A Case for Italian Unification

Some time ago it was brought to my attention that I had never set down my exact thoughts on Italian unification. It has certainly been covered here, the facts are there for all to see, the sequence of events, etc. I would think most regular readers would be aware that I favored it, even if the way it came about is not what I would consider ideal. However, my overall thoughts on the subject have been lacking and since this is something which tends to divide monarchists (one of oh-so-many things), I thought I might as well put forward my opinions and make a case in defense of the unification of Italy since not a few (non-Italian) monarchists tend to take an extremely hostile view to the very existence of a united Italy. I will try to refute the most common arguments against unification that I have encountered and try to explain why I think it was a positive development and could have been even more positive had it been done sooner.

First of all, I think it is a mistake to consider opposition to Italian unification to be something reactionary. Yet, this tends to be how support or opposition to unification is framed; the revolutionaries were for it, the reactionaries were against it. However, Italian nationalists were not trying to establish something new at least in terms of having a united Italy under one government. Long before there was a Grand Duchy of Tuscany, a Papal States, a Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies or a Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, there had been a united Italy ruled by one government in Rome. It was the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic with a history stretching back to traceless antiquity. It had also lasted quite a long time. In wishing to have all of the Italian peninsula united together under one government in Rome, the nationalists were aiming to restore something that had already existed rather than construct something totally new. Of course, the government itself would be new but the idea of unification itself was not. The history of Imperial Rome loomed large in the collective memory of all Italians as it was bound to. When a good chunk of your historical timeline consists of a period when you ruled practically the entire known world, that is something that casts a very long shadow.

All throughout the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages and the rise of the city-states and especially the color, chaos and culture of the Renaissance the legacy of Imperial Rome was ever-present. It spoke clearly to every Italian that they had been and were capable of being so much more than a patchwork collection of feuding city-states and a battleground for foreign powers. This is also proven by the fact that Italian unification was a dream for a great many people long before the Nineteenth Century. During the Renaissance, it was often the Popes who took the lead in trying to reestablish a united Italy under their control. It was the French and the Germans that the “Warrior Pope” Julius II referred to when he fought his wars to drive the “barbarians” out of Italy. Ultimately, he got much farther in realizing his goal than anyone would have thought possible. Later on, Pope Clement VII tried the same thing but with much less success. Even back in the Middle Ages there had been a foreshadowing of these struggles when Pope Alexander III called for Italian unity and formed the Lombard League to thwart the invasion of the German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.

The primary point here though is that Italian unification was not, in itself, a “revolutionary” idea. It was a concept with more history and tradition behind it than in any other European nation-state. The difference, of course, was in what sort of form a united, or re-united, Italy would take. Many of those who object to the existence of the united Italy, formerly the Kingdom of Italy, base their position on their dislike of the sort of state that existed in Piedmont-Sardinia under the House of Savoy and what is sometimes seen as a Savoyard conquest of Italy rather than a unification such as was seen in other countries. However, things were not so neat and clean in those other countries either and Italy always seems to be held to a different standard in this regard. There is no comparable objection, after all, to united nation-states in France, Britain, Spain or Germany; why is Italy different? Why are the Italian people considered singularly unworthy of something so many others take for granted?

After all, no one would claim that France or Spain or Germany absolutely cannot be unified and must be ruled by outsiders. Are the dialects of Turin, Florence and Naples more alien to each other than Catalan and Castilian, English and Cornish, Welsh or Gaelic, High and Low German? Are the divisions imposed on Italy by foreign invaders more legitimate than the divisions that resulted from the foreign invasion of Spain? There seems to be no equivalent. Most seem to agree that the French were understandably opposed to a large portion of their country being ruled by England and that the Spanish were understandably indignant at being ruled by Moors and yet some seem to think that Italians should have been content to see their homeland being ruled by Spanish, French and German authorities. The divisions in Italy were very old, it is true but the regimes that existed at the time of the Italian Wars for Independence were not so deep-rooted as some seem to think. Certainly none could match the history of the venerable House of Savoy which had been ruling some patch of ground, be it great or small, for many, many centuries longer than most of the other royal houses represented on the Italian peninsula had existed even in their own homelands much less on Italian soil.

The rule of the Spanish Bourbons over Parma came as recently as 1847. Their rule over Sicily came in 1735 prior to which more than ten different dynasties in their turn had reigned over the island before them. Hapsburg rule over Modena dated only since 1814 with time for only two to reign. Likewise, the Austrian Hapsburgs had ruled over Lombardy-Venetia only since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and which they had gained, not by inheritance or marriage but by negotiation with the First French Republic, later confirmed by the Congress of Vienna. All of these were fresh-faced newcomers compared to the royals of the House of Savoy who had ruled over their own homeland since at least 1003 and over Sardinia since 1720. No power on the Italian peninsula had a deeper tradition and a longer history in the region than their own save for one, which was, of course, the Papal States. The Papal States are probably the easiest thing to point to in an effort to explain why Italy is treated differently from other countries in regards to unification. Politics and conflicting nationalities can be trouble enough but add religion to the mix and you get a very volatile cocktail indeed.

