which he had Issue was with HRH
Claude d'Orlean Princess of France, as Head of the house he had a
second wedding with no issue. don't see any problem regarding the
dinastic rules respect.

Umberto formally issued the Tile of HRH to the Amedeo son (b. 1967) and
NOT to VE son (b. 1970) , same way the most Holy Annunciation collar
was granted only to Amdeo and his son Aimone and not to the VE son , by
King Umberto II of course.

do hope it is enough, even if i'm sure the speculations are ready to
start again, but please gentleman, offer proofs and facts and no words
and chats.

regards

+ Antiocheno
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-02 13:38:35 UTC
Permalink
To my knowledge, Umberto never made the letter public during his
lifetime, nor ever took steps to follow up his threat with deeds.
I do not agree with this interpretation; King Umberto in his letter stated the
sanction he would apply directly in the case that his son took a course of
action which would lead to him not succeeding as head of the House. That was to
divide his estate in equal parts and "no longer ... [give you] any special
treatment..." In practical terms there was not any other options open to him.
She belongs to a marquisal family but did not bear the title of
marchesa (nor, apparently, the style of "Donna", genealogical pages to
the contrary notwithstanding).
The Paterno family are one of the oldest and most eminent Sicilian families,
endowed with numerous princely and ducal titles. The fact that the duchess of
Aosta's father is head of Marchional branch which descends from a ducal line,
places the family on an equal level with the greatest families of Sicily.

The Savoys' 1780 law never literally
required that brides belong to royal dynasties. Rather, it proscribed
marriage to a "person of inferior status and condition". How much
"inferiority" is too much was left, as in most monarchies, to the
sovereign to determine. When that language was dropped from law in
1848, the standard was largely retained by the dynasty and enforced via
the sovereign's right to approve dynastic marriages. Some women of
noble but not royal birth had been accepted into the dynasty before,
whereas other noblewomen were not. No commoners were accepted as
dynastic wives during the Savoy monarchy. King Umberto was
communicating to his son how he interpreted and intended to enforce the
law.
And I do not think the King would have opposed a marriage to a Paterno.
What I find surprising is that the King's letter is only now being
cited as "evidence". I have been puzzled by the advocacy for Victor
Emanuel's cause from monarchists and royalty-watchers who are otherwise
sticklers for law in dynastic matters, on the basis of a
non-traditional title verbally conferred by the ex-King on his
grandson.
Perhaps they were unaware of the letter of 1960, Prince V-E's acceptance of it
and the king's action in following through with an explicit sanction outlined in
the letter. Or they just felt that in a dynasty where prinogeniture had
consistently governed the succession for centuries, this precedent over-rode all
others? Perhaps also lacking an alternate claimant, in that the duke of Aosta
had made no public claim, they did not see there was any choice but to support
the status quo.
Post by George Lucki
There is also some question in my mind
as to whether the reading of the House laws of Savoy led to such an
inflexible interpretation - that Umberto was powerless to alter this
What makes you think he wished to alter a tradition he believed had
been maintained in his dynasty for 29 generations?
Perhaps also he believed that the remainign support he enjoyed would
disintegrate if he was to attempt such a radical step?
As for the contention that "Prince" and "Venice" are too exalted to be
bestowed as morganatic titles, Archduke Josph Ferdinand, Head of the
House of Tuscany conferred the title of "Prince/ss of Florence" upon
the children of his morganatic marriage with an Austrian noblewoman.
I doubt King Umberto was aware of or considering this conferral when making his
viva voce conferral; the precise implications of this are uncertain (was it
intended as a title of the royal house, or an hereditary noble title?)
Victor Emanuel's behavior speaks (brays) for itself. People need not
disparage his rights to deplore his conduct and withdraw advocacy for
his cause. But if disgust with VE prompts a closer and more sympathetic
inspection of Aosta's claim, VE has no one to blame but himself. But to
upbraid Amedeo for insufficient loyalty to a kinsman who has made his
family's name a laughing-stock -- with worse yet to come -- in the few
years since he has been able to return to Italy begins to sound shrill.
None of which excuse Amedeo's peccadillos in the slightest, but they
just don't rise to Victor Emanuel's buffoonery.
Bearing in mind the number of natural children born to past Savoy Kings, one
could say he too was following precedent....
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
2006-12-03 02:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
To my knowledge, Umberto never made the letter public during his
lifetime, nor ever took steps to follow up his threat with deeds.
I do not agree with this interpretation; King Umberto in his letter stated the
sanction he would apply directly in the case that his son took a course of
action which would lead to him not succeeding as head of the House. That was to
divide his estate in equal parts and "no longer ... [give you] any special
treatment..." In practical terms there was not any other options open to him.
How about an unequivical public declaration that Vittorio Emmanuele had
forfeited the succession to Amedeo?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
What I find surprising is that the King's letter is only now being
cited as "evidence". I have been puzzled by the advocacy for Victor
Emanuel's cause from monarchists and royalty-watchers who are otherwise
sticklers for law in dynastic matters, on the basis of a
non-traditional title verbally conferred by the ex-King on his
grandson.
Perhaps they were unaware of the letter of 1960, Prince V-E's acceptance of it
and the king's action in following through with an explicit sanction outlined in
the letter. Or they just felt that in a dynasty where prinogeniture had
consistently governed the succession for centuries, this precedent over-rode all
others? Perhaps also lacking an alternate claimant, in that the duke of Aosta
had made no public claim, they did not see there was any choice but to support
the status quo.
It would certainly be helpful in this case if there was some documentary
evidence from post 1967 that Amedeo claimed to be heir or post 1983 that he
claimed the headshop of the house - private correspondence, statements from
unimpeachable sources who were made aware of the claim - anyone.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
There is also some question in my mind
as to whether the reading of the House laws of Savoy led to such an
inflexible interpretation - that Umberto was powerless to alter this
What makes you think he wished to alter a tradition he believed had
been maintained in his dynasty for 29 generations?
I think he wished to maintain the traditions of his house. I am wondering
whether this was the only possible reading of what the house law required
given the full range of previous precedents (or whether it in fact was still
obligatory)

