Talk:Victor Emmanuel III
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onMay 9, 2006,May 9, 2007, andMay 9, 2009. |
 | This article contains atranslation ofVittorio Emanuele III di Savoia fromit.wikipedia. |
 | On 4 August 2023, it was proposed that this article bemoved toVictor Emmanuel III. The result ofthe discussion wasno consensus. |
The article is contradictory.Was he a Roman Catholic or an atheist?— Precedingunsigned comment added by201.40.3.178 (talk)17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, though I am open to correction here, that Victorio Emanuele was proclaimed 'Emperor of Abbysinia' rather than calling the country Ethiopia, which the overthrown and arguably legitimate emperor, Haile Selassie, called it in his address to the League of Nations. (It also called its war the Ethiopian War. It is something I am going to double-check but as it is mentioned by that title in a textbook in front of me, If anyone else has any more information on the point, or can definitively establish by what name the state was called in Victorio Emanuele's title, by all means make whatever adaptions necessary.JTD 04:36 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
Abbysinia and Ethiopia may be the same, but that is irrelevant. We need in reference to the King's title to use theexact formal word used, so that it is 100% accurate.JTD 02:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
"Imperatore d'Etiopia". Called "Imperatore d'Abissinia" by Fascists with the same formal relevance and value.G
IfEthiopia was the version used in theformal title then that is the one that should be used.
As regarding the failure of Victor Emmanuel to abdicate in 1943, it is not merely the general opinion of historians, politicians and others, but even of many members of the Royal Family, that he made a monstrous misjudgment in not abdicating there and then. The monarchy's only hope of survival was in not having it tainted by association with the fascist regime. Victor Emmanuelwas universally so tainted; in the eyes of the public, of politicians, of world leaders, of the Allies and of the anti-fascist forces. Every time his name was mentioned, that link between Crown and fascism was re-inforced. The sooner he wasoff the stage permanently so to speak, the sooner the post-fascist monarchy could evolve. If Umberto had had three years as king to break those links, at that stage largely psychological in the eyes of others, there is little doubt but that an additional 1million, maybe up to three million, who votedfor the republic in 1946 would have voted for the monarchy instead. Victor Emmanuel's misjudgment left the Crown in an almost impossible state in 1946. If he was still king, and a pro-monarchy vote meant keeping Victor Emmanuel on the throne, then perhaps another couple million potential pro-monarchist voters would either have voted against the monarchy or abstained. But by abdicating on theeve of the referendum, he undid all of Umberto's good work byreminding people of theone thing Italian monarchists hoped people were forgetting, the House of Savoy's association with Mussolini.
Politicians know all too well that phenomenon. That's why Trent Lott was axed as Majority Leader in the US Senate, because no matter how non-rascist he was (and that is debatable),everytime he'd appear as the public face of US republicanism, he'd remind people of the one thing the party desparately didn't want people to remember; its poor record on race. That's why Thatcher's ex-ministers were all axed from front-line politicsimmediately by their party, why Albert Reynolds quitimmediately as Fianna Fáil leader in 1994, why Jospin quit public lifeimmediately after his French presidential election defeat, etc etc. Because they knew that for their party to regain credibility, they had to go and goimmediately, to allow its image to change under a less tainted successor. Victor Emmanuel's blunder in not following that basic rule of image management cost the Savoy dynasty the throne. It wasmonumentally stupid in the extreme, and members of the Royal Household and the Royal Family knew it. As long as he was king, the Family would remain tainted. A man who took plenty of unwise decisions, having over his toleration of fascism almost destroyed his country, his failure to abdicate destroyed the monarchy.JTD 03:28 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
...if the major source about Italian kings is Mack Smith...
Whoever Mack Smith may be, he may be a "major source on Italian Kings" to those who can't read Italian; to those who can, I recommend Bartoli'sLa fine della monarchia; there are various editions; it is a classic, as well as an excellent synthesis on a very complex theme.
Whoever took it upon himself to re-write my revision of the Victor Emmanuel article, bringing back the semi-literate nonsense that was there before, knows little about the history of this 46-year reign. (Victor Emmanuel had been king for nearly aquarter of a century before anybody had heard of Benito Mussolini.)
The retro-editor softened my characterisation of the Italian political class c. 1920 to a bland, Middle Americaninefficient... but unless one understands the hatred evoked by this vile group, it is impossible to understand why Fascism arose, or why Italy's king accommodated it. It is not that he felt that the Army—the army of Caporetto!—could not have supressed the March on Rome (from the standpoint of 1922, a perfectly legitimate form of political dissent not unlike marches on Washington during the Depression or Viet Nam eras;) it just didn't seem a good thing to save such such political class. He, and the Italian people with him, wanted something else. NO ONE in 1922 could know that that something else would actually turn out to be even worse.
