Talk:Umberto II of Italy

"Most Commonly used name in English" is not the same thing as "anglicization"

Okay, I've moved the page here. While both names are sometimes used, I've seen Umberto II considerably more frequently than "Humbert II". Argue if you will. john k 22:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes I will. Testing Google, it's clear that "Humbert II of Italy" is more common than "Umberto II of Italy", with 1500 against 904, or almost double. I suggest moving back to Humbert II. --Orzetto 06:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

But "Umberto II" is much more common than "Hubert II". At any rate, google tests don't tell the whole story. Since you seem to be Italian and are quoting google results as though they are god, I would guess that you probably don't read too much historical literature in English. Perhaps it would be best in such instances to defer to those of us who speak English as a native language and actually read books in English that contain these monarchs' names relatively frequently? john k 14:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You post no source. Your argumentation is void, at best it classifies original research. Since Victor Emmanuel's are translated, consistency in style is a better option. Google searches are an acceptable measure when the gap is wider than a few percents. --Orzetto 23:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Airport peerages

I seem to remember a reference to Umberto creating a number of peerages improperly 'on the way to the airport' after the results of the referendum had come in but while he was still king. I cannot source it though, except that it was in the memoirs of a journalist/parliamentarian. m.e. 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hitler, royal wedding

Only in one case, while he was in Germany for a royal wedding, did [Umberto] make an exception, Hitler asked for a meeting.

Besides this being a run-on sentence, couldn't we give actual details here? Whose royal wedding, and, more importantly, when was this? john k 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish Homophoby!

"Umberto and Maria José separated in exile; it was indeed an arranged marriage, following a long tradition of royal families, even if some observers alleged that she was really fascinated by her husband, an elegant tombeur de femmes. However, Umberto's sexual interests lay elsewhere, he was a playboy of 'peculiar tastes' (in the words of one royal website) or had an 'inability to distinguish between the sexes' (as another royal biographer put it - a reference to the former king's rumored bisexuality). This knowledge was used by foreign governments hostile to the Savoyard monarchy's survival to ensure the Vatican's opposition to the monarchical cause in the 1946 referendum. Pope Pius XII atoned for this 'failure' by refusing to meet the elected presidents of Italy during his lifetime. Pope John XXIII reversed this policy on his election."

All this is very vulgar; but this is only an example, I'm afraid.

And there are also many ridiculous falsities: for instance, Pius XII did receive the Italian presidents (a photograph of president Gronchi kneeling to receive his blessing was much discussed in the fifties).

Not serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.155.156 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm there is rubbish abpit the last king of Italy. Now I will delete the false statment that the pope refused to see the first president of italian repubblic. See [1] User:Lucifero4

Umberto II' homosexuality is anyway confirmed by clear statements, "... mainly by the actress Milly, who said that their relationship was purely platonic, ant that Umberto surrounded himself with 'screen women', and organized things so that at his encounters with these 'splendid' women were present reporters to give to the press the image of a 'gallant and handsome prince'. It is a fake image, as also the files of the Ovra (that is the Mussolini's secret service) demonstrates. Anyway this was his business, that doesn't at all soil his person - he was a worthy, elegant, honnest and caring person with a deep love for his country."

I think you're right. I don't see why homosexuality would soil his personality anyway. It's a bit of an old-fashioned view. In fact, Umberto emerges as a fairly modern man. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on English language usage

The inconsistencies of how English uses foreign language names, is a wonderment. We use the English Victor Emmanuel, yet the Italian Umberto. Similiar cases - Baudouin of Belgium (instead of Baldwin) and Juan Carlos I of Spain (instead of John Charles I). -- GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, this comment about four years old, but ... I think the reason for all of this is that Victor Emmanuel was a figure widely mentioned in the English language (and, particularly, in the press) during his lifetime. At that time, it would certainly have been more common to cite someone by his English name than his Italian one. Juan Carlos is known as Juan Carlos because that is the way he is commonly styled in English. However, pre-modern Spanish rulers (Habsburgs, for example) tend to be known by Anglophones by English names rather than Spanish ones (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor or Charles I of Spain, not Karl V nor Carlos I). StevenJ81 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

LGBT?

