WI Italy retains monarchy?

[RogueBeaver]

I'm mostly interested in the political consequences, such as Mani Pulite and the incumbent PM-for-Life.

[Cornelius]

Well, first you should explain why monarchy survived after WW2. The betrayal of the army and of the whole country, as well as the support given to fascism condemned the Savoia. In the 1946 referendum to decide between republic and monarchy, nearly the 55% of the italians choosed the republic.

There aren't many scenarios in which the Savoia would remain kings.

The allies could decide that the monarchy could be a better defense against a possible communistic uprising (highly improbable). Alternatevly, since in the referundum the monarchy got the 63% of the votes in the South, you could have an Italy split between a communist north and a "democratic" south.
The best way would be, though, a POD before the march on Rome, changing completely the last 90 years of italian history.

As for the consequences of a monarchy, they are, of course, impossible to determine with any degree of precision, since it would alter completely the post war policy. Anyway I would not be optimistic. The current head of the Savoia house is considered a worthless fool by his own family and his son is no better. Both of them had several legal "problems". Consider that the last king, Umberto II, upon his death had so faith in his son that he ordered the royal sigil to be buried with him. This is tantamount to be judged unworthy to become king...

[Will Lucky]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

Well, first you should explain why monarchy survived after WW2. The betrayal of the army and of the whole country, as well as the support given to fascism condemned the Savoia. In the 1946 referendum to decide between republic and monarchy, nearly the 55% of the italians choosed the republic.

There aren't many scenarios in which the Savoia would remain kings.

The allies could decide that the monarchy could be a better defense against a possible communistic uprising (highly improbable). Alternatevly, since in the referundum the monarchy got the 63% of the votes in the South, you could have an Italy split between a communist north and a "democratic" south.
The best way would be, though, a POD before the march on Rome, changing completely the last 90 years of italian history.

As for the consequences of a monarchy, they are, of course, impossible to determine with any degree of precision, since it would alter completely the post war policy. Anyway I would not be optimistic. The current head of the Savoia house is considered a worthless fool by his own family and his son is no better. Both of them had several legal "problems". Consider that the last king, Umberto II, upon his death had so faith in his son that he ordered the royal sigil to be buried with him. This is tantamount to be judged unworthy to become king...

Hmm it's also possible Mussolini could remove the king while he is in power and seize the position of head of state for himself.

Still that changes things for Italy and I don't think the Monarchy would be retained after the War.

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

As for the consequences of a monarchy, they are, of course, impossible to determine with any degree of precision, since it would alter completely the post war policy.

One thing should be noted, it would not add stability to the political system, as King would likely have even less power over Parliament and Executive affairs than OTL President. Mere figurehead he would be.

[Cornelius]

Hmm it's also possible Mussolini could remove the king while he is in power and seize the position of head of state for himself.

No, it's impossible. When Mussolini took the power he needed the king's approval to survive. Simply put he didn't have the army behind him (a part few officers). Had Vittorio Emanuele ordered the army to attack the fascists, they would have been destroyed. The king decided to endorse the fascists only because he considered them a stabilizing factor against the socialists.
Mussolini had to pay lip service to the parlamentaries trappings for few years (1922 - 1926) while his grip on Italy consolidated.

[Will Lucky]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

No, it's impossible. When Mussolini took the power he needed the king's approval to survive. Simply put he didn't have the army behind him (a part few officers). Had Vittorio Emanuele ordered the army to attack the fascists, they would have been destroyed. The king decided to endorse the fascists only because he considered them a stabilizing factor against the socialists.
Mussolini had to pay lip service to the parlamentaries trappings for few years (1922 - 1926) while his grip on Italy consolidated.

I was thinking more in the late 20's/early 30's when Mussolini's regime is established and he has gained more support among the armed forces. I was also thinking take the Kings power away bit by bit not all in one move.

[Lord Roem]

I suppose if Victor Emmanuel III was to dismiss Mussolini in 1943 as in OTL but made a greater show and dance about it then it would be possible for him to survive. In addition, I can't really say that a 55% vote against the monarchy shows the institutions fundamental unpopularity with the Italian people.

From what I understand, had the referendum been held a few weeks later (when the majority of the former POW's would have arrived home) it may well have gone the other way. After all, many of the troops that were returning tended to be from the south of the country, which was far more conservative than the radical north.

[Solomaxwell6]

Originally Posted by Lord Roem

I suppose if Victor Emmanuel III was to dismiss Mussolini in 1943 as in OTL but made a greater show and dance about it then it would be possible for him to survive. In addition, I can't really say that a 55% vote against the monarchy shows the institutions fundamental unpopularity with the Italian people.

From what I understand, had the referendum been held a few weeks later (when the majority of the former POW's would have arrived home) it may well have gone the other way. After all, many of the troops that were returning tended to be from the south of the country, which was far more conservative than the radical north.

Yeah. Changing 5% isn't really that impossible. It's not extremely close, but it's certainly not one sided or anything, either.

[proximefactum]

How would a postwar monarchy play with the Vatican?

[xt828]

Another option would be Vittorio Umberto stepping down in 1943, or at least very much taking a back seat, and Umberto II either becoming King or the face of the monarchy. IIRC it was mooted at the time, and there's some level of belief that Umberto could have won the referendum in that case.

[The Kiat]

The King could try to dismiss the PM earlier, only to have Mussolini launch a coup and send the King into exile. I believe it was in Yugoslavia that the king was deposed by his pro-allies son, only to have himself exiled and then briefly return to the throne following the war. Did that make any sense? Anyway, with the Italian King in exile, he could return to Italy when the allies land and lead the anti-fascists who toppled Mussolini. It's just a one minute pondering.

[jamhaw]

Originally Posted by Solomaxwell6

Yeah. Changing 5% isn't really that impossible. It's not extremely close, but it's certainly not one sided or anything, either.

From what I have read there is some lingering suspicion of that vote having been rigged somewhat anyway. Also if the Pope had given full support to the King (as he kicked himself for not doing for the rest of his life) I would assume that would have brought a few more votes Umberto's way.

[Cornelius]

From what I understand, had the referendum been held a few weeks later (when the majority of the former POW's would have arrived home) it may well have gone the other way. After all, many of the troops that were returning tended to be from the south of the country, which was far more conservative than the radical north.

Sources? The return of the POW wouldn't have changed a lot. Besides at the times the italian army was based on conscription and most of Armir (the italian expedition corp in Russia) for example hailed from the North.

Yeah. Changing 5% isn't really that impossible. It's not extremely close, but it's certainly not one sided or anything, either.

But as monarchy got more votes in the South, republic got nearly 65% of the votes in the North, which was more populated. Gaining enough supporters in the North won't be easy for the Savoia.

From what I have read there is some lingering suspicion of that vote having been rigged somewhat anyway.

Maybe you're mistaking this referendum with the first elections (march 1948) where the democratic formation won over the communists. These elections were always marred by the suspicion of rigging by USA agents since a communist victory would have dramatically altered the political situation in the mediterrean. At the time someone (can't remember who, though ) even said that those elections were more important for USA than the presidential election in november held the same year. An hyperbole, for sure, but a good paragon.
In those same elections, by the way, the monarchist party didn't reach the 3%...