Talk:Humbert II of Italy

Maria José was not queen in 1943. She was still the wife of the heir to the throne. She only became queen (for a few weeks up to the declaration of the Republic) in 1946.

Some points in the current revision seem to require the help of a professional historian, whose eventual kind intervention will be deeply appreciated to remove certain not scientific interpretations of facts.

Humbert's sexual preferences, given that effectively they were as described, do not have, at a first sight, any importance at all for history. Also, it is quite strange for me that I have to find here he was a gay, while in my country (where you can keep for certain that we do discuss a lot, and deeply, about these matters) this had never - and I say never - been supposed: not even rudest and most unelegant opposers ever said that in half a century (it is true, indeed, that in Italy sexual matters don't have the same relevance as in other cultures, but I really never heard anything similar, and it wouldn't be important anyway). Besides, believe me, Vatican would have never been conditioned by Humbert's eventual homosexuality. Vatican needed instead - would you guess - what was more useful for its interests. Priests appearently encountered no ethical problems which could stop them from treating with nazis, let's imagine with a single (eventual) homosexual... If you still do want to investigate Vatican's positions, Montini's role is instead more meaningful: many observers do believe that Vatican could have an interest in having the Savoyards in a difficult condition (i.e., by eventually avoiding a direct relationship with Americans), because they could then keep a power of mediation that could reveal useful for the times that would have came after (so the uncleared role of Montini in Maria José's negotiations could also be seen as a stop). As a matter of fact, in internal Italian politics, catholic forces later obtained an undoubtedly wider success if compared with their anti-fascist activity (and quietly governed, with DC, for the following 40 years): in 1945, one would have expected instead leftist forces (which were the essence of the resistenza, the majority in the partisans' forces) to prevail, but this wasn't in the interests of the winners, the Allies, nor of the Vatican.
Humbert's alleged anti-fascism is not secret simply because he wasn't properly an anti-fascist, at least in a historical or political sense. It would have also been quite foolish for him to show such an inclination, given that he presumably had better to support the family's choices, rather than to put into evidence their mistakes. He was going to inherit the Crown, not to run for a seat in the Parliament. About Maria José, well, she was known for her intense friendships with "real" anti-fascists (if you like private gossip, but please keep it only in this talk page, she had some of her lovers among them), but if this is the only argument, then Bottai too was an anti-fascist... :-o She was instead looking for a separate peace, that's the real point. For this goal she would have negotiated with anyone, and to negotiate with anyone if this can lead to an expected result, is in the purest political tradition of the House (and of Italy, as a whole). She was an intellectual, with an open mind, able to look at things with a wider vision than her husband. But she also had a strict sense of social classes, and this is essencially why she didn't like the rough, unelegant, Mussolini. Just like the whole House of Savoy, she only would have kept him as long as he was useful to the Crown. When the war trend was turning toward an expectable hard defeat, they only tried to limit the damages, and her private attempts (which prudentially didn't involve the Crown) effectively seemed to be going in that direction.
Mussolini was overthrown by the Gran Consiglio, really, not by the Crown, if not formally. Of course, as said, the king had understood that thing were getting bad for Italy, and the opposition inside the same PNF (Fascist Party) came to him as an unexpected opportunity to put his signature on what would have become a widely popular act. Victor Emmanuel found Mussolini already defeated, when he replaced and arrested him.
What the British ambassador thought about Maria José is certainly interesting, but this is not a newspaper. So, please, balance it, if you can, with different statements on the topic, as there were many, or kindly remove it. BTW, she was perhaps vitaminic, not eminently astute (she didn't really score a sharp success with the Roosevelt's agent).
There is already an article on the birth of the Italian Republic; there it is explained that if Victor Emmanuel had kept the throne up to the referendum, monarchy would have lost with an even heavier result.
Victor Emmanuel abdicated (in the Spring of 1946) because this was in the common interest of the Allies, the partisans and the same House of Savoy (see above point and mentioned article). Whether he was reluctant or not, happy or not, is then only a psychological question, not a historical one.
The constitutional functions were suspended when the king escaped to southern Italy, after Sep. 8th, 1943: Victor Emmanuel found it was safer for the Royal House to keep itself protected in a part of the national territory which was under the Allies' control (however a foreign power), so he had no constitutional powers to transmit to anyone. The same etymology of the word "Lieutenant", should be expressively descriptive of his role in Italy at the time: he was holding a position, not reigning.
Sandro Pertini has been described in many ways, but perhaps he wasn't considered young even when he really was young (I think however he has been young... ;-) Pertini was a partisan and a socialist, more than a republican. He wasn't mainly fighting against monarchy, but principally against fascism; of course, a republican form of state is ordinarily required in the socialist scheme, as well. He wasn't campaigning, indeed, he was a "soldier" (precisely, an officer) of the irregular partisans' army. As such, he was also later accused of having ordered condemnations to death for opposers after occasional trials. He officially received Maria José (who, BTW, didn't consider Italy as her native land) when she entered the country (to visit Florentine Uffizi, if I well remember) and this presidential behaviour was deeply discussed because the former queen had no juridical relevance for the Italian legal system, so his charge (Pertini was already the Head of State) - it was said, not without a certain formal institutional correctness - could not consent such ceremonies (this might also explain why no official representatives of the Republic could be at Humbert's funeral). This is what IMHO should go in this article, while comments on his declarations on the exile should perhaps be placed in House of Savoy.
Andreotti said really many things in his life, and this is scientifically certain. I don't particularly remember this one, as he wrote thousands of pages and gave billions of interviews. Anyway, he was one of the creators of the Republic, together with De Gasperi. He then was also one of those who inspired and drafted and extended and issued the Republican Constitution (in which the exile is precisely prescribed), so I have some doubts he clearly admitted it was a mistake (in this case, at least in part, his own mistake). Better to check this out. Maybe he instead really complimented the former king, who effectively left in Italy the perhaps finest memory of the whole House (was it perhaps because he reigned so little? ;-). But, knowing the fellow, I still do suspect he perhaps used his well celebrated salty irony. --Gianfranco

