I'm mostly interested in the political consequences, such as Mani Pulite and the incumbent PM-for-Life.
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...
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
From what I have read there is some lingering suspicion of that vote having been rigged somewhat anyway.