But the dead giveaway was the revisor's insitence in comparing Victor Emmanuel's and Elena's departure from Rome before the advancing German army with the much-advertised permanence of the Windsors at Buckingham palace under bombardment. (The fact is that they actually spent much more time at Windsor than in London during that period.) But of course Britain was not being invaded by a conquering army. It is hard to imagine George VI allowing himself to fall into the hands of the Germans if a German army had been advancing on London.
A much more logical comparison, which I included in my revision but which was arbitrarily removed by the person bringing back the nonsense that was there before, would be to monarchs who DID flee before actual conquering armies, like Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands of King Haakon VII of Norway. Nobody ever critisisedthem, and they made triumphant re-entries into their capitals in 1945.
The retro-editor just wanted to keep all that gibberish about the Windsors in, even as in the previous treatment of Victor Emmanuel's assumption of the Ethiopian and Albanian crowns, which was all about the George VI not recognising it, as though that were the defining issue. The fact that the ETHIOPIANS didn't recognise wasn't even mentioned.
Victor Emmanuel IIIdismissed Mussolini in 1943 and had himarrested, thereby earning Hitler's odium. That is why Victor Emmanuel and Elena could not allow themselves to fall into the hands of the Germans: Hitler would simply had had them shot. That is certainly why his daughter Mafalda, margravine of Hesse, was sent to Buchenwald and killed there. (How many Windsors ever died in Nazi concentration camps??) She was under reach of the Nazis and so they took their revenge on her. This is now nowhere mentioned in the re-revised article. There is just some nonsense about the pope visiting a bombed site in 1945: a site bombed by theAmericans !
Victor Emmanuel had switched sides in the middle of the War, as the house of Savoy had done so many times in previous centuries: he couldn't understand that this wasnot an XVIII Century kind of war. He took on Mussolini when he seemed useful, and dismissed him like a footman when he was no longer so: just as if he had been an XVIII Century king. This was a very revealing facet of his personality, nowhere mentioned in this sad article.
Finally, there was my mention that the republican side won the 1946 referendum by a small margin, and that the Savoy monarchy won many more votes thanany party has ever won in any election since. I think this is an important detail. The leftist parties who viciously criticised Victor Emmanuel III in 1945-46 never managed to win even a tiny fraction of the votes that the monarchy garnered in the Referendum.
For certain people, Victor Emmanuel III will always be the king who tolerated Mussolini. This is perhaps unavoidable but meaningless, unless the circumstances of this whole period are at least minimally understood. At the battle of Caporetto,100,000 Italians died in a few days. Many froze to death, because thedemocratic polititians back in Rome somehow neglected to get them the proper clothes. King Victor Emmanel III, who spent the entire World War I in a modest dwelling at General Headquartersnear the front, never, ever got over the sight of this epic tragedy. As he lay dying in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1947, this is what he raved about.
Tantris14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With some shoots Mussolini could be defeated easily,in 1922, but this king accepted fascism.WhenEtiopia andAlbania were invaded by italian forces, this despicable king became "king" of both of these countries.I read in a book, that this king didn't read any book, in his long life.He wasn't just wicked and dumb.This king was also a coward.In 1943, he fled all his doomed people, for safety, again without giving any order, for any shoot.With the possible exception ofBenito Mussolini any other italian was so bad, as this despicable king. When this royal family was deposed and exiled, Italian miracle began.He deserved to be hanger by his awfull crimes and mistakes.Agre22 (talk)16:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]
I previously added a template regarding the need for improving the sources of this article. That was undone as "intrminable gibberish," with the editor suggesting that such "hinders human editors from improving and referencing it." I am not sure how exactly that template hinders anyone, but the addition and removal of the template certainly have not helped the references on this page. I think one solution might be tobe bold and just gut everything that is not sourced, but that would not leave much of an article, would not solve the problems, and I have a feeling would result in an undo as well. Anyone out there with good reference material on the subject is encouraged to improve the citations. Frankly, I am bowing out as I do not want to get in a fight over this article's editing as I do not know anything about the subject at hand.Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk)13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{refimprove|date={{#switch:none |{{#iferror: {{#time:Y_M_d| }} | none }} <!-- #time: can't handle --> |{{#iferror: {{#expr: +0 }} |<!--not a pure number--> |{{#ifexpr: +0 > 10000000000000 |<!-- a yyyymmddhhmmss timestamp --> |{{#ifeq: {{#expr:+0}} | | none <!-- pure number eg 123.456 --> | <!-- assume yy-mm-dd --> }} }} }} |{{#switch: {{lc:}} | none | asis=none }} |{{#ifexpr: {{#time:Y| }} < 1000 | none }} |{{#switch: {{#time:Ynj| }}|100031|110031|130031|140031|150031=none}} |= <!-- error or "none", so no formatting --> |<!-- continue with formatting --> {{#ifeq:<!-- -->{{#time:Y|{{{1}}} 2008}}<!-- -->{{#iferror: {{#ifexpr: {{{1}}}>10000000000000 | no }} | }}<!-- -->{{#time:Y|{{{1}}} 2004}} |20082004 |<!-- no year --> {{#ifeq:{{#time:d|{{{1}}} 2036}}|{{#time:d|{{{1}}} }} |<!-- month+day -->{{#time: {{#switch: {{lc: {{#ifeq:|y|L}} }} | lmdy | liso | lymd = [[:F j]] | mdy | iso | ymd = F j | ldmy | l = [[:j F]] | #default = j F }}|{{{1}}} 2000 }}<!-- default='dmy' or null or "" or unsupported option --> |<!-- month only -->{{#time: {{#switch: {{lc: {{#ifeq:|y|L}} }} | lmdy | liso | lymd | ldmy | l = [[F]] | #default = F }}|{{{1}}} 2000 }}<!-- default='dmy'/'mdy'/'ymd'/'iso'/null/""/unsupported opt --> }} |<!-- with year--> {{#if: {{#iferror:{{#time:j|2 }}|*D*|{{#iferror:{{#time:j|2000 }}|*D*| }}}} |<!-- day+month+year -->{{#time: {{#switch: {{lc: {{#ifeq:|y|L}} }} | lmdy = [[:F j]], [[Y]] | mdy = F j, Y | liso = [[Y|Y-]][[F j|m-d]]<!-- i.e. [[Y-m-d]] --> | iso = Y-m-d | lymd = [[Y]] [[:F j]] | ymd = Y F j | ldmy | l = [[:j F]] [[Y]] | #default = j F Y }}| }}<!-- #default='dmy' or null or "" or unsupported option --> |<!-- month+year -->{{#time: {{#switch: {{lc: {{#ifeq:|y|L}} }} | lmdy | liso | lymd | ldmy | l = [[:F Y]] | #default = F Y }}| }}<!-- default='dmy'/'iso'/'mdy'/null/""/unsupported option --> }} }} }}}}Is it known if he had any illegitimate children and if so are there ant records of there names and where they were born?—Precedingunsigned comment added by82.1.149.192 (talk)22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Material is Un-Cited and Very POV!! Look and see for yourself...—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.171.160.220 (talk)18:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Emmanuel did have illegitimate children born to his mistress or mistresses. One had been removed from their mother at birth and sent to live in the northern regions high in the mountains where he was raised by a family who accepted him for a small payment and raised him till he became of age. Once he had became of age, he was told to choose a last name and was given a small amount of money to begin his life anew. I know this, because my great-grandfather was one of those illegitimate children. The husband and wife that raised him felt obligated to tell him his true birth parents because they had loved him like their own son, but wanted him to know the truth. He never had their last name nor could he choose his rightful name being illegitimate. He chose instead the name of the trees that surrounded the only home and family he had ever known - "Cipressi" meaning cypress. I can not say anything bad about this man that no one in my family ever knew because I, myself, would have never been here had my great-grandfather never been born. He missed out on a lot not knowing any of these children or their children. My great-grandfather, grandmother and mother all were amazing and talented people with enormous generosity and compassion. His life was filled with power and priviledge, but he did not seem to use it to do much good for his people. He left most of his historically extensive coin collecton to the people of Italy, hardly payment for all that was suffered by them including his own daughter, Mafalda, that died in 1944 at the Buchenwald concentration camp. [Special:Contributions/24.34.102.202|24.34.102.202]] (talk)15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on his final efforts to save the crown it mentions that Rome was bombed for the first time in it's 2,500 year history. I don't think it being bombed for the "first" time in a history that spans 2,500 years is really accurate. The city of Rome may have been directly bombed for the first time in WWII by modern explosives but the city has been attacked, bombed (via cannon), and sacked multiple times by many different powers including the Italian government itself when taking the city from the Pope. So I think simply keeping it "Rome was bombed for the first time during the war.." would be more accurate.Coinmanj (talk)20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here about his death.
(112.118.141.233 (talk)01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It is a low quality article, it lacks any reference, it is full of misbegotten halftruths and tedious commonplaces.
