Jump to content

Talk:Victor Emmanuel III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion

[edit]

The article is contradictory.Was he a Roman Catholic or an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.3.178 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

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)

Abissinia and Etiopia, in Italian, are synonimous. Simply.
Your idea that Victor Emmanuel should have abdicated in 1943, could be common to many people. But it is a conjecture, a speculation, not a historical fact, therefore it cannot hide behind the article as if it was a fact of general consensus. And against this pretendedly preferable vision, there is in fact the consideration that giving the Crown to his son in that precise moment, given the special context, the overwhelming confusion, the many foreign troops on the national territory, the little and not objective information available (and we could go on for hours...), he would have allowed the general impression that monarchy was already over. It would have irrevertibly separated Italians from their kings. So, from a different point of view, it is said instead that V.E. was wise in keeping on the throne, despite our eventual objections.
I believe the article will soon reflect, in the usual Wikipedia's style, the consideration of the two interpretations, not assuming our (maybe emotional) vision as the main historical one.
Once again I have to recall that if the major source about Italian kings is Mack Smith, it would be quite fair to mention that he had personal positions, which are clearly intelligible in his works (which are however of essential importance in the study of that epoque). For the same reason, we, who don't even are Mack Smith, could as well keep somehow more neutral on these arguments. The article, as now it is, shows a certain judgment on the fellow, especially in the last paragraphs. G

Abbysinia and Ethiopia may be the same, but that is irrelevant. We need in reference to the King's title to use the exact 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

If Ethiopia was the version used in the formal 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 Emmanuel was 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 was off 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 voted for 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 the eve of the referendum, he undid all of Umberto's good work by reminding people of the one 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 politics immediately by their party, why Albert Reynolds quit immediately as Fianna Fáil leader in 1994, why Jospin quit public life immediately after his French presidential election defeat, etc etc. Because they knew that for their party to regain credibility, they had to go and go immediately, 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 was monumentally 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)

Tantris's complaints

[edit]

...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's La fine della monarchia; there are various editions; it is a classic, as well as an excellent synthesis on a very complex theme.

Denis Mack Smith is the most important living English language historian of modern Italy. There are 10,000 google hits on his name in the Italian language. I am highly impressed by your decision to parade your ignorance as though it is superior knowledge. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a quarter 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 American inefficient... 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.

You are clearly advancing a POV with this interpretation. And what's so horrific about Giolitti, et al, anyway? At any rate, my understanding was that fear of communism had more to do with the turn to fascism than hatred of the Italian political class (of which VEIII was surely himself a most prominent part). john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 critisised them, and they made triumphant re-entries into their capitals in 1945.

The fact that the Germans were a conquering army had much to do with the fact that VEIII and his government made absolutely no effort to get the army to resist the Nazi advance, and they all basically ended up surrendering without a fight. The behavior of the royal family and Italian government in the period between the overthrow of Mussolini and the German invasion has been frequently criticized. Comparing it to the British royal family is silly and not very aposite, but nor is comparing it to the royal families of other countries. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is rather silly. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini in 1943 and had him arrested, 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 the Americans !

I'm sure if Hitler had had any members of the British royal family at his disposal, they would have been put in a concentration camp (also worth noting that many members of German royal families were also put in camps - the former Crown Prince of Bavaria, for instance). Also, Mafalda was not murdered by the Nazis, as you seem to imply, but was killed by an allied bombing raid. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 was not 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.

This is an interpretation, I think, that could be disputed. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 than any 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.

The first fact should be mentioned. I don't know why the pro-monarchy vote should be compared to a political party. The Republicans also won more votes than any party has ever won in any election since. And the Popular Front won 31% of the vote in 1948, which was, well, a fairly sizeable fraction of the votes that the monarchy garnered in the referendum. And that election was widely held to have been tampered with by the CIA to keep the leftist vote down. At any rate, all this proves is that a lot of centrists and conservatives voted against the monarchy. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 the democratic 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 Headquarters near 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.


Tantris 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Victor Emmanuel bears the blame for Caporetto nearly as much as he does for Mussolini. Salandra and Sonnino could never have started a war without the king's acquiescence. I don't think Victor Emmanuel was a bad man, necessarily (his grandson, on the other hand, seems rather horrifyingly awful...), but that doesn't mean that we should whitewash his failings, which were numerous. john k 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was a dumb and bad king

[edit]

With some shoots Mussolini could be defeated easily,in 1922, but this king accepted fascism.When Etiopia and Albania 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 of Benito 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]

Poorly sourced

[edit]

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 to be 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]

You certainly have a point, but my point in reverting it was that your edit added the following to the start of the article:
{{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 -->
    }}
  }}    
}}}}
The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, seemed not to be served by such a prologue-;) Ian Spackman (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate Children

[edit]

Is it known if he had any illegitimate children and if so are there ant records of there names and where they were born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.149.192 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Material is Un-Cited and Very POV!! Look and see for yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.220 (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]

The bombing of Rome

[edit]

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]

Death

[edit]

There is nothing here about his death.

(112.118.141.233 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Above discussions

[edit]

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 the moderati, 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]

File:Vittorio Emanuele III 1936.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Vittorio Emanuele III 1936.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Emmanuel or Vittorio Emanuele?

[edit]

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 of WP: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 per this June 6, 1944 front page from the Arkansas Gazette (republished by its successor the Arkansas 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 the Gazette tended to follow an unwritten stylebook.