George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-03 11:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
How about an unequivical public declaration that Vittorio Emmanuele had
forfeited the succession to Amedeo?#
I suppose for the same reason that in the 1960s Umberto refused to make any
public statement, and that again he did not do so at the time of VE's marriage,
nor did he want to bring in the press at any stage, he decided that this was a
matter for the family. Had he perhaps concluded that the already terminal
decline of the Italian moanrchist movement would merely be accelerated by what
would inevitably be a public spat?
Post by George Lucki
It would certainly be helpful in this case if there was some documentary
evidence from post 1967 that Amedeo claimed to be heir or post 1983 that he
claimed the headshop of the house - private correspondence, statements from
unimpeachable sources who were made aware of the claim - anyone.
One is told that when he married for the second time he deposited with a notary
a statement that, as head of the House, he authorised his own marriage
- presumably on the basis that it satisfied previous precedents in the family
for marriages to members of the highest Italian nobility. That he did not chose
to publish this may have been because he did not want to bring into the public
forum the same kind of dispute that has bedevilled other families. That he has
now chosen to do so may be because he feels that a point has been reached when
protecting the house from further damage no longer matters.
Post by George Lucki
I think he wished to maintain the traditions of his house. I am wondering
whether this was the only possible reading of what the house law required
given the full range of previous precedents (or whether it in fact was still
obligatory)
I am sure he felt that (a) it was obligatory for a prince to ask permission, and
(b) that the marriage should accord with previous precedents. Evidently Prince
Vittorio Emanuele came to a different conclusion.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
2006-12-04 01:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
How about an unequivical public declaration that Vittorio Emmanuele had
forfeited the succession to Amedeo?#
I suppose for the same reason that in the 1960s Umberto refused to make any
public statement, and that again he did not do so at the time of VE's marriage,
nor did he want to bring in the press at any stage, he decided that this was a
matter for the family. Had he perhaps concluded that the already terminal
decline of the Italian moanrchist movement would merely be accelerated by what
would inevitably be a public spat?
I have been thinking a bit more about the decree that 'King' VE made in 1969
raising his wide to ducal status which was presumably to regularise his
marriage in a dynastic sense. Of course I believe he did this because he had
certain knowledge that his father had not and would not do this. I am also
wondering about his usurpation of the crown while his father was alive and I
believe he did this because again he did not believe that he could simply
afford to wait until his father had passed away to regulate his dynastic
dilemma by his own authority as head of the house - he might have found
himself deprived of this. I don't accept the idea that his 1969 declaration
about his wife can be seen as valid. Given that his understanding of the
house law appears to be that he believed his usurpation of the throne and
creation of his wife a duchess was necessary I don't know how he could have
confidently believed that his succession in 1983 was possible in any other
way except by another usurpation (in the same way he had tried more than a
decade earlier). His action after the death of his father was made easier by
his primogeniture status and his own restated claim to the throne - which
Amedeo had chosen not to question at that juncture. I am wondering if he
took any steps after 1983 and before the majority of his son to reassert by
decree that his marriage was a dynastic one? I do know that he is more
recently dingeniously claiming that the house laws of 1780 did not apply but
this appears completely inconstent with his earlier step to overthrow his
father and make his bride a duchess - a step taht would have been pointless
if he truly believed the 1780 laws were not applicable. He can't simply have
it both ways. His actions demonstrated that he believed the 1780 laws
applied and apply. If he did not he could have simply ignored his father's
wishes but not 'overthrown' him.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
It would certainly be helpful in this case if there was some documentary
evidence from post 1967 that Amedeo claimed to be heir or post 1983 that he
claimed the headshop of the house - private correspondence, statements from
unimpeachable sources who were made aware of the claim - anyone.
One is told that when he married for the second time he deposited with a notary
a statement that, as head of the House, he authorised his own marriage
- presumably on the basis that it satisfied previous precedents in the family
for marriages to members of the highest Italian nobility. That he did not chose
to publish this may have been because he did not want to bring into the public
forum the same kind of dispute that has bedevilled other families. That he has
now chosen to do so may be because he feels that a point has been reached when
protecting the house from further damage no longer matters.
Actually there seems to be some merit to the good of the house argument. If
there are documents in which Prince Amedeo acted as though head of the house
I would assume that he gave evidence of his claim.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
I think he wished to maintain the traditions of his house. I am wondering
whether this was the only possible reading of what the house law required
given the full range of previous precedents (or whether it in fact was still
obligatory)
I am sure he felt that (a) it was obligatory for a prince to ask permission, and
(b) that the marriage should accord with previous precedents. Evidently Prince
Vittorio Emanuele came to a different conclusion.
Actually (As outlined above) I am feeling firmer in my view that VE must
have also believed that it was obligatory to ask for permission and act in
accord with previosu precedents. That is the only sensible understanding of
why his usurpation of his father's throne was followed by the second decree
to normalize his own marriage dyanstically. Too bad that that action was
meaningless and without any possible effect.