First of all, as should be obvious at this point, the total opposition of pontiffs such as Gregory XVI and (belatedly) Pius IX to Italian unification was the innovation. In the past, it was the popes who had often most longed and worked for Italian unification such as with Alexander III and the Lombard League or Clement VII and the League of Cognac along with others. Of course, in those days, while the Papal States may not have had considerably more political power than in the time of Pius IX, the Pope certainly had more prestige and would naturally have been the leader of any sort of Italian confederation. By the 19th Century the political strength of the Catholic Church had been all but eliminated, partly because of the enemies of the Church but also partly by papal policies themselves. On the international stage, even many devoutly Catholic countries had come to view the papacy as being unreliable and all but incapable of impartiality. One of the primary reasons for this was the lack of Italian unification itself. Looking back, it put the political power of the Pope at odds with the power and prestige of the Catholic Church as a whole even if few could look past their own interests to see it that way.

Pope Alexander III giving a blessed sword
the Doge of Venice

Consider the course of history: Once the popes gained political control of Rome and central Italy their primary goal in foreign policy was to maintain and expand that control. However, because the Papal States could never be powerful enough to withstand the major powers of the time, the pontiffs adopted a policy of playing one against the other, usually France and Germany/Austria. The Spanish were involved as well but eventually as a subsidiary of either the French or Germans. The pattern is replayed over and over throughout the centuries. One pope supports the Germans against the French, then when the Germans become too powerful, another pope supports the French against the Germans. Of course, the popes were not the only cause of this as the French, Germans and Spanish were also always eager on their own to fight over territories in an attempt to dominate Italy. There were so many of these conflicts that a number of them have simply been grouped together by historians and named “The Italian Wars”. Naturally, all the energy, lives and treasure poured into these conflicts by the Catholic monarchies could have, from a Catholic point of view, been better spent fighting the Turks or later the Protestants. Lutheranism might have been crushed in its infancy had not the German Emperor Charles V devoted so much of his forces to fighting the Pope and his French ally. The Turks, likewise, might have been defeated had not the French allied with them in order to thwart the Germans.

This was a common theme for practically the whole of history from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire until the reunification of the Italian peninsula, since before the time that Charlemagne clashed with King Desiderius of the Lombards until the Battle of Solferino between Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph and French Emperor Napoleon III the Italians have seen their country serve as the battleground, fought over by those great Catholic powers to dominate them with the Pope usually in the middle of it, supporting one side or the other. There had also been Italian states and rulers that fostered the division, supporting whichever side seemed strongest at the time and which would offer the most to them for their allegiance. Many popes complained about this habit of their countrymen, not that they were not above behaving in a similar fashion but because the small states tended to support whichever side was stronger (often the German Emperor) while the Pope tended to oppose that same side as it would pose the greatest threat to his continued rule over Rome. When Catholics think about this long and ugly succession of wars, the “Investiture Dispute”, the “Italian Wars”, the “Sack of Rome” there must surely be some, even among the most partisan, who can at least understand the wish that Italy had simply been left to the Italians and had all the Catholic powers concentrate on their common enemies rather than fighting each other endlessly for control of the Italian peninsula.

Opposites who agreed Mazzini would be a disaster

Even to the very end, when Catholic France and Austria were both about to be surpassed by Protestant Prussia they still found themselves drawn into conflict over Italy because each side feared that their loss would be the other’s gain. Likewise, as the Italians themselves tired of this cycle, opposition to at least the political power of the Church if not the Church itself began to grow in Italy as people came to see the Church as being on the side of their oppressors. Why did women have to be flogged in Milan by Austrians so that the Pope could continue to rule in Rome? Past papal support for unification abruptly turned into adamant opposition, partly because of an understandable level of paranoia that persisted after the French Revolution. However, Italians had finally had enough and if the Pope would not be with them, they would be against him. This gave rise to the dangerous movement of Giuseppe Mazzini and his radical republicans. However, the Italians were not alone in this unfortunate move to the left. It happened in other countries as the Pope stood opposed to any disorder even if it meant Catholics being ruled by non-Catholic foreigners in countries from Ireland to Poland. The difference was that in Ireland and Poland the Pope could be more easily ignored than in Italy where he ruled.

By the time that Pius IX came to the papal throne Italian unification was probably inevitable. It was going to happen, the only question was which form would it take; a radical republic or a constitutional monarchy? In regards to the Church, there was, early on, also a choice between a secular republic or a monarchy/confederation of monarchies in which the Pope would have a leadership role. This was an idea supported by a fair number of people but which the Pope ultimately opposed, even placing the book which suggested it on the “Index of Forbidden Works”. Papal foreign policy also worked to create an impossible position for the Papal States. Pope Pius IX, a devout and saintly man without question, had an extremely erratic foreign policy that caused Italians who had revered him to come to view him as being under the power of others or else extremely unreliable while at the same time alienating his strongest supporters so that, ultimately, his political power rested solely on the armed force of a regime which staunch Catholic monarchists regarded as illegitimate. So erratic were his policies that it can leave one wondering at times if even he knew which “side” he was ultimately on.