As for Denis Mac Smith: it is true he is very much read in Italy (and elsewhere) but this is only a sign of the provincialism of the Italian public. Serious Italian scholars do not consider his works as authoritative. He misunderstood most of what he wrote about. Even though I am not a historian I attended lessons of Italian scholarly historians. E. g.: he wrote Cavour's main worry was Garibaldi, whereas documents prove Cavour's main worry was with his elder brother, the Marquis, who did not allow him in their ancestral home because he was a liberal and a freemason; he never gave much weight to Garibaldi's political chances as he knew Italy was in the hand of themoderati, not of the democrats. In a sense this is also relevant here. VE III did not refuse to sign the decree of siege for fear of a civil war (as he claimed), he had lost confidence in the Italian parliament and its ability to manage the long standing political and social crisis of the country and perhaps most importantly he was afraid of being put in a difficult position within his own family as the Duke of Aosta (former haed of the III Army) was a conviced supporter of fascism.Aldrasto11 (talk)15:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 | An image used in this article,File:Vittorio Emanuele III 1936.jpg, has been nominated for deletion atWikimedia Commons in the following category:Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk)19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
This section is to properly discuss the question posed, without text or signature, in the preceding section heading (which the history shows was added by an IP editor in 2012).
I believe prior versions ofWP:SOVEREIGN required names of non-British European monarchs prior to the 20th century to be anglicized, while the names of such monarchs of the 20th century and later are not translated (i.e.,Philip V of Spain vs.Felipe VI of Spain). Not only is this apparently the usual rule in most present media stylebooks (as suggested by the note on Felipe VI's article); but it apparently was also the rule during this king's reign in at least one U.S. newspaper, as perthis June 6, 1944 front page from theArkansas Gazette (republished by its successor theArkansas Democrat-Gazette) containing an AP article whose text begins "King Vittorio Emanuele III abdicated as king of Italy". (This was actually his relinquishing power, but not title, after the fall of Rome; he did not formally abdicate until 1946, a month before the monarchy was abolished.) I assume this was in accordance with the AP Stylebook of that day, though I know in the decades closer to its 1991 demise theGazette tended to follow an unwritten stylebook.
On the other hand, the present text ofWP:SOVEREIGN says to use "the most common form used in current English works of general reference", or if that cannot be determined the anglicized name. (The note on Felipe VI's article I mentioned above was probably added to comply with this; though it links to one source calling him Philip VI, I agree that most sources use Felipe VI.) Though I don't claim to have the skills needed to confirm this (i.e., the complex Google searches used in most disputes of this type), most current English references I've seen call him Victor Emmanuel III, as this article does. I would suggest that an editor with more experience look into this to confirm whether most current sources use his anglicized name or his Italian name. --RBBrittain (talk)11:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you discuss his religion aboutRoman Catholicism in Italy and the Balkans, but it was unsourced, please explain.
Unfortunately, I found only source.[1] --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:140D:ED1A:AEBC:4278 (talk)09:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I should concern righthere. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk)15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the first paragraph ofthis section. Others in that section may need it too. Could anyone please tell me where to split it (or them)?Thylacine24 (talk)03:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:no consensus. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how to applyWP:NCROY here.(closed by non-admin page mover)CLYDETALK TO ME/STUFF DONE20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Emmanuel III of Italy →Victor Emmanuel III –WP:Unnecessary disambiguation and perWP:TITLECON withVictor Emmanuel II. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk ·contribs ·email)20:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II should be the exception, not the standard. I respectfully disagree. We need to have consistency across all pages if "[regnal name] of [country name]" is to be used for all Western and some Middle Eastern/African monarchs (Far Eastern monarchs likeHirohito orWu Zetian do not really need territorial designations). What I think really happened is that people started to look at pages on British monarchs that have no territorial labels and began moving all the other ones which they thought were primary topic or common enough. I personally think that territorial designations could be added back to the pages ofHenry VIII,Edward VI,Elizabeth I,George III,George IV,William IV,Queen Victoria, andEdward VII. The pages onGeorge V,Edward VIII,George VI,Elizabeth II, andCharles III should remain as they are because not only are they primary topics, but theStatute of Westminster 1931 established the basis for many of the Dominions to become independent and as such these five monarchs were not only monarchs of the United Kingdom but a number of other independent and equal countries. In short, adding the "United Kingdom" to their names as a territorial designation would constitute an actual form of bias, and an exception should be made for all five of them, not just Elizabeth II.Keivan.fTalk14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress onTalk:Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should this page be semi-protected? Just likeBenito Mussolini, he served under Victor Emmanuel's reign. Victor Emmanuel III also reigned duringWorld War I, making him very controversial. If you would be asking; "But Victor Emmanuel was a constitutional monarch, and he doesn't have the real power." Well, you would be right, but by that logic,Hirohito wouldn't have a protection becauseHideki Tojo held the real power (Tojo's protection had recently been removed).
Or maybe that I would suggest that edits for unregistered or new users would have to get approved by an admin. (ex:Charlemagne,William I)G0dzillaboy02 (talk)13:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