George Lucki
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-02 13:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
The correspondece on Price Amedeo's site is relatively clear. Umberto did
not wish his son to marry except into a sovereign house and threatened his
son with consequences of exclusion from the succession. There are of course
instances of non-dynastic marriages by Victor Emmanuel II and others
including Prince Amedeo's as well. The question (whose answer can only be
inferred) is whether in the end Umberto implemented his dire warning to his
son and excluded him passing the succession to Amedeo. I don't see clear
evidence from his actions that he did.
I believe Prince Amedeo's supporters would argue that the sanction Umberto II
stated he would take should Prince Vittorio Emanuele marry without his
permission to someone who was not of royal ancestry (royal permission being
available to a marriage that accorded with past precedent), was that he
would divide his estate equally in his testament, rather than giving special
favour to his only son. This is in fact what happened and none of the symbols of
the headship of the house, most notably the collars of the Annunciation, were
left to his son.

That said, the royal succession was not in the gift of Umberto II; he was (and
considered himself) bound by the laws of the House, and by his interpretation
his son was required to marry royalty or, if marrying otherwise, seek his
authorisation. The argument by Prince Vittorio Emanuele is that the provisions
of the law which required him to seek authorisation had been superseded and he
was free to marry whom he wished. There is also a strong case to be made for the
rights of primogeniture in a succession which over the centuries had never been
diverted from the male primogeniture heir.

On the other hand, what is interesting about these letters is that Prince
Vittorio Emanuele signed his acceptance of his father's interpretation of these
laws and precedents and, Prince Amedeo woiuld argue, thereby bound himself to
obey them.
Post by George Lucki
I also wonder whether Umberto was correct in his view that Victor Emmanuel
was excluded from succesison by virtue of his marriage. It would be more
cogent that the issue of such a marriage would be excluded. That is
consistent with how Victor Emmanuel II handled the question.
There are two issues; the patent of 1780 excludes from the succession a prince
who married outside the royal succession withour royal authorisation. This
exclusion, therefore, was applied to Prince Eugenio of Savoy-Carignano, who in
1779 had married a lady of modest (but actuall minor noble) rank, in 1780 and he
was given the title of Count of Villafranca for himself. He was then in 1781
restored personally to the style of Prince. His grandson, born Emanuele, Count
of Villafranca and titled Cavaliere di Savoia, the son of Giuseppe Conte di
Villfranca by his wife Paule de Quelen de Stuer de Caussade, daughter of the 2nd
Duke of la Vauguyon, was in 1834 restored by his 2nd cousin, Carlo Alberto, King
of Sardinia to the titles and rights of a Prince of the House (and in 1849 made
a royal highness). The same courtesy was extended to his sisters, enabling the
younger one to marry Prince Leopoldo of the Two Sicilies, Count of Syracuse (who
then disgraced himself by supporting his Savoy cousin against his own nephew).
In 1863 Prince Emanuele married, secretly and without permission of Victor
Emanuele II, his low born mistress Felicita Crossio; in 1888 she was given the
title of Countess of Villafranca-Soissons for herself and her children. By this
time he was already 72 years old and actually died less than 3 months later so
he was not deprived of his own personal rights (and there were already plentiful
Savoy princes preceding him who had married well).

