Italian Monarchy Survives

If the king of Italy had stood up to Mussolini, or befriends the Allies, if the British had followed orders and let Italy have the League Mandate for Ethiopia, more people would have voted for the monarchy and Italy would still have a king.
Any other ideas about this?

If Italy had kept its monarchy, and the allies still win, could Mussolini stay on as Prime Minister for decades afterward?

Italy has had an election on average about once every year since WW II. What is it about Italian politics which makes that happen? Would they still have elections once a year with a parliamentary monarchy? Would East Africa be better off?

It could just be as simple as having the referendum being less dodgy in the first place...there's some evidence that it may have been rigged. Then you get the monarchy retained.

Still, I don't think that much would change, except more newpapers and magazines filled with royal stories and scandals. Expect the system to be a reasonably stable yet chaotic in political terms (much like today) constitutional monarchy.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

Italy might have a slightly more stable government

Let's say that the Italian Royal Family disagree with Mussolini's decision to declare war in 1940 - they sneak out of the country and escape to London, denouncing fascism etc. Umberto serves with distinction in North Africa and is instrumental in getting several Italian units to defect.

After the war, communist partisans don't have the support they otherwise did as the monarchy enjoys widespread support - they haven't been tainted by collaberation. Victor Emmanuel III abdicated by mutual consent as he is seen as partially responsible for the Italian Racial Purity laws.

The communists cannot compete with the popularity of the Monarchy so the Christian Democrats gain more power in the first post war elections. The Monarchy isn't abolished but is reduced in power.

The knock on effect is that coalition governments are far more stable as the Christian Democrats can command an absolute majority - smaller parties don't
have as much influence as they do in OTL. Italy is therefore seen as a sound place to invest in and has just as much clout as France and West Germany in the EEC.

There are no "years of bullets" owing to stable government and continued growth.

During the allied invasion of Sicily, Mussolini is fired as PM and escapes his arrest with the help of Hitler. He then proceeds to set up the Italian Social Republic and abolishes the monarchy. King Victor Emmaunel III is executed for his treason, and Prince Umberto flees southward managing to be picked up by the British. Umberto proclaims himself King of Italy and declares the Italian Social Republic illegal and declares war on Mussolini and Hitler. Italy is a full blown Civil War.

When the Allies liberate Rome, Umberto enters the city escorted by thousands of Italian troops that rallied to him. After the war Umberto's image is very popular as he is seen to stand up to Mussolini and Hitler, and save Italy. When the referrandum is held in 1946, the monarchy is retained.

Little else changes in Italy, other than as said before, the Italian tabloids print off many stories about Royal scoundrels and with Victor Emmaunel IV as the King of Italy, they will be having a field day.

Easiest point of departure is for the referendum to go the other way. It was very close, and, as has been mentioned, most likely rigged. The southern portion voted heavily for the monarchy; the northern portion against it. The Savoys were from the north so either all the little countries that they gobbled up in the 1860s or so were getting revenge or the industrialization of the area lent it to left wing ideas. Oddly, the Savoys conquered the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and were not well liked in the south of Italy, which fondly remembered its old House of Bourbon. The present claimant is a joke, and worse. His son would make a great king from all evidence so far. I doubt the monarchy's coming back. I doubt its continuation would have made much difference. It may have made the country less stable since the left wing parties would have something to rally against, at least in theory.

Those are some pretty good scenarios. Thanks.

If the present pretender had been heir and king, his character development
would be different. That's no guarantee he'd be any better, but I should think
the butterfly effect would kick in, in some way. The same goes for his son.

New Yorker said:

Easiest point of departure is for the referendum to go the other way. It was very close, and, as has been mentioned, most likely rigged. The southern portion voted heavily for the monarchy; the northern portion against it. The Savoys were from the north so either all the little countries that they gobbled up in the 1860s or so were getting revenge or the industrialization of the area lent it to left wing ideas. Oddly, the Savoys conquered the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and were not well liked in the south of Italy, which fondly remembered its old House of Bourbon. The present claimant is a joke, and worse. His son would make a great king from all evidence so far. I doubt the monarchy's coming back. I doubt its continuation would have made much difference. It may have made the country less stable since the left wing parties would have something to rally against, at least in theory.

Click to expand...

Conversely, Italy might be more united with an apolitical Head of State.

Extremely easy Prince Umberto was massively popular, just instead of Giving him the powers his Father gives him the Crown in 1943. He was not fascist and he hated Mussolini, the Americans liked him. He would for sure win any referendum, Italy was defiantly robbed of the Monarchy by Victor Emmanuel not giving up his throne earlier.

I think Italy wwoul be a better xountry, and stronger.