The King's bisexuality (not homosexuality) is of no consequence unless it impacted on his office. It did. Contemporary accounts from members of the Royal Family confirmed not just the King's sexual orientation (one distant relative of the King, who is a friend of mine, confirmed it long ago to me!) but the widespead belief that his sexual orientation led the Vatican to be less publicly supportive of His Majesty in the referendum than otherwise would be the case. This fact is stated in state archives throughout Europe, reported back to various governments by their ambassadors to the Holy See. In researching in a number of state archives, I personally have found the reference in three different countries. All were convinced that the monarchy would have won the referendum had the Catholic Church been more forthright in its support for it.

However the Vatican was terrified that some of Umberto's enemies would make public his sexual liaisons, fatally damaging him and in the process damaging the Church, who would be presumed to have known about his sex life and conspired in a cover-up. While the Church wanted the monarchy to survive, they wanted to protect their image and authority above all, especially in view of what they saw as the 'threat' of communism. That and that alone is the justification for mentioning his sexual orientation, just as it is necessary on occasion to mention the sexual exploits or personal backgrounds of other figures (Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Eamon de Valera's illegitimacy, Churchill's high alcohol intake, the Duke of Windsor or the Prince of Wales' sexual experiences, the rumours surrounding Woodrow Wilson's sudden second marriage, etc) where those features of their private life either (a) impacted on their judgment (Churchill with alcohol, where senior figures regularly had to overrule the brilliant but maverick prime minister who was frequently mentioned as being 'over emotional' or 'lubricated' (code terms for pissed) on occasion, (b) impacted on their career path (deV's claim that his parents were married is unsupported by a single piece of evidence, which led him into frequent outbursts of anger. He showed a bizarrre complete pre-occupation with having his 'status' in whatever public office accepted, which historians have attributed to personal doubts about his own family status. Had he been legitimate, he may well have entered a career in the RC Church, changing the history of Ireland completely. But illegimacy was then a bar to entering the religious life. (c) impacted on their office. Clinton's affair with Lewinsky directly led to his impeachment and shaped the last two years of his presidency. Similarly the 1936 abdication crisis and the 1990s collapse in Prince Charles' marriage directly shaped public attitudes towards the British monarchy. Woodrow Wilson's sudden second marriage almost cost him re-election in 1916. The fact that current Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern is openly living in a non-marital relationship, having left his wife, is relevant because it reveals changing public attitudes in the Republic of Ireland towards non-compliance with the teachings of Roman Catholicism, as his new partner, Celia Larkin, co-hosts state functions with him to little public criticism.

