"di Tornaforte"

Mr Filippo Bruno ('Spokesman' of the self-styled king of Italy since 1946, Vittorio Emanuele, and also of his son Emanuele Filiberto) has wrongly complained about the words this website has used in regard to him, and the omission of a title of nobility. The omission is confirmed, in spite of his sending in some photocopies taken from the Libro d'Oro published by the College of Heralds, since the title was included on indications supplied by the party concerned, and alone could never constitute a single proof of nobility.

Yet again those blunt old arrows shooting from Geneva

Today, the interview which sought the opinion of Professor Gherro in 2006, when he was still unaware of many of the fundamental documents; an interview that is now being hailed by Geneva as something hot off the press, fails to prove anything at all. Especially since it is presented as a basic argument to support that exhaustingly refuted thesis, according to which the Albertine Statute altered the regulations of the dynastic succession in the House of Savoy. And, moreover, that the legitimacy of Vittorio Emanuele's claim to the Crown as dynastic heir is upheld by the Republic. In actual fact the only concern of the Republic was to forbid his re-entry into Italy under the norm-disposition that persecuted the Savoy "descendents" (not the dynastic "successors") of the last two kings.
The most curious thing is, however, that both interviewee and interviewer seem to have no idea that the royal Family of Savoy continues to exist as a political community, and that it is founded on a structure of its own. Otherwise what would we be talking about?
Thus the present regulation which has always remained in force, as is the case with all the reigning and ex-reigning Houses, states that members of the Royal Family cannot marry without the prior consent of the Head of the Family. Any prince who marries without the royal consent is excluded from the Family, and where the violation of the regulation of prior consent is compounded by marriage to a person of unequal degree, as indeed was the case with Marina Ricolfi Doria, then dynastic exclusion is automatic and takes immediate effect.
The news of a pardon on the part of the king is sheer fantasy, because there could simply never be any question of pardon, only of a willingness to make some kind of concession. The matter concerned the possibility of reinserting the destituted prince into the royal Family. In order to accomplish this there exists only one procedure, and that is to request (the king had no more the power to order) all the princes, who held newly acquired rights in the place left vacant, to spontaneously renounce the new ranks which were legitimately theirs. But nothing was ever done about it.
Everything mentioned in this necessarily brief account is amply documented; so now there is no space left for any further attempts to muddle the waters and the ideas, or whatever they like to think of as a reference point, by mixing up norms which refer to totally different systems of law.

Letters from the testamentary executors of King Umberto II, dated 9/5/07 and 22/5/07, to the Princesses Royal Maria Gabriella and Maria Beatrice of Savoy.

Tricolore #1978.

Concerning the article by Franco Malnati on 'Tricolore' 1718 of 5 April.

Avv. Malnati turns a critical eye on Aldo Mola's book (Declino e crollo della monarchia in Italia, Rome, Mondadori, 2006 - Decline and Fall of the Italian Monarchy) by looking at it from the wrong point of view. Mola sees it as a scientifically researched proposal based on data; Malnati's rests on a credible theory, although a theory it remains. The strength of Mola's argument lies in questioning the results of the referendum in that it failed to attain the necessary quorum required by law: an argument that has become easy to grasp since the institution of the referendum in the Republic (thanks to the radicals) has been much more frequently applied.
At all events the argument Malnati re-vamps: that the referendum was rigged, can lay claim to a certain validity in view of the fact that there was indeed some cheating at the time, but it remains to verify (with proof) to what extent this influenced the results.
In any case, for all practical purposes, the Republic is legitimate through efforts of its own.
What is really astonishing is the triple somersault Malnati has performed - either forgetting or else twisting the letters of King Umberto II - to tackle the question of Amedeo, whom on other occasions he has suspected of some fantastic conspiracy with the Republic, at the same time doggedly dismissing him as from a collateral branch of scant importance. There is obviously something which prevents the Avvocato from seeing things as they actually are, and that something is his heady fascination about Vittorio Emanuele who must certainly hold, in Malnati's eyes, a very special charm. And this in spite of the fact that, according to the laws of dynastic succession in the House of Savoy, he has ceased to belong to the Royal House.

Official disclaimer from the Royal House of Portugal (pdf file)

Sharp disclaimer

Conscious of the extreme precariousness of their claims in their quest for legitimacy, Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy and Son have been looking beyond the confines of Italy in their efforts to involve representatives of other Dynasties. This time round it is the turn of the House of Portugal and their Dynastic Orders.
Except that the news of a "collaboration" of the Orders which the foresaid Savoys are running, for the time being, with the Order of S.Miguel da Ala, and released to the press in high style by Vittorio Emanuele in Geneva on 7 February in his speech, published in Tricolore, to the members of the Dynastic Orders of Savoy, has met with outright, peremptory disclaimers from Lisbon, thereby knocking back this umpteenth bid to disinform Italians in general and the monarchists in particular.