The marriage of Vittorio Emanuele I was different; he had contracted the
marriage only because his government requested that he regularise his position
with his mistress in the hope that he could be reconciled with the Pope and the
Church. He made it clear, as king, that his wife would not enjoy and dynastic
rights nor his issue.
Post by George Lucki
I cannot hold it against a father that he was not more assertive in publicly
putting his son in his place. It seems that he had from his now published
correspondence preferred to deal with his son in private.
King Umberto had a loathing for the press and considered it permanently
prejudiced against him, only interested in the gossip that his children
sometimes obligingly supplied. This is why he wished to avoid weashing any of
this dirty linen in public.
Post by George Lucki
If the act was an illegal one it would seem to offend natural
justice that Victor Emmanuel could profit from his illegal acts - that he
could effect what he had been appparently forbidden by his father and
soveriegn to effect. This is different than Price Amedeo's approval for his
own second marriage - if he was the heir to Umberto then the marriage
occured after Umberto's death and the decision about the marriage would have
belonged to Amedeo if it was his to make (and I disagree with the view of
Umberto that the issue was inflexibly settled by the House laws).
The second marriage of the duke of Aosta was perfectly in accord with family
precedent and is a red herring in this debate.
Post by George Lucki
Of course the issues here are not simply legal ones but about the prestige
and reputation fo the House of Savoy that has been badly damaged by the
actions of Victor Emmanuel as well as by the charges (still under
investigation) that hang over the Prince.
The actions of a king may lead to his deposition but do not of themselves affect
his fundamental rights. Either King Umberto II had no right to withhold
recognition of his son's marriage, celebrated in accordance with Church law,
and the 1780 law had ceased to apply, in which case Prince Vittorio Emanuele
succeeded in 1983 and was able to regularise the position of his son (as
happened in 1834 with Prince Emanuele di Savoia, Count of Villafranca), or the
laws of the house and the refusal of the king to recognize the marriage, led to
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's exclusion under the 1780 patent. The proponents of
the latter view might call in aid the act of 1969, in which the son seems to
have unilaterally deposedd his father. In the first case one finds that Prince
Vittorio Emanuele was recognized as head of the House of Savoy by most other
royal houses and, apparently, by the Vatican and indeed by the aiuthorities of
the Italian Republic which treated him as if he was indeed the heir of the
dynasty. In the second case, such recognition was made in ignorance of the facts
and without Prince Amedeo publicly asserting his own position. Did this mean
that he could be considered to have abandoned his rights? If so, then such
rights would have passed to his son, Prince Aimone, even though the latter was a
minor at the time of Umberto II's death and therefore not obliged to assert any
claim. The recent legal problems faced by Prince Vittorio Emanuele are entirely
irrelevant to the legal questions over the succession, but they obviously have
had a political impact and led to the revelation of the letters of the King,
which will obviously have reverberations - particularly following Prince
Vittorio Emanuele's emphatic assertion that his father had never mentioned
Prince Amedeo as a possible heir.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
2006-12-03 02:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I believe Prince Amedeo's supporters would argue that the sanction Umberto II
stated he would take should Prince Vittorio Emanuele marry without his
permission to someone who was not of royal ancestry (royal permission being
available to a marriage that accorded with past precedent), was that he
would divide his estate equally in his testament, rather than giving special
favour to his only son. This is in fact what happened and none of the symbols of
the headship of the house, most notably the collars of the Annunciation, were
left to his son.
There were actually several proposed actions - the will being one but
another being the denunciation of the succession and the reassignment of it
to Prince Amedeo and this was never clearly effected and so for more than 20
years Amedeo did not unambigiously claim it and Vittorio Emmanuele exercised
it at least de facto if not de jure - a cutionary tale to Heads of Royal
Houses to document their important decisions in ambigious ways!
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
That said, the royal succession was not in the gift of Umberto II; he was (and