In contrast, the rather odd marital relationship of Abraham Lincoln (who himself is subject to claims of homosexuality) is of no relevance because it did not in any way impact on his career, public life or the office he held. If a person's sex life impacted on an office, officeholder or history it must in all honesty be covered. If it didn't, it can be ignored. King Umberto's bisexuality is only relevant because it clearly impacted on the behaviour of one potentially key influencer of public opinion, the Vatican, during the 1946 referendum.

Regarding Victorio Emanuele III's belated abdication, all sides among the Allies and the Royal Court were agreed that it should have happened earlier. Had it happened earlier, the odds are that Umberto and Maria José as King and Queen would have been able to win extra support, ensuring the monarchy's survival.

Umberto's anti-fascist opinions were privately expressed to other European royals and recorded by them in their national or royal archives.

The British ambassador's view of Maria José's political skills were echoed by other diplomats in the Holy See and in Rome, who openly recorded their views that had Victorio Emmanuele and Umberto had her skill and tact, the history of Italy in the 1920s to 1940s would have been different. But one of the failings of the Italian royal house was that many of its monarchs were not highly intelligent, skilled individuals, in a complex and difficult political culture. The contrast between their failings and the skills and subtleties possessed by Maria José's own nephew, Baudouin in Belgium, Juan Carlos in Spain, George V or Elizabeth II in Britain is striking. George V's interventions, for example, in Irish affairs (his history-making speech to the Northern Ireland parliament in 1921, his role in calming nerves during the Anglo-Irish negotiations in 1921, down to his finding a compromise solution to a clash between de Valera and Governor-General James McNeill in 1932) mark him out as almost the personification of a 'perfect monarch'. No Italian monarch showed those skills. (The exiled Greek king, Constantine II, is another who lacked those skills. They cost him his throne too.) Those who dealt with Maria José saw her as having those skills. But then she had grown up in democratic Belgium. In contrast, Italian royals throughout the history of the Kingdom of Italy, showed unreliable judgment, as Denis Mack Smith's book on Italy and Its Monarchy showed.

Pertini during the referendum had said that if the King visited his region during the campaign, he would be physically thrown out if it.

As a professional historian, I am regularly stumbling across files on Umberto II in various national archives, as I research my own book. Given the fact that I also know some minor Italian royals, it has led to an interest in the whole Italian monarchy. Indeed my partner is freaked out by the sheer number of books I have on the issue of monarchy (British, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc) as well as a vast amount of general history books. My main interest is in ensuring that entries in wikipedia (which I am deeply impressed by) are factual, analytical and comprehensive. As a historian I find most entries in most encyclopedias so bland as to be worthless. Saying simply of Woodrow Wilson 'his first wife died. He married again' does not contextualise what really happened, namely that bizarre rumours swept America that he had killed his first wife to marry again. These rumours endangered his re-election prospects and coloured his image, the image of his administration and the presidency in the eyes of millions of Americans.

Wikipedia should be able to give a real feel for the people it mentions, give a broad understanding for the context within which decisions were taken, and give an overall perspective on the person, the period in which they lived, and what they contributed to their office and their country, Leave out the context and personality and your entries become as bland as in so many other encyclopedias, which is why they are so worthless to professional historians. If Wikipedia gives people a strong, fair comprehensive contextual analysis, from which people can move to more detailed study, it will have done a good and necessary job.JTD

One other minor fact: I don't know if the question mark after Princess Maria Beatrice's name indicates doubts as to whether she is still alive or whether that is her correct name. In any case, I've come across mentions of her under that exact name on the web, notably attending the funeral of her mother, the Queen, so I have removed the questionmark. JTD