The "Honest King"

For example, when considering why the Savoy monarchy prevailed in Italy when all others ultimately failed, one factor was King Victor Emmanuel II as the “honest king”. Does this mean he was more truthful and sincere in all his dealings than other monarchs in Italy? Certainly not, as even his most ardent admirers would have to admit. However, that reputation stems mostly from the fact that the Savoy monarchy was the only monarchy in Italy to grant a constitution and stick to it (the constitution being one which ultimately reserved considerable authority to the monarch and was vague enough to be interpreted in a number of ways). Everyone else, from Tuscany to the Two Sicilies to the Papal States themselves granted constitutions and then revoked them. This gave them all the public perception of being false and untrustworthy compared to the Savoy at the time. As stated, Pius IX was no exception. One could argue that he simply made a mistake in trying to make the Papal States a constitutional monarchy when trying to compartmentalize the papal offices of political ruler and spiritual ruler was extremely difficult to say the least. He also gave every indication of siding with the nationalists, and not necessarily the reluctant monarchist nationalists but the revolutionaries.

When he condemned Austria for violating papal territory in Ferrara, issuing a sharp rebuke that forced them to withdraw, he acted in defense of his own political power, which went hand-in-hand with the sovereignty of his estates. To the public, however, it was the patriotic Italian Pope driving away the German “barbarians”. Even the anti-clerical Mazzini was praising him as the most powerful man in Europe. When he granted a constitution to the Papal States it was based on that of the July Monarchy of the “Citizen-King” Louis Philippe in France. His chief ministers were revolutionaries, many of whom had been exiled or imprisoned by his predecessor but which Pius IX had set at liberty and appointed to high office. What was your average layman to think of all this? His most famous prime minister, the murdered Rossi, had supported Napoleon’s general Murat against the Austrians. When Murat was overthrown he went to France and was a supporter of the July Monarchy and came to serve the Pope after the downfall of Louis-Philippe. An earlier prime minister, of the Rovere family, had been exiled for rebellion against Gregory XVI as a revolutionary and who had not returned to Italy even when Pius IX granted an amnesty at his accession because he refused to take the oath of loyalty to the Pope. He later worked in the Cavour government in Piedmont-Sardinia for Italian unification under the monarchy. To replace him, Pius IX appointed Count Edoardo Fabbri, another former revolutionary who had been exiled and imprisoned by Gregory XVI.

The "Angelic Pope"

Since granting a constitutional government, Pius IX had appointed to leadership four men in succession who had each been punished as revolutionaries by his predecessor. Again, what message did this send to the public other than that the Pope supported the movement for Italian unity and independence which all of these men had in the past been punished as revolutionaries for fighting for? When the First War of Italian Independence broke out, Pius IX finally lost the love of the nationalist movement when he sent a papal army to the frontier, commanded by a Piedmontese general from the Savoy monarchy who was a passionate supporter of Italian unity and independence, only to then send orders after them that they were not to cross the frontier and not to engage the Austrians. To say the public was confused by this would be an understatement. They would have been even more confused to have read the message Pope Pius IX sent to the Austrian Emperor the following month in which he said:

“…in Our Allocution of the 29th of last month, We asserted that to declare war would revolt Our paternal heart; and announced Our ardent desire to contribute towards the restoration of peace. Let it not be therefore displeasing to your Majesty that we should address an appeal to your piety and religion, and exhort you with paternal affection to withdraw your arms from a war which can never reconquer for your empire the minds of the Lombards and Venetians; and can only bring with it the fatal series of calamities that always accompany war, and are certainly both repulsive and detestable to yourself.

   “…We are confident that the German nation itself, being honestly proud of its own nationality, will not engage its honor in an attempt to shed the blood of this Italian nation; but will rather engage it in nobly recognizing her as a sister - for both are Our daughters and very dear to Us; let each of them be content to live within her own borders by honorable agreement and beneath the blessing of the Lord.”

So, here again was Pope Pius IX speaking of an Italian nation and asking Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph to withdraw his forces from Italy so that Italian-speaking and German-speaking Catholics might live peacefully in their own countries. They are words which illustrate the holiness and goodwill of the Pope as well as his inability to grasp the reality of power politics. The idea that the Austrian Emperor would have ever simply ordered his troops to leave Italian soil and march home, shaking the dust from their boots at the border, out of goodwill and Christian brotherhood is simply absurd. Yet, this same pontiff would later reverse all of that, encouraging Austria to send more troops to occupy even more of Italy (though they did not) and punishing as much as was in his power to punish anyone who backed the idea of an Italian nation. Is it any wonder that at some point many people simply stopped listening?