considered himself) bound by the laws of the House, and by his
interpretation
his son was required to marry royalty or, if marrying otherwise, seek his
authorisation. The argument by Prince Vittorio Emanuele is that the provisions
of the law which required him to seek authorisation had been superseded and he
was free to marry whom he wished. There is also a strong case to be made for the
rights of primogeniture in a succession which over the centuries had never been
diverted from the male primogeniture heir.
On the other hand, what is interesting about these letters is that Prince
Vittorio Emanuele signed his acceptance of his father's interpretation of these
laws and precedents and, Prince Amedeo woiuld argue, thereby bound himself to
obey them.
I think you've outlined the matter well and the ambiguity of the situation
is unfortunate.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
I also wonder whether Umberto was correct in his view that Victor Emmanuel
was excluded from succesison by virtue of his marriage. It would be more
cogent that the issue of such a marriage would be excluded. That is
consistent with how Victor Emmanuel II handled the question.
There are two issues; the patent of 1780 excludes from the succession a prince
who married outside the royal succession withour royal authorisation. This
exclusion, therefore, was applied to Prince Eugenio of Savoy-Carignano, who in
1779 had married a lady of modest (but actuall minor noble) rank, in 1780 and he
was given the title of Count of Villafranca for himself. He was then in 1781
restored personally to the style of Prince. His grandson, born Emanuele, Count
of Villafranca and titled Cavaliere di Savoia, the son of Giuseppe Conte di
Villfranca by his wife Paule de Quelen de Stuer de Caussade, daughter of the 2nd
Duke of la Vauguyon, was in 1834 restored by his 2nd cousin, Carlo Alberto, King
of Sardinia to the titles and rights of a Prince of the House (and in 1849 made
a royal highness). The same courtesy was extended to his sisters, enabling the
younger one to marry Prince Leopoldo of the Two Sicilies, Count of Syracuse (who
then disgraced himself by supporting his Savoy cousin against his own nephew).
In 1863 Prince Emanuele married, secretly and without permission of Victor
Emanuele II, his low born mistress Felicita Crossio; in 1888 she was given the
title of Countess of Villafranca-Soissons for herself and her children. By this
time he was already 72 years old and actually died less than 3 months later so
he was not deprived of his own personal rights (and there were already plentiful
Savoy princes preceding him who had married well).
There are several questions - whether the 1780 laws allowed the Sovereign
latitude and whetehr they still fully applied or were they superceded by
future enactments or by virtue of the acceptance of the throne of unified
Italy and its pragmatic requirements or finally by 1946.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The marriage of Vittorio Emanuele I was different; he had contracted the
marriage only because his government requested that he regularise his position
with his mistress in the hope that he could be reconciled with the Pope and the
Church. He made it clear, as king, that his wife would not enjoy and dynastic
rights nor his issue.
A point worth making. The other pont would be that notwithstanding the
pragmatic considerations if the laws of 1780 were to be still applicable the
consequences of those laws in those particular circumstances do set
precedent that might apply in the present case certainly removing Emmanuele
FIliberto from the succession.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by George Lucki
Of course the issues here are not simply legal ones but about the prestige
and reputation fo the House of Savoy that has been badly damaged by the
actions of Victor Emmanuel as well as by the charges (still under
investigation) that hang over the Prince.
The actions of a king may lead to his deposition but do not of themselves affect
his fundamental rights. Either King Umberto II had no right to withhold
recognition of his son's marriage, celebrated in accordance with Church law,
and the 1780 law had ceased to apply, in which case Prince Vittorio Emanuele
succeeded in 1983 and was able to regularise the position of his son (as
happened in 1834 with Prince Emanuele di Savoia, Count of Villafranca), or the
laws of the house and the refusal of the king to recognize the marriage, led to
Prince Vittorio Emanuele's exclusion under the 1780 patent.
One other possible interpretation would be that Victor Emmanuel's marriage
was not sanctioned this depriving his son of succession using the precedent
of Victor Emmanuel II and placing Amedeo next in line past Victor Emmanuel
as if the marriage had no issue.

The proponents of
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
the latter view might call in aid the act of 1969, in which the son seems to
have unilaterally deposedd his father.
Which act was illegal and clearly intended to purport to effect what Victor
Emmanuel had no power to effect.

In the first case one finds that Prince
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Vittorio Emanuele was recognized as head of the House of Savoy by most other
royal houses and, apparently, by the Vatican and indeed by the
aiuthorities of
the Italian Republic which treated him as if he was indeed the heir of the
dynasty. In the second case, such recognition was made in ignorance of the facts
and without Prince Amedeo publicly asserting his own position. Did this mean
that he could be considered to have abandoned his rights? If so, then such
rights would have passed to his son, Prince Aimone, even though the latter was a
minor at the time of Umberto II's death and therefore not obliged to assert any
claim.
This is an interesting idea. Did Amedeo need to assert his rights in order
for them to be valid. If he was Duke of Savoy de jure what assertion is
needed? It would be very problematic if Amedeo ever acknowledged Vittorio
Emmanuele's headship of the house (except perhaps in the case of coersion)
but the alternative view would be that he has simply been biding his time. I
am not aware of any act of abdication or similar statement.

The recent legal problems faced by Prince Vittorio Emanuele are entirely
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
irrelevant to the legal questions over the succession, but they obviously have
had a political impact and led to the revelation of the letters of the King,
which will obviously have reverberations - particularly following Prince
Vittorio Emanuele's emphatic assertion that his father had never mentioned
Prince Amedeo as a possible heir.
Here I disagree. There are heads of royal houses (ruling or not) that are
liable to deposition because of their bad behaviour. Perhaps this is such a
time when Italian monarchists and the various representatives of the Italian
Royal family will see some parallel to the English 1688. The serious
questions about the validiity of Vittorio Emmanuele's succession do provide
an additional strong basis for such an act. Can the succesison issue be
satisfactorily resolved simply on the basis of teh available evidence (not
knowing what else may be revealed) - not likely.
George Lucki
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 14:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Count Said-Vassallo
2006-12-06 04:01:16 UTC
Permalink
The head of the Royal House of Savoy and heir to the Italian throne has
always been and under no circumstances changed for Victor Emmanuele. If
by chance he were to be jailed perhaps he could have resigned
(abdicated). His father, the late and Last King of Italy did distance
himself for some time with his son, but one cannot disinherit a prince
VE. It was when he married that was the question. Though under Italian
law, there is no morgantic basis. VE is entitled to his postion as heir
without objection from others in his house. The Duke of Aosta should
settled down and accept that he left this too late. The right thing to
do was to object when the late King had died, not twenty or so years
later.

