Although the Royal House of Savoy was governed by certain
laws on marriages, both reflecting the traditions of the House and specific
statutes, it was necessary for the King to act specifically under the
provisions of these laws to insure their enforcement. Until the recent
publication of certain letters, I was unaware that the late King, Umberto II,
had indeed taken the actions that would follow his son making an unequal
marriage clear and explicit, that this had been accepted by Prince Victor
Emmanuel, and the consequent threat by the King duly carried out.
In considering the traditions of the house, it must be noted
that in the early 18th century King Victor Amedeus II of Sardinia,
Duke of Savoy, considered that his second marriage, to a lady of noble but not
exalted birth, should be secret, so she would not be accorded any of the
courtesies that a publicly acknowledged wife of equal birth would expect. One
year later the King declared the marriage public, and following protests by his own family and the court was immediately forced to accept that his wife’s
status should not be that of equal consort, but of lower rank. There is little
doubt that had issue been born of this marriage they would not have been accorded
dynastic rights.
The marriage of Prince Eugenio Ilarione of Savoy-Carignano
in 1779 led to the promulgation of two royal patents, in 1780 and 1782, which
made it clear that his marriage did not confer dynastic rights and that this
prince would forfeit his own rights. It would seem that Prince Eugenio was
already aware that his marriage would not have been recognized when he
contracted it, before the promulgation of the two royal patents. He was then
given, in a separate act, the titles and royal rank he had enjoyed earlier but
without the right to transmit them to his descendants. In 1834 his grandson, born of his son’s
marriage to a lady of high noble rank (the daughter of a French duke), was
restored to the titles and position he would have enjoyed had his grandfather’s
marriage been dynastic. The reason for this may have been the fact that King
Carlo Alberto’s sons were as yet unmarried and, should they have died without
male heirs, the dynasty would have become extinct. This same prince later
married his mistress, the mother of his children, and the then King, Umberto I
(by now of Italy) declared this marriage invalid for dynastic purposes and gave
the issue a new name and title.
I had
earlier questioned whether a dynastic law governing the succession to a state
of the Empire could be enforced without Imperial approval (and sanction by the
Imperial Diet). Since 1742 such a necessity was much diminished following the
Emperor’s decision to give way to the demands of the sovereign princes of the
Empire not to ennoble a “notoriously unequal” spouse. Meanwhile the Imperial
courts came to rely on family precedent as well as any house laws promulgated
by these families. Furthermore, these restrictions on sovereign authority only
extended to the German states, and did not as I have now been informed, extend
to families ruling “neighbouring territory of the Empire” (Nebenland des deutschen Reiches, as opposed to the eigentliche Reichsland). Hence my earlier
notion that the status of Savoy as an Imperial Duchy might have imposed a
restriction on the right of Victor Amedeus III to enact the Patents of 1780 /
1782 was mistaken.
In 1848 the Albertine Statute, which became the new
constitution of unified Italy, neither repealed nor amended the law. It has
been claimed that the omission from this act of any claim by the king to
regulate the marriages of his family consequently invalidated the laws of 1780
and 1782. Yet both Victor Emmanuel II and Umberto I acted to apply these laws
in excluding the second wife of Victor Emmanuel from the privileges and rank
that would have accrued to her as equal consort of the King (and deprived the
issue of any rights or titles they might have otherwise enjoyed as such), and
Umberto I did the same in respect of the marriage of Prince Eugenio of
Savoy-Carignano (the object of the re-dynasticisation of 1834). These acts were
not considered void or invalid by virtue of the Albertine statute. One may
consider that the dynastic law of the House was entirely separate from that of
the state and continued to apply, irrespective of the Constitutional nature of
the Albertine Statute. This is what in fact happened in Spain, where the
Pragmatic Decree regulating royal marriages, of 1776, continued to be applied against
Infantes and Infantas marrying unequally, with or without permission (in the
latter case excluding also the prince or princess contracting the unauthorised
marriage), even though successive Constitutions introduced separate
requirements regarding royal marriages. I am not persuaded by the argument that
the Albertine Statute revoked the 1780 decrees, and it is clear from the
exchange of letters from 1960 to 1963 that at the time neither did King Umberto
II or his son.
The 1865 Italian Civil Code, amended in 1942 (and still
valid), by article 65 (92 in the later version) required that the King give his
authorisation for all marriages of princes and princesses of the royal family.
This article, unlike article 91 which forbid interracial marriages, has not
been abrogated but has merely been omitted from the present version of the code
(the title of the article is still listed); despite the fact that Italy is now
a republic this article may be regarded as legally in force.
In 1960 King Umberto II wrote to his son clearly laying out
his view that in order to succeed his father Prince Victor Emmanuel must marry
in accordance with the laws of the House.
In this letter the King describes the consequences of an unequal marriage
contracted without his permission (exclusion from the succession) and that
should his son make such a marriage he, the King, would divide his estate in
four equal parts and not leave anything special to his son, as heir. This
letter also stated that if Prince Victor Emmanuel married unequally, the heir
of King Umberto would be Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta. This letter had
previously been unknown to me.
Prince Victor Emmanuel, it has now been shown, signed his
acceptance of this letter and its terms. I was unaware of this fact. I am
informed that it has been claimed this letter and the affirmation of Prince
Victor Emmanuel are forgeries; the problem with this challenge (no longer
maintained by the supporters of Victor Emmanuel) is that it is a challenge to
the authenticity of the act and not the validity of the King’s statement and
his son’s acceptance of it.