The anniversary of the Albertine Statute

The Statute enacted by King Carlo Alberto on the 4 March 1848 as a «fundamental, permanent and irrevocable law of the Monarchy» was to become «the fundamental law of the Kingdom of Italy» when King Vittorio Emanuele II of Savoy assumed the title of the King of Italy, under the law of 17 March 1861, n. 4671.
Upon the anniversary of its enactment and its extension to the entire unified Nation. We do well to remember that according to this law the King irrevocably renounced the principle of absolute Monarchy in order to adopt the principle of parliamentary constitutional Monarchy, whereby the king placed himself at the service of the State.
After more than a century and a half the House of Savoy is proud to claim its constant and uninterrupted support of those principles which, having been partly reconfirmed (though without express reference) in the 1948 Constitution, have remained the heritage of the Italian people since 4 March 1848, and continue to guide the progress of the Country.
The website's «studies» section contains an in-depth study under the heading: La Reale Casa di Savoia davanti lo Statuto e la Costituzione [The Royal House of Savoy in relation to the Statute and the Constitution].

The judge of the preliminary hearings in Milan has dismissed the accusation of abuse against Amedeo d'Aosta. According to the judge, Amedeo di Savoia «has assumed the responsibility of a father» and the action presented by Kyara Van Ellinkhuizen, mother of the daughter Ginevra, «lacks a minimum of legal foundation».

A closer look at Franco Malnati's so-called «Serious reply to Avv. Mazocca» in Tricolore, n.1614 on 21/2/07 and Gian Nicola Amoretti's note at the U.M.I. website on 25/2/07.

Gian Nicola Amoretti is perfectly justified in advising Malnati to try sticking to the job of jurist rather than pursue the practice of attorney. He is fully aware that nobody has cast doubts on the authenticity of the document drawn up on the death of the king by his widow in conjunction with her daughters, also signed by the executors of the will. The fact is, quite simply, that the document is useless, and an agreement among the heirs to obscure King Umberto II's determination to remove his son from succession to the throne were he to marry Marina Ricolfi Doria, as indeed he did. Conversely, the important thing to take into account is that the king, as previously declared, changed his will by striking out the supplementary share destined for his son as heir to the throne. This was tantamount to saying that two and two make four (as Vittorio Emanuele was no longer heir to the throne, the share was cancelled).
Thinking the matter through, Princess Maria Gabriella came to realize that something had been attempted which lay beyond the power of the signatories of the document. This was by no means prompted by expediency but as an act of intellectual honesty which should serve as an example.
On the other hand, since Malnati, or anyone else for that matter, could not possibly dismiss King Umberto II's letters and their content, he clutched at a straw, namely the possibility that the king's determination to destitute his son may not have been followed up in the procedure the king had indicated in his announcement. Not a consistent argument since the violation committed by Vittorio Emanuele is precisely the one provided for under n. 2 of the Royal Patents and applied by King Umberto, wherein the sanction occurs «automatically, i.e. without the necessity of any further procedure.
At this point, it is worth bearing in mind that succession to the throne is automatic, and even the king is not empowered to make decisions on the matter or to change his mind, as was widely supposed he might have done in the «1970s»; nor did he attempt to do so. This is made quite clear by the fact that the king preserved those letters on the question and drew up his will accordingly.
Likewise devoid of legal effect is the argument on the «relay» on exile between Vittorio Emanuele and Amedeo. The text of the iniquitous - about this can only agree - constitutional disposition speaks of the ex-kings' male descendents, not their heirs: Amedeo is a dynastic heir, but he is not the ex-kings' male descendent. An incontestable fact. According to the text of the norm he is not involved in the exile and consequently it would be impossible to create a «relay.» What is more, as a child Amedeo spent a couple of years in a German concentration camp, which in many respects was far more uncomfortable than a lengthy exile in ease and amenity. The «Serious reply» continues by venturing into fantastic theories like the one that claims « a disquieting parallel between the moves made by the d'Aostas and those of the Republican State». It complains that the State decided on the monstrous procedure of art. 138 of the Constitution to declare «the effects of disposition XIII on exile were carried out», forgetting or simply overlooking the fact that it was an initiative of Amedeo of Savoy which resulted in a top level meeting in the presence of a qualified audience at the Senate, so that the question could be resolved by a simple registration. This decision however was contested, at the worst possible time, by a telegram from Vittorio Emanuele himself, which was precisely why the entire venture was abandoned. Where was our Attorney at the time?
In a «Serious reply» we might have expected something other than dragging in the same old tricks to dodge the essential facts: by violating his father's veto, Vittorio Emanuele, singlehandedly, threw himself out of the House of Savoy, and nobody has the power to get him back in again bypassing the laws of succession.