As stated above, past popes had been ardent supporters of Italian unification and removing all French or German presence from Italy. Yet, when events came together to make that a reality, the pope of the day reversed course and opposed it. Was it out of fear of losing his territory and what was, at that time, his primary source of income? For someone like Pius IX that hardly seems likely. Most likely it was due to his opposition to the policies of a “free Church in a free state” championed by Cavour and his fear of being dependent on the Italian government (and thus a future pontiff could become their instrument). However, if the Pope had at least tried to negotiate with the Piedmontese it is at least possible that the policies he disapproved of could have been amended or abolished. To have the papal blessing on the new Kingdom of Italy would have been hugely beneficial and the King at least showed a willingness to do almost anything to obtain his consent. However, by refusing to deal at all with the idea and later the fact of a unified Italy, the Pope left himself entirely at the mercy of his political enemies, not just the Italian nationalists in general but his very enemies of the radical, anti-clerical faction of the Turin government, which is exactly what his defiance was supposed to prevent.

That is one of the major problems, as I see it, that presents itself to those who say that the opposition of the Pope was necessary in order to maintain the independence of the Church. For one thing, the existence of the Papal States had not proven such a guarantee in the past. This was why popes shifted in their foreign policy constantly between favoring the French and the Germans in turn. It has certainly not been the case since the Lateran agreements. The Papal States have never nor is Vatican City today capable of using force to prevent it being conquered by a foreign power and the Pope today receives income from the Italian state. It was not the state of affairs that existed at the establishment of the Church in Rome or the earliest centuries of the existence of the papal position. Popes were then part of the Roman Empire and all depended on their own moral fortitude to not be the puppets of the Emperor and so most were not, many early popes accepting martyrdom rather than submit to un-Christian or anti-Christian policies. They did the right thing not because they had territory, taxes or an army at their command but because they chose to even if it meant their death if they did not. Of course, Pius IX nor any of his successors had to face such a choice. What they did face was the choice of which state to depend on for their security and freedom. There were not many offers but Pius IX chose to depend on Napoleon III of France. When the French army was withdrawn and Italian troops occupied Rome it was only by the grace of King Victor Emmanuel II that the Pope was left untouched in the Vatican, it having been proven by that time that no other power was able or willing to make war on his behalf. Would there not have been just as much risk of future corruption if the Pope had continued to depend solely on the French rather than the Italians? Given the subsequent course of French history, he may in fact have been much worse off.

In any event, trying to play a strictly legitimist game in this regard ultimately goes nowhere. The states of Italy were parceled out and shifted ownership from one monarch or state to another over the centuries based on force or mutual agreement. In the case of the Papal States one could go all the way back to the Dark Ages and the agreements between the Pope and the Frankish monarch in which each granted the other titles they themselves had no strictly legitimist right to bestow. One could go back farther and see the Pope submitting to the authority of the earliest King of Italy, Flavius Odoacer, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire while still being, in strictly legitimist terms, the subject of the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople with no thought being given then of any claim to independent sovereignty. At some point you have to accept the facts as they exist and go from there as best you can. In the case of Italy in the Nineteenth Century, the fact on the ground was that unification was going to happen, whether under a republican radical like Mazzini or Catholic monarch like King Victor Emmanuel II. I prefer the King.

As stated before, putting aside all of the details, I also see no reason why Italy should be denied what other peoples have not; to unite together and aspire to greatness. Unlike many others, the Italians have their Roman ancestors to look back to and it seems just as natural to me for them to do so as it would be for any people to look back to their period of greatest power and prestige and wish to emulate it as much as possible. The Germans tried to emulate the Roman example particularly and I can hardly see expecting the Italians to desist from doing the same considering it was their own ancestors that were being looked to. I have also been fortunate to speak to a number of praiseworthy Italian monarchists over the years who are carrying on a most difficult struggle and it pains me that they should be attacked from within as well as without.

If the royal houses involved as well as the Pope can be reconciled to the Italian nation, it seems hardly unreasonable to expect monarchists to do the same. National identity is something that is under attack these days, in Europe particularly by the internationalists of the European Union. There have been efforts to divide Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom and I have opposed them all. Italy has not been untouched by these efforts but, thankfully, there is still a strong sense of patriotism in Italy and I would hate to see monarchists make themselves the enemies of it. I would hate it both because it would be a betrayal of the valiant Italian monarchists and because I fear it would be yet another self-defeating position. Choosing to be a monarchist is difficult enough in this day and age, I would hate to see Italians who are inclined toward monarchy to be told that they must choose between their country and the cause of kings to be accepted by the monarchist community. The unification may not have come about in an ideal way but that is something rare in history. It did happen and I thank God it resulted in a Kingdom of Italy with a Catholic Royal Family rather than in a secular, Mazzinian republic. To see Italy restored as a strongly Catholic monarchy, based on Italian culture and traditions, is my sincerest wish. I hope that more monarchists outside of Italy would share it.