The world still accepts VE as the pretender of the Italian throne, no
matter what historians and royalist think. The Italians are always
battling out on issues. Simply look at the Two-Sicilies matter.
Ferdinando is not accepted by most royals as heir to the Two Sicilians
throne, but remains as a "De Jure" Pretender. The King of Spain, a
borbon doesnt accept Ferdinando's claims.


Regards
Charles SV
www.maltagenealogy.com
+Antiocheno
2006-12-06 19:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Are the Victor Emmanuel pretensions reduced to the mr said-vassallo
words?

http://groups.google.it/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_frm/thread/402474abe88c7c40/e336d70ac5ecd02e?lnk=gst&q=said-vassallo&rnum=1&hl=it#e336d70ac5ecd02e
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-12-06 22:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count Said-Vassallo
The head of the Royal House of Savoy and heir to the Italian throne has
always been and under no circumstances changed for Victor Emmanuele. If
by chance he were to be jailed perhaps he could have resigned
(abdicated). His father, the late and Last King of Italy did distance
himself for some time with his son, but one cannot disinherit a prince
VE. It was when he married that was the question. Though under Italian
law, there is no morgantic basis. VE is entitled to his postion as heir
without objection from others in his house. The Duke of Aosta should
settled down and accept that he left this too late. The right thing to
do was to object when the late King had died, not twenty or so years
later.
The world still accepts VE as the pretender of the Italian throne, no
matter what historians and royalist think. The Italians are always
battling out on issues. Simply look at the Two-Sicilies matter.
Ferdinando is not accepted by most royals as heir to the Two Sicilians
throne, but remains as a "De Jure" Pretender. The King of Spain, a
borbon doesnt accept Ferdinando's claims.
Regards
Charles SV
www.maltagenealogy.com
A snip from an alt.talk.royalty regarding Count Said-Vassallo's;

http://www.royalgenes.biz/alt.talk.royalty/thread153.html

"mjcar...

Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that a fake "Count" should be

posting details of other pretend nobles?

edespalais...

Can one see a posting concerning the fake princess-title concerning ..?


edespalais...

The one concerning the name Frankopan

mjcar...

Not sure what you mean by "fake princess-title", but if you mean Mr
Said-Vassallo's continued use of the fake title of Count, a simple
google search of this group should take you to the large number of
occasions where this bogus claim has been dealt with.."

I don't think this gentlemen is in a position to talk about VE and
indeed one should do a quick google search as suggested.

Regards

Harry
Count Said-Vassallo
2006-12-07 03:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Count Said-Vassallo
The head of the Royal House of Savoy and heir to the Italian throne has
always been and under no circumstances changed for Victor Emmanuele. If
by chance he were to be jailed perhaps he could have resigned
(abdicated). His father, the late and Last King of Italy did distance
himself for some time with his son, but one cannot disinherit a prince
VE. It was when he married that was the question. Though under Italian
law, there is no morgantic basis. VE is entitled to his postion as heir
without objection from others in his house. The Duke of Aosta should
settled down and accept that he left this too late. The right thing to
do was to object when the late King had died, not twenty or so years
later.
The world still accepts VE as the pretender of the Italian throne, no
matter what historians and royalist think. The Italians are always
battling out on issues. Simply look at the Two-Sicilies matter.
Ferdinando is not accepted by most royals as heir to the Two Sicilians
throne, but remains as a "De Jure" Pretender. The King of Spain, a
borbon doesnt accept Ferdinando's claims.
Regards
Charles SV
www.maltagenealogy.com
A snip from an alt.talk.royalty regarding Count Said-Vassallo's;
http://www.royalgenes.biz/alt.talk.royalty/thread153.html
"mjcar...
Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that a fake "Count" should be
posting details of other pretend nobles?
edespalais...
Can one see a posting concerning the fake princess-title concerning ..?
edespalais...
The one concerning the name Frankopan
mjcar...
Not sure what you mean by "fake princess-title", but if you mean Mr
Said-Vassallo's continued use of the fake title of Count, a simple
google search of this group should take you to the large number of
occasions where this bogus claim has been dealt with.."
I don't think this gentlemen is in a position to talk about VE and
indeed one should do a quick google search as suggested.
Dearest Harry;