On the other hand, the present text of WP: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]

Roman Catholicism

[edit]
See also: Talk:Victor Emmanuel III of Italy § Religion

Would you discuss his religion about Roman 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]

Infoboxes are not designed for complexity or nuance. If there is debate, uncertainty or a confused chronology over whether he was an atheist or Catholic, then that should be explained in the article text not contradicted or ignored by an over-simplified infobox parameter. DrKay (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Per MOS:RELIGION policy, none of the evidence were the King of Italy was an atheist, because he was a Catholic member of the House of Savoy. The religion of Kingdom of Italy during the fascist period were traditionally Roman Catholic as a state religion. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, all content on wikipedia must be explicitly supported by reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a false claim, because the King of Italy was only a Catholic to hold the position, while Mussolini was acting himself as a atheist. --49.150.108.5 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unsourced, then it shouldn't be in the article. I've made that clear repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I should concern right here. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found paragraph that needs splitting

[edit]

Specifically, the first paragraph of this 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]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

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

Requested move 4 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how to apply WP:NCROY here. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Emmanuel III of Italy → Victor Emmanuel III – WP:Unnecessary disambiguation and per WP:TITLECON with Victor Emmanuel II. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Victor Emmanuel II wasn't only "King of Italy" . He was King of Sardinia originally. It's debatable as to whether he's most notable as being the first "of Italy" or the "of Sardinia" who united Italy. Nonetheless, Victor Emmanuel III should be consistent with the other two kings of Italy alone (Umberto I of Italy and Umberto II of Italy). estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought this might crop up. If one were to be picked, I'd go for "of Italy". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those two should be moved as well. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Umbertos are primary topics, as our redirects Umberto I and Umberto II show. Srnec (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is strong opposition to George III → George III of the United Kingdom but also to George II of the United Kingdom → George II. Likewise, there is strong opposition to adding "of France" to Louis XI, but here there is no appetite for dropping "of Italy" from Victor Emmanuel III. Likewise, two attempts to move Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria to a shorter title have been shot down. This is Wikipedia's systematic bias. Names as distinctive as "Franz Joseph" and "Victor Emmanuel" should be disambiguated, but "William IV" and "Charles X" are clear enough. Of course, part of the problem is that there is no consistency of participants from one RM to the next. Srnec (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're one-hundred percent right about Wikipedia's systemic bias. Editors time and time again seem to insist that British monarchs special simply because they reign in the English-speaking world and 'this is English wikipedia'.
First of all, Charles III is far more ambiguous than Harald V. But for some reason Charles III of the United Kingdom is a redirect not the article title, but Harald V of Norway is the title while Harald V is a redirect, when there hasn't been another Harald V, anywhere. A similar situation exists as Mary I redirects to Mary I of England with Mary I (disambiguation) on the side.
Many of these pages were moved based on language of WP:NCROY that was removed in this RFC. But now suddenly If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. (emphasis my own) applies to Charles III, when it was clearly intended to prevent widely unused titles like William I of England or Mary I of Scotland, which are used by almost nobody. Even more so with the WP:COMMONNAME problem is the claim that COMMONNAME is a policy, NCROY is a guideline. Yet, NCROY is a guideline born from the policy of WP:CONSISTENT.
The current situation is a complete disaster where titles such as the above example of William IV, used by numbers of other monarchs, exist simultaneously alongside completely unambiguous names like "Isabella II" require disambiguation as Isabella II of Spain. It's been pointed out time and time again that this is a WP:GLOBAL issue. Quite frankly, I believe its getting to be a borderline WP:NPOV issue.
Personally, I prefer Monarch # of country, as it may help those who don't know who a certain monarch is/was, no matter how unambiguous their regnal name and number are, and doesn't harm WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for those who do know. Obviously if you know who Carl XVI Gustaf is, you'll know he's king of Sweden, but if you don't know who he is then there could be the added qualifier of "of Sweden" to aid you.
I'm getting so off topic so I'm just going to end it there. Perhaps it's time for a more wide-ranging discussion of NCROY (more so than the village-pump RfC by @Tim O'Doherty and @GoodDay), and perhaps even COMMONNAME and the WP:CRITERIA. I'm going to close this off with something that I've said before and I'll say it again until we have some sort of agreed-upon solution (because this is just madness): Elizabeth II should be the exception (to WP:AT as applied with WP:NCROY, not the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:25, 11 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 like Hirohito or Wu 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 of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, George III, George IV, William IV, Queen Victoria, and Edward VII. The pages on George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III should remain as they are because not only are they primary topics, but the Statute 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.fTalk 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. But we also should not forget that WP:SOVEREIGNS also states Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state., and it's not hard to know what sovereign state the Windsors are most commonly associated with. Queen Victoria and Edward VII are actually the only two who were only king/queen of the United Kingdom (not counting Edward VII as king in the Dominions). Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I were kings and queen of Ireland (yes Ireland was technically subordinate to England, but the Parliament of the UK also technically had the power to legislate in Australia until 1986. Georges III & IV and William IV were kings of Hanover. And lest we forget that the Stuart monarchs (save for James VI & I and Queen Anne) all have "of England" in their titles. They were also kings and queen of Scotland and Ireland.
I fail to see how "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", which excludes her other realms and territories, is any different from "James II of England", excluding his other two realms. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given my input, concerning the British monarchs bio pages & indeed bios of monarchs-in-general :) GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page?

[edit]

Should this page be semi-protected? Just like Benito Mussolini, he served under Victor Emmanuel's reign. Victor Emmanuel III also reigned during World 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 because Hideki 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victor_Emmanuel_III&oldid=1240638198"