The Case for Monarchy in Italy

Today, the Italian Republic is in a terrible state. No one can deny that, though the political class will spend their time pointing the finger of blame at each other in order to save themselves. Perhaps though, looking back on the now 150 years of a united Italy, the people will instead look at the political class as a whole and the system itself which has brought Italy to this point. Politics in Italy has always been a rough business, from ancient Rome to the Renaissance states to modern Italy. However, in recent decades the situation has really gotten out of control. The situation has become so dire, some have even contemplated the potential dissolution of Italy as a nation, breaking up the country into several petty-republic. Usually, this involves blaming all current problems on events that took place centuries ago and which are, therefore, impossible to solve so everyone should just give up and go home in defeat. That might be seen as an easier path for some, but human experience has shown that the easy way is invariably the wrong way and even more harmful in the end. Taking an honest look at the current state of affairs, instituting reforms and, perhaps, correcting some of those past mistakes might not be easy but it just might save and restore the Italian nation. Some have said that Italy needs a “new Risorgimento” but, perhaps, Italy would be better served by simply re-learning the lessons of the Risorgimento she has already had? That was the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, which stands in stark contrast to one of the greatest mistakes of Italian history; the destruction of the monarchy.

Italy was created as a monarchy. In 1861 it was not the Italian Republic that was declared, but the Kingdom of Italy. There were good reasons that this was the case. Italians from all walks of life and from vastly different political points of view came together to create the Kingdom of Italy because they agreed on certain points. Not many, it is true, but points that were vital; the unity, independence and great aspirations of the Italian people. They may have disagreed on absolutely every other detail but they did all agree that the people of Italy should be united, independent and strong and that the Kingdom of Italy, the monarchy, was the only viable framework to accomplish that. Republican politics invariably devolved into class warfare and divisive, partisan rancor that brought down the edifice that the revolutionaries were endeavoring to create. Even the revolutionary Francesco Crispi, old ally of Giuseppe Garibaldi, who led the Expedition of the Thousand alongside him and who had been an ardent republican, embraced the Kingdom of Italy and rejected the republican model because, as he told his former colleague Giuseppe Mazzini, “The monarchy unites us, the republic would divide us”. The Kingdom of Italy was the roof under which all Italians came together and it was the Kingdom of Italy that rose to be a regional power and a player on the world stage.

The late King Vittorio Emanuele III once said, in a time of political turmoil, “In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians … The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?” Surely today the Italian people can appreciate what true and prophetic words these were. And, surely Italians today can give an answer to their late king as to “who will profit from it”; the answer is the politicians who make up the ruling class, who have turned the government of Italy into a scheme for their own enrichment rather than the administration of the country. They have made themselves an immense fortune at the expense of their people and their country, setting Italians against each other, engaging in bribery on a national scale and selling out the national interests and even the national sovereignty of Italy all in order to benefit themselves and the ruling politician-class to which they aspire to belong. They have no real connection to the Italian nation at all. They do not see individuals, as the late King did, but simply a mass of people to be manipulated, used and exploited.

This stands in stark contrast to the Kings of Italy who were, one after the other, devoted to the pursuit of Italian greatness above all. They did so for the honor of their country, which would be the glory of the dynasty as well. This is one of the great benefits of the monarchial system. Politicians gain fame by gaining victories for themselves whereas monarchs take a much broader view, considering the judgment of posterity and gain fame when the country succeeds, when the country becomes greater, more respected and more prosperous. Naturally, some projects worked out better than others but the simple fact is that the Kings of Italy were always looking for a way to advance the national cause, to make Italy a greater country whereas, in the era of the republic, the political leadership only seeks to advance the cause of their own party and to make themselves greater even if it means the ruination of the country in the long run. Italy is in a dire position today and at a pivotal crossroads in the history of the Italian nation. The country is mired in debt, overrun with corrupt politicians who have made the government in Rome a joke, ruled by a bunch of un-elected appointees of the European Union, social cohesion is breaking down, there are fewer and fewer Italians in Italy and those who remain squabble over what it means to be Italian.

What would the great figures from the history of the Italian peninsula, of the Latin race, say if they could see Italy today? How would they react to the offspring of the people who built Western Civilization, who ruled and advanced the prosperity of an empire stretching from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates and Hadrian’s Wall in Britain to the cataracts in Egypt being reduced to a divided state indebted to others and ruled by an elite clique appointed from beyond her borders? The Italian Republic has proven itself a failure. It was, due to the republican plebiscite, built on fraud and injustice from the start and has failed in even its most basic duty to preserve and protect the sovereignty and independence of the Italian nation, to say nothing of allowing the Italian people to reach their greatest potential. Italians, 150 years ago, came together, united by the monarchy, to build a great nation. There is no reason they cannot do so again. It was the safeguard that the royal institution provided which prevented extremism from fracturing the country and brought the majority of both sides of the political spectrum together, on the path of moderation, to pursue the national aspirations of the Italian people.

The lesson of history could not be more clear. From 1861 until the monarchy was sidelined by political forces, Italy was growing in strength at home and prestige abroad. Since the republic came to power the country has known only renunciation and decline. The Kingdom of Italy inspired and encouraged Italians to think the best of themselves and to aspire to better themselves; to be worthy of the great civilizations that had gone before them. The republican governments encourage Italians to belittle their country, apologize for any success and generally feel ashamed of themselves. Is it any wonder that when a people are taught to think in such a way that the country falls into decline? If great deeds are to be mocked or apologized for, who would ever aspire to greatness? If the only representatives of the nation are partisan political figures, who can inspire all people of every section of society to put their country first and strive for success? Someone outside of politics is needed for that, a national figure who can represent the interests of the nation as a whole, the historic legacy of the nation and who can rally the people to live up to that legacy. For the modern, united Italy, there is simply no denying that no family can do that other than the Royal House of Savoy. They have been with modern Italy at every step of her history. Their story is the Italian story and until Italy restores the monarchy it will remain a nation in denial.

MM Movie Review: The Leopard

As we have recently seen the passing of the 150th anniversary of Italian unification, it is fitting to take a look at a movie that covered this period on the island of Sicily. It is a uniquely Sicilian story and yet much of the drama could have unfolded in almost any part of Italy as the long established aristocracy came face to face with the wave of nationalism and the forces of the revolution. I have often recommended this movie to people trying to understand the many aspects of the Risorgimento. Yet, it is not a simplistic movie. There are few angels or demons but it reveals the complex nature of the situation Italy (and in this case Sicily) found itself in during the revolutionary period. Considering who was behind it, Luchino Visconti (a communist homosexual), I was surprised by what a downright reactionary flavor it had almost throughout. Yet, Visconti, or more properly Luchino Visconti di Modrone, Count of Lonate Pozzolo, was also an aristocrat and is said to have modeled the prince whom the film revolves around after his own grandfather.

“The Leopard” is an epic film in every way; very grand, very colorful, very intricate and very long (depending on the version you see, very, very long). Visconti disowned the shortened American version for cutting out scenes he considered vital, but having only ever seen the Italian version I cannot speak to that. Watching the film you get an idea of how the Risorgimento was viewed by almost every level of society and the sometimes differing views people within each strata had about it. It is, however, the story of one aging aristocrat, Prince Don Fabrizio Salina, throughout this tumultuous period and so the emphasis is naturally on him. Because the Prince (played by American actor Burt Lancaster) is such a compelling character, the viewer cannot help but identify and sympathize with him. As a result, many of Visconti’s fellow radical leftists denounced the film when it came out as being reactionary and putting the old ruling class of Sicily in far too favorable a light. That, of course, is far too simplistic a view. Almost every side is shown in this movie, good and bad aspects alike. Almost no one is entirely pure and yet even the less palatable characters are usually shown as at least having idealistic motivations.

The title comes from the leopard on the coat of arms of the Salina family and the film opens with Prince Fabrizio, the worldly but wise patriarch, leading his family in prayer. They live in palaces, a country estate in the summer months and another as their primary residence in a ramshackle Sicilian village. The nationalist revolution sweeping Italy finally comes to intrude on this family which traces its ancestry back to ancient Rome. Garibaldi and his red shirts are invading Sicily, rallying the discontented to overthrow the Bourbon kingdom. The Prince realizes that the way of life he has always known is about to change forever and there is nothing he can do to stop it. “If we want things to stay as they are, things have to change”. There is a great sense throughout of everyone, from the highest to the lowest, being swept along by the irresistible tide of history; like it or not, revolution is coming. The Prince loves his wife, though after a moment of weakness he admits to his friend and confessor Father Pirrone that it is more of a devoted alliance than a romance. She crosses herself before every embrace and, the frustrated Prince says, despite all their years of marriage and the children they’ve had together he’s never seen the naval of his very proper and pious wife. He is devoted to his children but realizes that the future of the family will not be in their hands.

That duty will fall to his well-born but rather immature nephew Tancredi. He is a young man looking for adventure with illustrious ancestry but little money as his own father squandered the family fortune. Because of that, he needs his uncle Fabrizio as much as his uncle needs him to carry on the family line into the new Italy that is being created. Tancredi, eager for glory and excitement, rushes off to join Garibaldi as he battles his way across Sicily. Bourbon troops execute people while trying to fend off the red shirts, yet some people still support them. Many embrace the revolutionary cause, others look to their traditional leaders for guidance. Prince Fabrizio decides that they will be ruined if they oppose the coming new order and that they must come to an accommodation with the revolutionaries. It also means he will have to stoop to ingratiate himself with the rising middle class, embodied by the comical social climber Don Calogero, mayor of the local town of Donnafugata. Because of the mayor’s astuteness in taking advantage of imposed land reforms he is one of the wealthiest men in the area and set to grow richer. The Prince recognizes that the fortune of this funny little man could sustain his own family in the future.

