![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
Only in one case, while he was in Germany for a royal wedding, did [Umberto] make an exception, Hitler asked for a meeting.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
Only in one case, while he was in Germany for a royal wedding, did [Umberto] make an exception, Hitler asked for a meeting.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)