Talk:Humbert II of Italy

''moved from Talk:Humbert II of Italy Talk:Humbert II of Italy 2

The policy of wikipedia) is to translate the names of monarchs to English. See below for explanation. Zocky 12:32 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

-- "In 1946, a discussed referendum was held to choose between monarchy and republic".

Dear Gianfranco, what is "a discussed referendum"?

S.


 * This referendum still now remains little clear. Strange evidences do not allow to evaluate monarchists' objections as merely polemic, so there is space left for the possibility that effectively some "intervention" could have influenced the final result. This was immediately suspected, and - as said in the article - the situation soon became highly dramatic, at the point that a general insurrection was expected to explode if only Humbert had contested the results.
 * As for the "discussion", well: it was deeply discussed before, during and after. In the sense that at the beginning republicans directly wanted a forced destitution of the king with the Allies' help (but this - for evident reasons - was immediately excluded by UK), and didn't consider at all the hypothesis of a popular vote. At the same time, Savoyards only considered the possibility of an abdication (which later came, after Victor Emmanuel had resisted as long as he could). Several mediations (by Vatican too) needed a huge work to make the two positions meet at the voting solution.
 * It was discussed during the votings, which were disturbed by violence (from both sides) in several areas of the nation, and there was a "discussed" minister for the internal affairs (Romita - whose duty was to ensure that the democratic voting rights were granted and safe for everybody, for any political side) who was not impartial and had enrolled (with emergency recruiting = discretional selection) a sort of private militia to enhance police action.
 * It was discussed after, for all what has been said about the whole. Details are in birth of the Italian Republic.
 * I hope we can render the note that this referendum was not transparently clear as a popular democrat

'''The page was SO long I had to archive a large chink, but in the process, the end of what you wrote was chopped off by the browser. Sorry, Gianfrano, I wasn't trying to censor your views. It is a simple problem that affects many people with most browsers. Don't let the page exceed 30K or anyone entering it will automatically have their browser chop off the end. Even the best technology has flaws.'''

I have to say, Gianfranco, that your views on historical biography are bizarre, to put it politely. The page was looked at by a historian of twentieth century Italy who said 'yup. That's pretty much correct' and who thought your version 'disneyfied', ie, more concerned with hiding factually correct but embarrassing information like something they'd do in a Disney cartoon. Only TWO people have questioned the contents; you, and DW (a nutter who ended up banned from Wiki). A consensus isn't what Franco thinks should be in an article. It is what is overwhelmingly accepted by other wikipedians, historians or experts in specific areas think. So far, apart from the nutty and now banned DW, you alone of all the readers of this page have a problem.

As to the facts:


 * 1) Pertini's comments are published in other sources, Le Figaro, The Times. The Irish Times, The Sunday Tribune, the Washington Post, etc.
 * 2) Why do you persist on referring to 'Victor Emmanuel IV'? There is no such person. He may be called that within the Royal House but as he never reigned, he is never, ever called that in any dictionary of biography, anymore than the Duke of Anjou (legitimist pretender to the French throne) is called Louis XX. Apart from anything else, referring to 'Victor Emmanuel IV' breaks Wiki naming conventions on royalty which restricts the use of an ordinal after a name to a monarch who has reigned, not a pretender who hasn't.
 * 3) Humbert's bisexuality is covered in NINE websites, archives in FOUR countries and a number of biographies. It featured in some international coverage of Prince Victor Emmanuel's short visit to Italy.
 * 4) It is relevant because it shaped the attitudes of one of the major player in forming Italian public opinion, the Holy See, towards its stance on the monarchy. It had previously been supportive of Umberto, because unlike his father he was a practising catholic. But fears about the danger that Umberto's opponents would mention his bisexuality made the Holy See back off, for it did not want to find itself caught in public endorsing a controversial king who in his private life was engaging in activities Roman Catholic teaching described (rightly or wrongly) as an abomination. (Source: senior Vatican official in a private conversation when we discussed why Umberto's private life was so touchy with the Vatican, while other monarchs with controversial sex lifes weren't so abandoned. In the absence of detailed modern opinon polling, the Vatican had no way of knowing how much or little support the monarchy had. It, like Maria José believed that it might get less than 1/4 of the vote. To be seen as endorsing a monarchy already doomed, and a king with a controversial sex life, was seen as 'politically unwise'.)

Leaving it out when it had a major impact on a major player is about as ludicrous as not mentioning Princess Diana or Charles' adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles when talking about the British Royal Family in the 1990s. Would version read:
 * Charles and Diana had an unhappy marriage. They separated in 1992 and divorced some years later.

If so, it would be historical garbage, for to understand the context of the monarchy's situation, you need to know why the manner of their break-up proved so controversial (ie, allegations of adultery, hypocrisy, the manner in which the media coverage impacted in a drip by drip manner on the monarchy's prestige, etc) If a person's personal life directly affected their office (either through public knowledge or because of fears that it might become public) then it has to be stated.

Similarly, telling Sir Roger Casement's life by simply mentioning he was hanged as a traitor (which seems to be the simplistic version you would opt for) would be to bastardise history, because he was actually hanged because of the failure of establishment figures to rally behind him and call for the dropping of the death sentence. And that was because they were shown pieces of the 'Black diaries' that recounted in explicit detail his alleged homosexual exploits. No page on Casement can ignore the issue of
 * whether the Black sexual diary is accurate;
 * what impact the existence of that diary had on establishment opinion;
 * the existence that Diary had on his public image;
 * whether Casement was homosexual; if he was, that supports the generally held conclusion the the diary is genuine, if not, it clearly shows it to be a forgery.

As a result, all biographies and all studies of Casement cover the Black Diaries controversy and as a result, his sexual orientation.

Similarly, recent revelations (ie, in the last two weeks) on Wallace Simpson and the discovery that during the abdication crisis, she was sleeping with another man other than the King (and her husband) have to be covered, because only by understanding can we truly undertand the Abdication Crisis of Edward VIII. Professional historians know that. Others may not.
 * the truth of what was happening;
 * what was known at the time;
 * how what was known at the time affected how the establishment saw her;
 * how that impacted on the solution the establishment opted for, ie abdication rather than acceptance,

Yet another example: Mary, Queen of Scots' sex-life cannot be sanitised in the manner you seem to like, if you want to understand the nature of her reign. Reducing her sex and marital life to some cosy phrase like
 * Mary experienced a difficult personal life through her controversial marriages

would be laughed at as
 * simplistic
 * inaccurate
 * failing to let the reader know what impact her love life had on her, her throne and Scotland.

For these reasons, I have restored the original uncensored version and I have contacted other wikipedians for their observations on it. JTD 01:42 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm seriously confused. I've read much of the previous discussion on this and JTD does give what appears to be the more convincing argument but I can't confirm the statement that Humbert II was bisexual or homosexual. In fact the only mention I get on the Internet of him ever having homosexual or bisexual tendencies was on our list of famous gay lesbian or bisexual people a personal website and gay advocacy group that have similar lists but don't state any specifics (sadly names on these lists are often swapped without fact checking and mistaken entries tend to sneak-in).

(Note added by the compiler of the "personal website" link above: My source for Umberto's inclusion on the Rainbow Lives list was the book Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, edited by Robert Aldrich and Garry Wotherspoon,published 2001 by Routledge. RSS Sept. 10, 2003)

I did find "Umberto was a playboy with particular sexual tastes which did not discriminate between the sexes" in the 9th paragraph here but that was from a very POV 1907 text (it was a bit gossipy but probably did come from a period encyclopedia - such was the style back then). I'm also a bit perplexed by two edits that appear to be marked as minor by JTD but in fact doubled the size of the article.

PS I've already spent a few hours on this and still have several hours of WikiChores to do before I go to bed so I won't be responding to anything on this subject until tomorrow. --mav 07:09 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about mis-describing the edits. My page automatically has a tick on the minor edit box. Sometimes I can hit the save button and only then realise I'd forgotten to de-click the minor edit box. Mea culpa. JTD 07:21 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

I dropped this from the last section of the article, it seems self-evident from the material in the header:


 * Humbert was the last King of Italy; his first son, Prince of Naples, is the current Head of the House of Savoy.