Tancredi returns, no longer a red shirted revolutionary but as an officer in the more respectable royal army of King Victor Emmanuel II. He is more than willing to marry the daughter of Don Calogero, a stunning but unpolished girl named Angelica (played by Claudia Cardinale) because she is positively gorgeous and in the interests of his family Prince Fabrizio agrees and arranges the match though it is extremely painful for him to do so. When the unification of Sicily with the rest of Italy is voted on, the Prince (after just a hint of hesitation) votes “yes” knowing that most will follow his example and do the same. The mayor later proclaims that the vote was unanimous, however, in one of my favorite scenes, the Prince’s huntsman admits that he had voted “no”. He understood the reasons Don Fabrizio had for voting “yes” but, Spaniards or not, the old Bourbon Royal Family had been good to him and he said to have voted “yes” would have made him feel like a traitor to their memory. Tensions rise but are soon smoothed over. The Prince, who one would expect to be the reactionary, bent with the wind out of self-preservation while his lesser, who had nothing to lose, could afford to be defiant. The Prince admires his loyalty but is nonetheless sure he is doing the right thing. He comforts himself that, at least this new state will be a monarchy (yes!).

The Prince goes ahead with arranging the wedding festivities for his nephew and his beautiful, bourgeois bride. He is aware of his own age, that his day is passing and the transition from the old to the new Italy is seen in what he goes through, his trials, his adjustments and his interactions with others. There is a huge amount that is “said” in this movie of which very little is actually spoken, but you see it all played out like a grand painting that conveys a deep message without saying a word. Don Fabrizio knows what he must do and he does it, conveying mostly with his eyes and body language how difficult it is for him. He was a man used to being in charge, being the final authority and has to come to grips with the rise of a new power system. He finds Don Calogero as ridiculous as anyone and yet he must tolerate him. He finds his daughter Angelica as desirable as his nephew (and every other male that lays eyes on her) and yet he knows he can do nothing about it. In his prime he certainly could have, and we are led to believe he still *could* but such a thing would be out of the question. It is only noticeable because, Angelica knows it too.

Another very interesting part of the movie was when a government official, looking very out of place in Sicily, arrives from Turin for rather flimsy reasons. The Prince keeps him at arms length until the purpose of his visit is revealed. King Victor Emmanuel II wishes all sections of the new Kingdom of Italy to be represented in his government and Don Fabrizio was recommended to be appointed Senator. The Prince is rather repelled by the idea of becoming a statesman. He would be happy to accept another title but not an actual job. The envoy is perplexed by his attitude, having in the course of his visit become very impressed with the strength, sincerity and wisdom of the Prince. However, although Don Fabrizio would not stand opposed to the tide of history and was willing to accept the new kingdom, he was not willing to participate in it and, as he said, would be unable to function in such an environment, never having learned the arts of self-deception and double-talk required of politicians. The envoy pleads with him to reconsider, pointing out how much he could help lift Sicily out of the backward and impoverished state he found her in. The Prince informs him that the Sicilians don’t want to be helped, seeing themselves as always perfect. The envoy begs him to reconsider, sincerely admiring the man, but the Prince can only laugh off his lack of understanding of the Sicilian people and their local culture. Some things will never change. The Prince then, surprisingly (yet not so surprisingly) recommends none other than the ridiculous Don Calogero for the position, saying he possesses just the right qualities for a politician.

The final big scene of the movie is a grand ball, with all of the very finest in traditional, Old World aristocratic opulence, which lasts an astounding 45 minutes. You have to see it to believe it. It is a visually stunning sequence and I’ve never seen any movie that stuck with one setting for so long, following several conservations as a way of wrapping up all of the loose ends of the film and (here is why you must pay close attention) doing it all in spite of the fact that no one is really talking about what they seem to be talking about. It is just brilliantly done and it is not buried, if you have been paying attention throughout the movie you will easily pick up on the unsaid messages being conveyed. What is difficult is believing that such a thing in one *very* long sequence could be pulled off successfully and yet it is. Again, I’ve never seen anything like it. The realism is also no piece of artistic mastery, actual Sicilian aristocratic families were brought in to play the part of the horde of grandly dressed and bejeweled guests who represent the old elite of the Bourbon kingdom that is no more. Yet, some things go on just as they always had.

I will stress again that this is not a movie for “casual viewing”. It is very long and while there are not a lot of complex plot points or anything like that, if you don’t pay attention you will miss out on the innumerable subtleties that make this a great movie rather than just a good one. In case anyone cannot tell, I love this movie. It is an artistic masterpiece. The settings are spectacular, the buildings, the landscape, the background of life in Sicily is done perfectly. The actors are pretty much all top notch (hard to go wrong with Burt Lancaster) and I say that because they all successfully convey so much of the “feeling” of this movie just in their eyes, their expressions and their body language. I think it is a great film, and I’m not alone in that as it won a pile of awards. When it comes to understanding the Risorgimento, I tell people to just watch “The Leopard” and you will come away with a pretty good idea of it. Just so there are no false expectations, it is not a history lesson, it is not hitting you over the head with, “Here’s what happened, these guys were good, these guys were bad,” and so on. The fact that so many radical leftists condemned it as reactionary or a right-wing love letter says something to recommend it. For what it was trying to do, the time, place and people it was trying to convey, I think it hit the mark perfectly. For those who complain that I only talk about movies I hate, here is one from the opposite end. “The Leopard” -I highly recommend it.