As I understand it, we have a) Aldrich and Wotherspoon "suggesting" Umberto was gay, b) a smear campaign in the popular press at the time, and c) his enemy collecting information to use for blackmail. None of those qualify as reliable sources, IMO, but are simply rumors. I'm open to hearing otherwise, though. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit more substantial than that - it isn't really Aldrich and Wotherspoon (they are simply editors of the book). Enrico Montanari described how he had been courted by Umberto while a young lieutenant in the 1930s (La Lotta di liberazione, quoted in 'Il vizio segreto di Umberto', Extra, March 1971). The biography of Luchino Visconti describes his close relationship with the prince. Bartoli's biography, 'La fine della monarchia, Milan, 1946 describes the 'burden' of the prince's sensual sins - the exact nature of the sins, however, could only be whispered'. The estranged relationship with the queen is told in Bertoldi, L'ultimo re, Milan 1992 as well as Petacco's Regina: la vita e i segreti di maria jose, milan, 1997. These at least seem substantial enough for the start of a debate. I guess I'm not too fussed about the categories thing though - it's a helpful marker for individuals looking to find specific articles of interest, but not essential. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A Question

I know lots of countries create a "history" of thier king to make them connected with great people in the past even when this isn't true. Did that happen for Umberto II? It says in the article he's connected all the way to the Romans! Even if its true how could they have records for so far back? I don't think its true but I don't want to take it out unless positive.Bolinda (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

State visit to South America

I fixed up the English on this section and reorganized the article to put this in its proper chronological place. However, I wonder if anyone sees this section as being material in Umberto's life. If this incident is worthy of retention, I suspect more likely in the article on the Tenente revolts or in the article on Bahia, not here. Any thoughts? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Decisive majority????

Unless you can provide documented NUMBERS, please remove the propagandistic statement that the republic won the 1946 referendum by a "decisive majority". That is only an opinion. My recollection is that it was just a majority, and not very large. The monarchy certainly won more votes than any individual party ever has in any election since 1946.

208.87.248.162 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Umberto II of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228132339/http://web.genealogie.free.fr:80/Les_dynasties/Les_dynasties_celebres/Italie/Dynastie_de_Savoie.htm to http://web.genealogie.free.fr/Les_dynasties/Les_dynasties_celebres/Italie/Dynastie_de_Savoie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality violations?

I have been trying to improve this article in my own modest way, but much of what I have contributed has just been deleted by FactStraight under the grounds that it violated the undue weight and NPOV rules. I fail to understand how this is the case as I everything I wrote is properly sourced to RS. Denis Mack Smith was a British historian who until his death in 2017 was regarded as the doyen of historians working on modern Italian history, so I do believe that 1989 book Italy and Its Monarchy which traces the history of the four Savoyard kings from 1861 to 1946 is a RS. It is particularly egregious since at present this article offers only the most banal summary of Umberto's role in World War II and his time as Lieutenant of the Realm, and I tried to add in some properly sourced content from a very reliable source to make this article better. Likewise, I wrote that Umberto was a homosexual, but now this article has reverted back to such a way as to make it that there only rumors that Umberto was a homosexual. A recurring problem with articles around here dealing with royalty is that the sort of editors who attracted to the subject tended to be the sort of people not comfortable with homosexuality. It is a major of fact that newspapers under the Salo Republic did indeed Umberto in vicious homophobic way, calling him in a very sneering tone Stellassa. How is mentioning that fact a violation of the rules about "neutrality, impartiality, balance and undue weight"? I only gave that matter two sentences, so I don't see how that violates undue weight or balance. The only reason why somebody would remove that is because they are not comfortable with the fact that Umberto was gay, which is not a valid reason to delete something is properly sourced to a RS. I am going to restore what I written. FactStraight, if you think this is an issue, please discuss here first before reverting. Thank you.--A.S. Brown (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)     