In 1963, following an interview in Oggi magazine, Prince Victor Emmanuel was reported as having stated
that he intended to marry Sig.na Marina Doria; in this interview he evidently
recognized that the status of his future wife was important by stating (inaccurately)
that her grandfather was a Marquess. He had evidently been misinformed on this
point, but the fact that he claimed it suggests he recognized the traditions of
the House which had permitted princes to marry into the higher nobility, with
the authorisation of the King. Following this interview, the King wrote once
again to his son, confirming that everything he had stated in his 1960 letter
was still binding. I did not previously know of this article or the King’s
letter following its publication.
On 16 December 1969, in an act that may be considered the
treasonable deposition of his father, Prince Victor Emmanuel, as “Vittorio
Emanuele IV, Re d’Italia” declared that he had created his future wife c “Duchess of S. Ana
di Valdieri,” presumably so that he might claim she qualified for a dynastic marriage.
Before he died, King Umberto II is not known to have made
any further written statement on the matter. It is known that he forbade his
family to participate in Prince Victor Emmanuel’s marriage ceremony in Teheran or
the celebration following the marriage; only the Queen attended the wedding
ceremony. The King later conferred the Collar of the Annunziata on the only son
and heir of Prince Amedeo, the then fifteen year old Prince Aimone di
Savoia-Aosta, Duca delle Puglie and, notably, did not confer the same honour
upon his grandson Emanuele Filiberto, Prince Victor Emmanuel’s only child. He
did however attend the baptism of his grandson and is stated as having
conferred, viva voce, the title of
Prince of Venice, a title new to the dynasty (as had been that of Naples a
century earlier), and clearly of higher rank than the title of Count conferred
on the issue of earlier unequal marriages. Unlike the title of Duca delle
Puglie conferred upon Prince Aimone by letters patent, This conferral was never
followed by letters patent or by any written decree, even though the King
during his exile conferred or confirmed several hundred other titles. It is
difficult to conclude precisely what the King intended from this act, although
he is reported at the time as having stated “Italians will understand,” presumably
referring to the fact that this was not a title of the Savoy dynasty but a new
creation unknown in Italian history (other than the similar title conferred by
Napoleon I on his step-son, Eugène de Beauharnais).
In 1983 King Umberto II died, his succession was divided
between his four children equally (as he had stated he would do in 1960 if his
son married unequally, and was consequently excluded). Prince Victor Emmanuel
proclaimed himself his father’s heir and Head of the House; his mother, Queen
Maria José, urged her daughters to acknowledge him as head of the Savoy Orders
by virtue of his position as “head of the House of Savoy”, which they did in a
notarised letter, in which they were joined by King Simeon II of the Bulgarians
and Prince and Landgraf Moritz of Hesse, nephews of the late King. This
statement did not enjoy any legal authority, however, and must be considered
purely private familial support for their son, brother and cousin. Furthermore,
since then two of the Princesses, King Simeon and the Markgraf of Hese have all
signed letters saying that their letter was not intended to be recognition of
Vittorio Emanuele as head of the dynasty.
Prince Victor Emmanuel’s succession was not publicly
challenged, however, and since that date he has been treated as head of the
Royal House by the Italian Republic, by the heads of other reigning and
non-reigning houses and by many Italians as well as by the editors of every
genealogical reference work.
Prince Amedeo at the
time said nothing publicly, although when he remarried following the annulment
of his first marriage,[1] he
apparently made a statement before a notary that he declared this marriage to
be authorised. Prince Victor Emmanuel’s awards of the Savoy Orders have been
accepted by many, as have those of the Annunziata (the Prince Grand Master of
the SMOM and two former Cardinal Secretaries of State of the Holy See are among
those who have accepted this Order). Prince Victor Emmanuel subsequently
published an act combining the grand chancelleries of the Royal Orders,
although their statutes and traditions for sound historic reasons had always
had separate administrations and officers. On 13 December 2006 he declared the
Duke and Duchess of Aosta and the Duke of Apulia deprived of their membership
of the Savoy Orders and the Duchess of Aosta of her title of Royal Highness.
Prince Amedeo’s failure to claim the dignity which Prince
Victor Emmanuel’s presumed exclusion would entitle him is a significant
weakness in the case for the junior line. This decision may have been made to
protect him and his young family (of whom he had been given custody following
his divorce from Princess Claude of Orléans) from the possibility of expulsion
from Italy.[2] It may also have been done
to prevent the public squabble which would have inevitably resulted. In either
case it left a situation with a de facto
head of the House whose acts as such are only now being called into question,
following allegations of serious criminal acts by the Italian magistrature, his
arrest, and temporary imprisonment before release during the ongoing inquiries.
The question remains whether Prince Amedeo’s failure to
claim the succession in 1983 would prevent him from doing so subsequently. If
he is considered to have abandoned his own rights thereby, then the succession
would pass to the next heir in line. If Prince Vittorio Emanuele is indeed
excluded, then that person is Prince Aimone, Duca delle Puglie. If he did not
enjoy any such rights and Prince Vittorio Emanuele has duly succeeded, then the
deprivation of membership of the Royal Orders of the members of the Aosta
family by Prince Vittorio Emanuele must be considered valid.
Prince Aimone has since married Princess Olga of Greece who
has given birth to their first child, a son, Umberto, and subsequently a
daughter. Prince Umberto. Prince Emanuele Filiberto and his wife presently only
have two daughters.
[1] To a lady from the Paternò
family, of commensurate rank with that of his ancestress, the first duchess of
Aosta, sometime Queen of Spain, born dal Pozzo della Cisterna, whose marriage
to the first duke of Aosta had been authorised by the King.
[2] It is unclear whether the
Transitory Provision XIII of the Italian Constitution, which excludes the
descendants of the ex-kings of the House of Savoy from Italy, also applied to
the Duke of Aosta; most of the scholarly texts have considered this extended to
all the princes of the House of Savoy but in fact no action was ever taken
against Prince Amedeo.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment