Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

Detailed source
Well, a fine mess we've got now. I'm sure we'll agree that both of these groups of sources can't possibly be correct. We need the facts.

The European History Quarterly published a paper by Professor Stevan K. Pavlowitch dealing specifically with the status of Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta and his relationship with the WWII Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. Pavlowitch is Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. His specialty is WWII Yugoslavia and he has been published on numerous occasions dealing with that subject. he is "considered an authority on Yugoslav history". The title of the paper is The King Who Never Was, apparently Rodogno was quoting him with that phrase. This will finally give us the cold hard details and facts we need to see which of the sources are being superficial in accurately dealing with this obscure matter. I'll try to get my hands on the paper, and I'd like to ask you guys (or is it just dwc now?) to see if you can find it as well. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * dwc, thoughts? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the paper (looks an interesting read though) but this is just one source, the only one that says he refused the kingship. I wouldn't say this an obscure topic, there are plenty of sources as it was widely reported at the time and is written about to a degree in books up to this day. - dwc lr (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you're already planning to reject the source if it contradicts you and all the one-liners you Googled. The detailed research will provide us with the information we need to end this dispute. It is not possible for this person to both be king and refuse to be king at the same time. Pavlowitch will surely list his primary sources.


 * To be brief. This paper simply outclasses by far everything you (and I) have so far brought forth. If Pavlowitch (with his references) points towards "no king", then "no king" its going to have to be, and you'll just have to live with that and vice versa. In other words, this paper can tell us what the evidence says, i.e. who's sources have incorrectly or superficially dealt with the matter. Placing a lot of numbers behind a statement does not make it correct. You can simply forget about the one-liners if they are contradicted by thorough research. Anyone will tell you the same. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have no idea what the paper will tell us. All I know is that "King Who Never Was" is the perfect title for this mess. Apparently he was "king" but he "never was" king... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pavlowitch may be of the opinion that Prince Aimone actually had to go to Croatia to assume the kingship. The four things I know is: he was appointed, accepted, never went to Croatia and resigned. I accept he never was a particularly active king, so basically king in name only. - dwc lr (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Pavlowitch claims he was not the king in the first place, let alone why exactly. I agree with your brief summary (sans the word games). He was nominated, he accepted, never went to Croatia, and resigned. The point is, does that ambiguous ceremony in the Quirinale make him a king of Croatia? I see no reason why it should, and I intend to get to the bottom of this. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the pivotal question would be: what did he "accept" by the Quirinale ceremony? Did he "accept" to become King (in the near future), or did he by accepting the King's nomination/appointment automatically become king of Croatia right then and there.


 * In addition, we should probably make it clear in the article that the danger he faced in Zagreb was not the resistance, but the ruling Ustaše trying to prevent a personal union with Italy. The resistance did not assassinate any high-ranking Ustaše official throughout the war, and were generally incapable of threatening even the lower officials of the NDH government. Its complete nonsense to assume the Prince faced any threat from the Partisans in Zagreb. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is a controversial topic among hystorians is deeply questionable to choose some sources over the others. However, if we must choose among them i'd preferred dwc sources, as they are the most commonly accepted and as they are from different people and not from one single person, like yours. However, he became king of Croatia. Simply that state of Croatia wasn't the modern state of Croatia. It's pointless if you think it's offensive that he was king of Croatia, because it is hystory. We can all say that Hitler didn't rule Germany, but ... --AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:AndreFox2, your opposition, as well as your WP:STALKing, do not come unexpected. I may even say that you need not even state your opinion - its obvious they will be opposite to mine. Therefore I hope you will forgive me if I do not place more weight on your opinions than I have in the past.
 * Twenty "one-liners" from various works that superficially broach the subject are easily trumped by one detailed source, let alone in this case where we also have a large number of other sources in line with the detailed work, and especially when we are mythbusting a common misconception. So you are blatantly wrong in your assertion that my sources come "from one single person". Furthermore, your opinions on what is or is not "most commonly accepted" have no weight whatsoever, I find myself having to explain that once more to you. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Poppycock. If he officially had the title of 'King of Croatia' (which he did.) and was formally Head of State of the NDH (which again, he was) then he was. Regardless of any POV statements, such as 'He's as much a Croatian Head of State as Hans Frank was a Polish Head of State' which is wrong on two counts: i.The general government was not intended to be a 'Polish State' whereas the NDH patently was, and ii. whether the NDH was a 'puppet state' is neither here nor there; regardless of recognition or whatever, the state clearly existed and Aimone/Tomislav II was its formal head of state. QED, that's a fact and he should be regarded as such. Yes; 'DIREKTOR', we get it, the Nazis were bad, and so were the Ustashe, and what happened under their regimes was horiffic and completely and utterly amoral, I greatly agree with you on that point. Nonetheless, that is still POV at the end of the day, and to edit articles on a purely POV basis as you and others have done in this nature is totally POV and has no place in wikipedia, regardless of how noble the sentiments involved are. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomislav the Ghost
I advise editors to remove the excessive and meaningless text about his 'Croatian Kingdom' and him as a 'king'. It's enough mentioning it in just two sentences like: He was created King of Croatia as Tomislav II by Benito Mussolini in 1941. He never visited his 'kingdom' or like this
 * On the same day Prince Aymon, Duke of Aosta, second cousin of the King of Italy, was proclaimed King of Croatia, as King Tomislav I, but the new monarch never entered his dominions. On August 19, 1943, the Duke resigned the throne.

from The Statesman's year-book, New York, 1944.

Most of this his biography is just about two years of his life.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the otherhand, did he really do all that much of importance aside from his brief tenure as King? Certainly I would say it what he is best remembered for (at least outside of Italy) Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

@Juraj. I don't see what relevance this has. A monarch doesn't have to visit the state of which they are monarch to be monarch of it. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thread re: King of Croatia
I have refactored a thread added by below. Please note new threads should be created at the bottom of the page for new discussions. The most recent thread here is over a year old. I have added many more that time and relevent book sources and replaced the inaccurate internet ones. Added the proper name of the office, two royal adjutants, another visit to Croatia, planed coronation and royal estate near Zagreb, etc. Since I have added sources from documents in the Croatian State Archives that describe legal position of his title and ones of Amedeo please first read them! before you engage in correcting them. This is the position on the title: *15.05.1941. The three laws on the creation of crown of Zvonimir (3 days before Rome treaties!!!)which made Croatia a kingdom, signed by poglavnik Ante Pavelic, min. of domobranstvo Slavko Kvaternik, minister of justice Mirko Puk, minister of interior affairs Andrija Artuković, minister of health Ivan Petrić, etc.
 * 18.05.1941. Rome treaties three articles in which the third one chooses the new dynasty
 * 23.-28. February 1942. Croatian State Sabor (parliament) which had more of a approval role, approved Aimone Tomisalv II. as king with other decision made by the poglavnik.
 * 10. September 1943. poglavnik Pavelic terminated ONLY articles that where on borders and military of the Rome treaties. Since the new dynasty is mentioned in article III. it is not terminated. If needed I can translate the proclamation in whole?
 * 27. September 1943. Amedeo Zvonimir is born, de jure and de facto prince of Croatia
 * 12. October 1943. officially king Aimone Tomislav II. abdicated AS! king of Croatia and past the rights onto his son.

(I will translate the important part) The regulatory provision on the crown of Zvonimir
 * § 1. Sovereignty (headship) of the Independent State of Croatia is represented by the crown of king Zvonimir
 * § 2. Description of the crown
 * § 3. This regulatory provision enters into force with the day of publication in the Narodne novine (Public newspaper)

Also I would suggest you visit Croatian State Archives, here is the original page of the Rome Treaties from 1941. http://www.arhiv.hr/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mda1/~edisp/web2hdarhivloc005110.jpg

Good books on the subject, with details are: -Croatian author, whole book on the subject of Aimone Tomislav -Yugoslav author, also large number of sources In conclusion the title was not terminated before Amedeo Zvonimir was born so he held the title crown prince. In Savoy family documents he is styled with the name Zvonimir as a heir, which he does not use now (source Serbian interview with him http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/Nedeljnik/story/201092/Kralj+Hrvatske%3A+%E2%80%9ENe+zanima+me+kruna%22.html ) Ban kavalir (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Matković, "Designirani hrvatski kralj Tomislav II. vojvoda od Spoleta. Povijest hrvatskotalijanskih odnosa u prvoj polovici XX.st." (Designated Croatian king Tomislav II. Duke of Spoleto. History of Croatian-Italian relationships in first half of the 20th century), Zagreb 2007.
 * B. Krizman, NDH između Hitlera i Mussolinija (Independent State of Croatia between Hitler and Mussolini)

King of Croatia Request for comment.
I would like some comments by other editors on the recent changes made to this article. The recent edits are about changing the name of Aimone to King Aimone Tomislav II and the newly introduced emphasis to his tenure as designated King of Croatia during WW2, which lead to some disputable items added to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also believe it removed a number of reliable sources for material that contradicts the changes. I certainly think reversion and working through the material on talk would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To me this is a question of undue weight being given to the dynastic and constitutional claim involved. We are dealing with an episode in which a largely unrecognized puppetstate of the Axis powers in WW2 tried to establish itself as a kingdom. There also seems to be some doubt about whether that was entirely successfull, since the monarch involved never took up residence in the country involved. Now I don’t mind there being text in the article about this episode, but  the article should not be changed into a platform for  certain dynastic or constitutional claims on the basis of:
 * a) newspaper articles and publications from 1941, who’s indepencence might be questioned
 * b) original research, morphing the names of these people and mentioning titles they may had, too prominently in the article
 * So we have serious questions about undue weight and synthesis here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, UNDUE, SYNTH, and POV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Summoned by bot. I'm not familiar with him but he did briefly hold the title King of Croatia for a short period, even if disputed by some . What exactly is this RfC about? Diffs would be helpful here. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: my view is that all ancient newspaper articles should be scrapped (whatever their worth, their use constitutes original research; at most one or two might be used to support a secondary source, as a novelty for someone who wants to dig deeper after reading the wiki article). The added material should be written more concisely. Furthermore, it's not clear now which international powers were supporting whom, and when. This should be made explicit. Details about the metals inside swords, crowns, etc., are not useful to anyone and should be removed. Larger political context, then and today, is vital. If there are contemporary debates about legitimacy or precedent that involve Aimone, those should be reviewed. -Darouet (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also worry about the verifiability of some of the sources. Also Croatian legislation of the time may very well not have pertained to these people anymore after Italy joined the war on the Allied side and it's very recognition of the ISoC ceased. To assume that it did and that he and / or the son therefore remained somehow functionaries of the Crown of Zwonimir is therefore synthesis. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make some adjustments to:
 * make the lead, infobox and first mention in order
 * remove synthesis and the editorializing connected to it.
 * balance the weight in the article somewhat Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628164920/http://www.jerberyd.com/climbing/stories/k2/ to http://www.jerberyd.com/climbing/stories/k2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192735/http://www.k2climb.net/story/stories/K22004-50yarslatrApr182004.shtml to http://www.k2climb.net/story/stories/K22004-50yarslatrApr182004.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)