You have added a massive amount of data, vastly enlarging this article, yet all of it, except technical edits, casts Umberto II in a negative light, far more than previously (that bias is reflected in the edit summaries too). Sourced or not, the result is that the article has become a relentless diatribe against the man, his psyche and his reign, with nothing positive and little neutral reflected. This is undue weight because there is no consensus that Umberto was this consistently awful. More importantly, in a 20th century constitutional monarchy in which - after the Allies expelled the Nazis and Mussolini was deposed - he became Italy's nominal regent for only a year, king for a month, Umberto is not deemed to have played so significant a role, positive or negative, in Italian public policy or history as the article has now been edited to indicate. Wikipedia's requirements not to bias or burden this article with undue weight cannot be satisfied in this bio with some editing here and there, given the vast amount of info that has been dumped in the article, all tending in the same pejorative direction. Rather this slant needs to be removed until balanced with a more neutral perspective throughout ("An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.".) You dwell upon Umberto II's gayness, which he never publicly acknowledged, suggesting that it very negatively influenced him and those around him ("Umberto was described as a 'sensuous' man who constantly craved sex, but he always felt very guilty and tormented after engaging in gay sex as he had violated Catholic teachings that condemned homosexuality as a cardinal sin"). I am gay, believe that Umberto II may indeed have been gay, and would be fine with seeing more insightful, relevant coverage of that aspect of the man, if the evidence is properly sourced and balanced. This isn't that. FactStraight (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

First thing off, many editors express their opinions of the issues in their edit summaries-what matters is the content neutral or not, not what is in the edit summaries. Turning to more substantial matters, I have merely followed the sources. If Umberto comes out looking bad (which is not my intention, contrary to what you are insinuating, FactStraight), that is not my fault. For what it is worth, I did mention that Umberto was opposed to Victor Emmanuel's cowardly flight from Rome in September 1943, which you deleted claiming it violated neutrality rules, and which might be interpreted as something positive. My own interest in this article is scholarly to make it better, which I believe made a start with by adding in citations where they asked, which you deleted under the spurious grounds of maintaining NPOV. What is this historiographical debate about the merits of Umberto? Giovanni Dall'Orto in his article about Umberto says nobody in Italy cared about him after the republic was proclaimed, which is why the subject of his homosexuality was discussed from the late 1940s onward because he had no partisans. As you have a PhD in modern European history, you must be aware that there is considerable historiographical debate about the merits of appeasement. By your logic, since there is no consensus amongst historians that appeasement is to use one of your favorite phases "consistently awful" as portrayed on articles on various French and British leaders of the 1930s, one should simply delete almost everything relating to appeasement about articles on the "Guilty men". Likewise, Stalin does have apologists even today (most notably in the Russian government), so that must mean that there is "no consensus" about whatever Stalin was "consistently awful", so everything about the Holodomor, the Yezhovshchina, and so on should be deleted on the Stalin article. This is absurd.

Yes, I admit that some of the information that I added about Umberto is indeed unflattering, but I was merely following the sources. If I found something from someone saying that Umberto was a far-sighted genius with a brilliant grasp of all the issues facing Italy, I would had added that to this article. It is not my fault that I have so far I have found no such statements from anyone who knew him. Sforza and Croce were both notable Italians and monarchists (through Sforza became republican later in 1944) who did know Umberto, so their impressions of him seem notable. It is also striking that Sforza reached the conclusion that there was no hope of stopping the Italian Communist Party winning an election after the war with Umberto at the helm of state, which is why this monarchist aristocrat became a republican. If Umberto really was so wonderful as you are appear to be implying, then presumably Sforza's conversation to republicanism should not had occurred. Likewise, Croce remained a monarchist, but wanted Umberto to abdicate in favor of his son as the best way of saving the monarchy. My interests in this article is entirely scholarly. To take one example, the article made out that Umberto graciously accepted defeat in the 1946 referendum. That statement is a lie as Umberto did not accept defeat very gracefully or well, indeed prompted his own banishment by refusing to accept what he called an "outrageously illegal" vote. Since you have mentioned this historiographical debate about the merits of Umberto that I have never heard about, perhaps you can add in something from this hitherto unknown school of historians who champion Umberto as a great king into this article?

It is indeed correct that Italy had a constitution, so technically a "constitutional monarchy" is right, but with all due respect, I feel that term is misleading when used here. The Statuto Albertino gave the monarchs of the House of Savoy fairly broad powers like the right to appoint the prime minister. And that is not even considering how the monarchs of the House of Savoy actually ruled. For an example, Victor Emmanuel III was an active political player, constantly getting himself involved in politics, most notably by allying the Crown with the Fascists in 1922, so to call him a "constitutional monarch", while technically correct, is very distoring. Umberto have may reigned for a some period of time, but it is a very important period. The replacement of Badoglio with Bonomi in June 1944 was ultimately Umberto's choice, and it is considered to be the moment when the Italian government moving in a more democratic direction-this does not support your claim that Umberto was really not that important. And if he was not that important, surely his involvement in the great events of World War II would merit a mention. The version of the article that you reverted back to as neutral would leave anyone not well versed in Italian history rather confused since at one moment Italy is at war with the Allies and then it is rather mysteriously divided between a Fascist republic in the north vs. a monarchy in the south. As an administrator, you are no doubt more familiar with the rules around here than I am, but it is my understanding that the undue weight rule would apply to a situation where somebody would write the A.J.P. Taylor article in such way to make sound like that the only notable thing he ever was write The Origins of the Second World War. With that in mind, Umberto's changing attitudes towards the Second World War seem very important, but you deleted, claiming that it violated undue weight rule. Umberto's involvement in attempts to reach an armistice with the Allies in 1942-43 are important, but once again you deleted that, claiming that it violated the undue weight rule. Umberto's actions as regent are notable, but you again deleted all that, claiming it violated the undue weight rule. Assessments of Umberto by people who knew him give one some idea of his character and personality, which does greatly improve the article, but you again you deleted that.

Finally, Leopold von Ranke argued that historians should when writing about the past embrace the principle of wie es eigentlich gewesen. If Umberto let's say had spent a disproportionate amount of time engaged in charity work and helping the poor, I would had written that. If Umberto had spent a disproportionate amount of his time practicing transcendental meditation and yoga, I have written that. But as it was, Umberto spent a disproportionate amount of his time chasing around young men. I am straight, but not narrow, so I am not making any sort of moral judgement here. Which corrects the previous picture this article presented, which recycles contemporary royalist propaganda about Umberto being a servant of his people, working hard on their behalf. Moreover, Umberto was a deeply unhappy man as he never able to reconcile his homosexuality with his Catholicism. Patrick Buchanan in one of his columns from 2000 wrote that: "Rampant homosexuality, a sign of cultural decadence and moral decline from Rome to Weimar, is celebrated, as our first lady parades up Fifth Avenue to share her ‘pride’ in a lifestyle ruinous to body and soul alike." Yes, I know that Buchanan is not a Catholic priest, but he is a very devout Catholic, and his writings about homosexuality very accurately capture Catholic dogma about homosexuality. The Catholic Church has fought against every initiative for gay rights in the last 50 years, so I think it is fair to say that the RC Church is not friendly towards gay people at all. The point that Dall'Orto made is that being Catholic "almost to the point of fanaticism" and gay at the same time makes for a very unhappy, guilt-ridden existence. That is Dall'Orto's point, not mine, by the way. The question of whatever information "dumped" on this article as FactStraight has rather unflattering and insultingly called my work here should all "positive", "neutral" or "negative" strikes me as POV-ish, but to my mind, I think that portrays Umberto in a sympathetic light, so it is not true that everything I have written is all "negative". Leaving that aside, that does tell the reader much about who Umberto was as a man, which does greatly improve the article. That is purely your opinion that is not "relevant" nor "insightful", which does not give you the right to delete something that just because you don't like it. Contrary to what you saying about me, I don't feel that casts Umberto in a "negative" light. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, my interest is making this article better, and your edits have not been helpful at all in that regard--A.S. Brown 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While a great deal of rationalization for the slant you have given the article has been provided (along with unsubstantiated assumptions that I think highly of him -- having first implied that my edits must reflect homophobia), it remains the case that "the article has become a relentless diatribe against the man, his psyche and his reign, with nothing positive and little neutral reflected. This is undue weight because there is no consensus that Umberto was this consistently awful. More importantly, in a 20th century constitutional monarchy in which - after the Allies expelled the Nazis and Mussolini was deposed - he became Italy's nominal regent for only a year, king for a month, Umberto is not deemed to have played so significant a role, positive or negative, in Italian public policy or history as the article has now been edited to indicate." Since little has been done to balance the overwhelmingly negative point of view of this article toward this man and his role in Italian history, the article continues to suffer from undue weight and a failure of NPOV. FactStraight (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not responded constructively to any of my points and instead just are repeating yourself. I know you think very highly of yourself because you have a PhD in history with a dissertation on Franco-Austrian relations in the 19th century , but you are not an expert on myself as you always seemed to be making out that I have know that my work is allegedly egregious and everything I write is just mere "rationalization" of my egregious work. As an administrator, you must be aware of the rule to assume good faith. You have dismissed everything I wrote as "rationalization" for something that you call a "relentless diatribe" (more about that in just a moment)-that is not assuming good faith.

FactStraight, I did not imply that your edits reflected homophobia, and I sincerely apologize for any hurt feelings. But your edits here do reflect the Italian monarchist line that Umberto was not gay and was devoted to his wife-you changed the article back to saying that might have been gay, and removed all the material about the problems with his marriage and his support for the Fascist regime. The line by the few supporters of the House of Savory that are still kicking around is that Umberto was an ideal heterosexual monarch who was opposed to the Fascism, and the claims that he was gay were just a Fascist smear. As for "unsubstantiated assumptions", you are the one who keeps demanding "positive" information about Umberto being added to the article. Since you are a historian who likes to sneer at me, once in you writing "even you are capable of understanding that", I fail to understand why are just going on here the talk page instead of working to improve the article. FactStraight, I rather suspect you are overtly fond of royalty. Surprisingly for somebody who says he is Jewish (I presume on your mother's side since you have an Irish surname), you wrote on the talk page for the viciously anti-Semitic Wilhelm II about "the Kaiser" as you always have have "complicated relations" with Jewish people. And along the same line, I have only been following the sources here. Why do always do this, make it sound like that I somehow manufacturing things out of thin air? You are supposed to follow the sources around here when you write an article. And I'm not familiar with the rule that because there is a historiographical dispute about a subject, then everything should be just deleted.

What do mean by this article portraying Umberteo as "consistently awful"? Other than the fact that you dislike section saying that Umberto enjoyed gay sex, but felt guilty about it (which does not portray him as "awful" nor is it intended to), you have been a bit vague, just saying that everything here is against him. The Statuto Albertino gave the king the power to appoint prime minister-the requirement that the prime minister have the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies was an unwritten convention that was widely accepted, but not codified in law. I have mentioned this point, but you try to make out that in a "20th century constitutional monarchy" that powers of the Italian kings were limited. The power to appoint and dismiss prime ministers at will is not consistent with your claim that the Savoyard kings were limited in their powers. In August 1939, Mussolini was all set to follow Hitler into war, but Victor Emmanuel vetoed. From March 1940 to early June 1940, Mussolini was desperate to have Italy enter the war on the Axis side, but the king vetoed all the attempts, much to Il Duces vexation. If Italy was neutral from September 1939-June 1940, that was largely Victor Emmanuel's doing. If the king could in 1939-40 veto the questions of war and peace under the Fascist dictatorship that does not support the claim that the Italian monarchy had very limited powers. If Victor Emmanuel had only very limited powers, then Italy would have entered the war in September 1939, not June 1940. Your statement here that the monarchy had "limited powers" does follow the Italian monarchist line that the House of Savoy had no real power and therefore no responsibility for anything that happened between 1861-1946. I'm not certain of just why you are echoing that claim, but that claim is not widely accepted by historians of Italy.

Anyhow, there was no parliament meeting in 1944, so Umberto did not have to go through the motions of consulting parliament about who was to be the prime minister. You must be aware that quite a lot happened in the years 1944-46 in Italy. The replacement in June 1944 of Badoglio as prime minister with Bonomi was a key moment in the beginning of Italian democratization. That was Umberto's choice-he could have stuck with Badolgio if he really wanted to. Certainly, Churchill wanted to keep Badoglio on and tried very hard to get him reappointed as prime minister. You say that this article portrays him as having more power than he what he possessed. The article says quite explicitly several times that the Allied Control Commission had ultimate power over the Italian government after the armistice, so I'm little confused by this line of argument. How does the article exaggerate his power? The article says quite clearly: "The power of the Badoglio government, based in Salerno, were very limited..." (emphasis added). Perhaps, one should not praise oneself, but I have added the material that discusses the important events of his reign such as the catastrophic collapse in living standards (which helps to explain the wartime radicalisation that led to the republican side winning the 1946 referendum) and the Svolta di Salerno. I do not ask for any thanks, but it is rather annoying to have all my hard work here airily dismissed as a "relentless diatribe", especially from an editor who has done nothing comparable.

As for your claims of a "relentless diatribe"; I added the material about how Umberto chose to go into exile rather start a civil war as some of the more militant monarchists wanted. If the article portrays him as "consistently awful", then why does the article quoted Mack Smith's statement that he the "common sense" to accept the loss of his throne to spare his nation a civil war. Is that not some of the "positive" information that you are so desperate to see? And as I mentioned above, he did dismiss as a prime minister, the blood-strained Marshal Badoglio who waged a near-genocidal campaign in Libya and committed all sorts of war crimes in Ethiopia, replacing him with the moderate socialist Bonomi. Given his background, Badoglio was not the best man to oversee the transition to democracy-indeed, Badolgio was appointed prime minister in July 1949 by Victor Emmanuel to save the Fascist system, not destroy it. My interest is scholarly here, by adding in information that might help the reader understand both the man and his times. One of the central questions the historian has to answer is why did the majority of his subjects vote for a republic? At present, some of the passages here, which are not by me, that seem to make out that his subjects should have voted for him. That actually strikes me as a violation of the NPOV rules, but curiously that does not seem to spark your anger. The Nord voted for a republic, the Mezzogiorno for the monarchy. Italy had frontier disputes with Yugoslavia and France, so not seem likely that extra areas added to the Nord would have made much of a difference. Likewise, the population displacement was greater and more recent in the Nord than in the Mezzogiorno so if anything if there were any refugees still wandering in June 1946, it would hurt the republican side in the referendum. The historian has to explain why something happened, which in this case, why did the majority of Italians decided that they did not Umberto to be their king? More correctly, the issue is why did the majority of people in northern Italy vote for a republic and southern Italy for the monarchy? I have tried to answer that question to the best of my abilities, which you have unhelpfully called an "overwhelmingly negative point of view". If the majority of Italians had elected to go with the monarchy, I would have likewise sought to explain why that was so, but that is not what happened. Likewise, I have to respond to your points, through you are repeating the same points over and over again is not helpful towards a constructive dialogue.--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Fiction, fact and Fascist propaganda

I’ve just read this page for the first and, hopefully, last time. It’s lack of neutrality and spreading of unproved rumour is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It’s a mix of bare fact, a little truth and a whole huge helping of Fascist propaganda which most intelligent people discounted years ago. Giano (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, Giano, your are a bit vague here about what you mean by "Fascist propaganda" and "unproved rumor", but I believe that you are referring to Umberto's homosexuality, which is a matter that this talk page is unfortunately disproportionately devoted to. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. Giovanni Dall'Oroto is quite reputable Italian historian and he is not a Fascist, so I cannot share your assumption that he is spreading "Fascist propaganda". It is a matter of fact that for a period in the 1920s that Umbeto spent of his time with the film director Luchino Visconti who was about openly gay as it was possible to be in Italy in those days. Visconti, despite being an aristocrat, was a member of the Italian Communist Party after the war and in his autobiography published shortly before his death in 1976 claims to have a relationship with Umberto. So that mean this article is promoting "Communist propaganda"? Anyhow, you just given your opinion here without presenting facts to support them. --A.S. Brown (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 3lkj1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Maria Pia of Savoy the younger" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Maria Pia of Savoy the younger has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Maria Pia of Savoy the younger until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Umberto I of Italy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)