Then why am I registered as an Associate Member of the Foreign Titles
Assocation of Malta?

http://user.orbit.net.mt/fournier/AFTH_council.htm

Charles SV
www.maltagenealogy.com
k***@politik.dk
2006-12-07 08:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count Said-Vassallo
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
A snip from an alt.talk.royalty regarding Count Said-Vassallo's;
http://www.royalgenes.biz/alt.talk.royalty/thread153.html
"mjcar...
Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that a fake "Count" should be
posting details of other pretend nobles?
edespalais...
Can one see a posting concerning the fake princess-title concerning ..?
edespalais...
The one concerning the name Frankopan
mjcar...
Not sure what you mean by "fake princess-title", but if you mean Mr
Said-Vassallo's continued use of the fake title of Count, a simple
google search of this group should take you to the large number of
occasions where this bogus claim has been dealt with.."
I don't think this gentlemen is in a position to talk about VE and
indeed one should do a quick google search as suggested.
Dearest Harry;
Then why am I registered as an Associate Member of the Foreign Titles
Assocation of Malta?
http://user.orbit.net.mt/fournier/AFTH_council.htm
Charles SV
Well, well--let us see:
- An entirely private organization, without any official standing ...
- Headed by a rather spurious pretender to the chiefship of a pricely
house ...
- Including lots of members with obvious affiliations with at least one
self-styled order ...
- Including at least one person claiming several self-styled orders +
the title of count from a modern day claimaint to be "Byzantine
emperor" ...
- And, of course, including Mr. Said-Vassallo, with a noteworthy long
list of post-nominals--which somewhat strangely is much, much, much
longer than those of any of the others listed ... (I would not be
terribly surprised if this web-page had a primary author with an
identity resembling that of Mr. Said-Vassallo.)

... recognizing Mr. Said-Vassallo as _associate_ member (supposedly
meaning that he did not qualify for full membership): Is it any
surprise that Mr. Said-Vassallo appears in such a setting? No. Is it
of any importance whatsoever? None.

By the way: When will we finally see the proofs of your claims that you
have promised us for three-four years? Or are we simply to conclude,
after so many inquiries, that no such proofs can be produced?

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Count Said-Vassallo
2006-12-07 09:24:01 UTC
Permalink
I suggest you obtain this copy from the National Library of Malta.

"Varie Scrikkure concuninti la familigia Vassallo", National Library of
Malta- MS. Lib 1447.

That should satisfy your thirst to my regards.

Enjoy.

Charles SV
www.maltagenealogy.com
k***@politik.dk
2006-12-07 12:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count Said-Vassallo
I suggest you obtain this copy from the National Library of Malta.
"Varie Scrikkure concuninti la familigia Vassallo", National Library of
Malta- MS. Lib 1447.
That should satisfy your thirst to my regards.
Enjoy.
Charles SV
I suggest that you just do what you have promised repeatedly here: To
explain what you base your claims in. How hard can it be? For someone
as eager as yourself to set up websites and write Wikipedia -entries
about your supposed titles, it should be unproblematic to at least put
forward the basis of the claims and the evidence.

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

PS. It is somewhat telling that you after having promised this on
several occasions, but failed to do so, you nonetheless still use the
claimed title in your e-mail handle (!) and that you then only point
towards an unpublished MS in a Maltese library. Surely, since you
claim both princely, comital and baronial titles, something more must
have been written about your illustrious family.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...