Italian monarchy survives?

What is the most plausible way for the Italian monarchy to survive to the modern day with a divergance after WWI? Is it possible after 1929? 1939? At all after Mussolini comes in?
 

Xen

Banned
Yeah, after WWII the voters of Italy decided the fate of the monarchy and voted to abolish it, however the vote was divided between north and south. The north voted for a Republic, the south voted for retaining the Kingdom. If the south had been more influential, or if more republicans had been prominent communists perhaps more northerners would have voted for the monarchy.

If memory serves me correctly the vote was close anyways, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
 
What is the most plausible way for the Italian monarchy to survive to the modern day with a divergance after WWI?

The best way would have been ordering the army to attack and destroy the fascist during the march on Rome. If the king had enough courage, probably Italy would have stayed a democracy. Maybe this couldn't have avoided WW2, but odds are that Italy would have remained true to her pro allies politic.

A side from that, the other good opportunity would be the 8th of September. IOTL the king grabbed the treasury and fled to the south, leaving the country and the army without orders and leadership. This doomed lot of the army which was attacked by the germans, former allies, without knowing why.
If Vittorio Emanuele had stayed at the helm of the nation, maybe he would have died, but the name of Savoia would have not been dragged into mud. The royal house lost a lot of popularity that day.
 
What if they had split the country in two?

It wouldn't be palatable to the Italians, nor would it be needed. While it's true that the North, after a longer German occupation and with a longer traditionof Republican and leftist tendencies, generally voted for the Republic, the vote was rather close in general, so much so that monarchists claimed foul.
So it doesn't take a lot. Had the Badoglio government showed some guts in September 1943 and supported operation Giant 2 by the Allies, that would have almost certainly been enough – and certainly so if the operation had been fully successful. Failing that, had the Royal Family not staged the infamous escape from Rome, that would have probably been enough. Failing that, the King could have left that way, but allowing the Heir to stay and lead a military Resistance from behind enemy lines. That might have been enough. Nothing of that happened. The Savoia saved their precious skins, but deservedly lost a kingdom they were no longer entitled to; their betrayal of their subjects had begun, as mentioned by another poster, in 1922, and had continued throughout two decades, with an abysmal shameful low point in 1938.
 
There are also strong suggestions that they actually should have won the referendum, but that it was rigged.
 
There are also strong suggestions that they actually should have won the referendum, but that it was rigged.

The POD could be that King Victor Emmanuel II adicates in June 1945 giving his son Umberto II a one year head start on the referendum.
 
Victor Emmanuel III orders Italian forces to attack the Germans along with his armistice, and then stays in Rome. He is killed during subsquent fighting. His death as a national martyr cleanses the monarchy of the sin of colluding with Fascism, and Umberto II wins with a small but clear majority.

The interesting thing about a surviving Italian monarchy is how it affects Italian politics down the line. Umberto is going to have to be an activist monarch in the years after his father dies if he is to maintain his throne. That is going to mean that post-vote he is going to probably continue his active role in the politics of Italy. How will this affect the politics of Italy? I tend to think that activist monarchs wouldn't be a good thing for a democracy, but maybe he will lend governments stability, and the existence of the monarchy serve as a good issue around which factions can organize. So you have the Crown faction and the Republic faction.
 
Me thinks Umberto or one of his heirs might be getting a special delivery from the Red Brigades at some point...

If they willing to murder left-wing politicans for coluding with elected conservatives IOTL I don't think a royal family connected to Fascism is going to have peaceful time of it.

I can't see Italian politics being anymore peaceful in this ATL, even if Vittorio does make a clear break with Mussolini, at the end of the day the Monarchy legitimised the rise of Fascism and you'll have a siginificant minority post-war calling for its end. I doubt Umberto could get away with being an 'activist', even the pro-monarchy crowd will be EXTREMLY wary of the King having any power or political influence after what happened in 1922.

Hell, an assassination of Umberto by the Reds might be nessecary to bring the monarchy back into a completely positive light, or at least discredit the republicans.
 
With such a heavy anti-monarchy feeling, do you think that a win in the vote in '46 would just kick the can a little further down the road? That if a pro-Republic coalition wins an election in late 40's or early 50's they try to end the monarchy without a national vote?

That kind of an end to the monarchy would certainly throw Italy into chaos. The Communists OTL nearly won elections in the late 40's. I think that you could see Italy slip back into some kind of authoritarianism. The United States would not be willing to see the Communists win, and would probably view the Italian monarchy as a bulwark against Communism. A soft or outright Royalist coup in the late 40's/early 50's? The new government is embraced by NATO and Truman and the Democrats can point to Korea and Italy as evidence that they are not 'soft on communism'.
 
Considering Umberto's heir was/is this man - well, what can I say?

I've heard it said on more than one occassion that if V-E III had abdicated at the time of the Fascist collapse in 1943, then the monarchy would probably have survived.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
It wouldn't be palatable to the Italians, nor would it be needed. While it's true that the North, after a longer German occupation and with a longer traditionof Republican and leftist tendencies, generally voted for the Republic, the vote was rather close in general, so much so that monarchists claimed foul.
But is it possible? I'm actually thinking of attempting it in my TL of the hashemite caliphate, but I'm thinking a Socialist or Soviet Republic in the North, and the Kingdom of Savoy in the sout, and a recreated Papal States.
 
But is it possible? I'm actually thinking of attempting it in my TL of the hashemite caliphate, but I'm thinking a Socialist or Soviet Republic in the North, and the Kingdom of Savoy in the sout, and a recreated Papal States.

It would take external force to be applied, as was the case for East and West Germany. While at this time there are centrifugal forces at work in Italy, in your ATL's 1950s-60s a reunification would be what the Italian want, so you need foreign powers to enforce such a division.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
It would take external force to be applied, as was the case for East and West Germany. While at this time there are centrifugal forces at work in Italy, in your ATL's 1950s-60s a reunification would be what the Italian want, so you need foreign powers to enforce such a division.

Thanks Michele, do you happen to know the general Italian opinion of the Pope during WW2? I'm thinking had he stood more forcefully against the King and Il Duce, he might have been more popular post war amongst the people. I'm also thinking of comparing it to the post war Austria idea, where they changed the local ethnic and cultural identity into a national identity. Kingdom of Naples, Papal States and Republic of Piedmont?
 
Last edited:
Top