King Vittorio Emanuele II

The man who would be the last King of Piedmont-Sardinia was known by the people of that late country, even early on, as the “Honest King” for his sincere devotion to their welfare. After going on to become the first King of Italy he became known to subsequent generations of Italians as the “Father of the Fatherland” and be celebrated and memorialized by one of the most immense and grandiose monuments ever to grace the fatal hills of Rome. Yet, this monarch who was so praised by the other courts of Europe was also, to some extent, snubbed by them and this monarch who the Pope remembered as “an honest man” was also dubbed by the Catholic press as “the Robber King”. There are few monarchs who have been simultaneously so praised and vilified as King Victor Emmanuel II. He was born on March 14, 1820 to King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont-Sardinia and Queen Maria Theresa of Austria. Part of his youth he spent in Florence where he gained a love of politics, sports and the military. The military would dominate much of his life as such service was a sacred tradition in the House of Savoy.

Victor Emmanuel II grew up on stories about the past exploits of his family. The Savoy who defended Rhodes as a Knight of Malta, the Savoy who was one of the greatest generals of Emperor Charles V, those who were blessed by the Church, went on Crusade, preserved the Shroud of Turin and so on and so forth. He was also very aware of strong differences in opinion amongst his forebears. Carlo Felice (Charles Felix) had been conservative and very attached to the sacred nature of monarchy. King Charles Albert was more liberal and, unlike his predecessors, despised the Austrians as much as they him, even to the point that they tried to thwart his succession. Victor Emmanuel II inherited many of the same internal conflicts endured by his father, a devout Catholic and firm believer in monarchy yet one whose nationalist and liberal sentiments were echoed by the “Young Italy” movement. Yet that movement ultimately made itself the enemy of the King and became radically republican. In his own time, Victor Emmanuel II would be expected to walk this same tight rope between enemies on both sides.

At the time similar conflicts were playing out all across Italy. A good illustration was when, in 1848, the people were incited to demand a constitution. King Charles Albert agreed to grant it and appeared on the balcony, waving the tricolor flag alongside his sons Victor Emmanuel and Ferdinand to the jubilant cheers of the crowd while all sang the ‘Hymn of Pius IX’ as the “liberal reformer” Pope who spoke openly of the “Italian nation” was at that time the most popular Italian of all. Things would soon change. Piedmont-Sardinia was spared further turmoil by giving in to the liberals but other states would not and when Austria sent troops to prop up their relatives in other of the minor Italian states, Piedmont-Sardinia went to war against Austria in the name of Italian independence (just as the King had earlier offered to do when Austrian troops violated the Papal States). The result was a crushing Austrian victory and King Charles Albert left the battlefield and the throne, abdicating in favor of his son who became King Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont-Sardinia.

In 1842, as Duke of Savoy, he had married his cousin Adelaide of Austria, daughter of the Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia, a small and pretty woman, very religious and very charitable. Victor Emmanuel was often far from an ideal husband but before her tragic death in 1855 she gave him eight children, her end coming from childbirth. She had, so to speak, died ‘in the line of duty’. Meanwhile, after becoming King in 1849, following the defeat at Novara, he obtained an armistice from the Austrians but never lost sight of his primary goal; not so much the unification of Italy under his own rule but rather of the independence of Italy from foreign powers so that the day might come when the peninsula was no longer a battlefield for French and Austrian armies. The first effort had ended in failure, due not only to the Austrian army but, truth be told, also to republicans who undermined the effort as it stood to preserve the existing monarchies of Italy. Independence efforts were put off for a decade.

Tensions remained high, especially so when Piedmont-Sardinia was the only constitutional monarchy on the Italian peninsula. They were most hated by local reactionaries for this reason but also by the radical revolutionaries who feared they would cut out their support by delivering the liberties they promised but doing so within the framework of a monarchy rather than a republic. Yet, this was when Victor Emmanuel II became known as the “Honest King” for being alone among his fellows in standing by the promises all had made to ensure constitutional government. As his popularity grew so did the jealousy of his enemies. He was a pleasure-loving man but not an irreligious one and commented that of all the accusations his enemies threw against him the one that hurt most was that he was anti-clerical. Over time he continued to reference God and the Church in official papers and speeches even when the audience did not react favorably to such references. He favored the plan put forward by the philosopher Gioberti that Italian unification should come about by an alliance of Rome and Turin in a confederation of the Italian states. The Prime Minister, Count Camillo Cavour, argued that it was useless to even try to negotiate with the Holy See and after efforts to make concessions failed the King began to sway to his point of view. That view was likely reinforced when the works of Gioberti were condemned and his book placed on the Index of Forbidden Works.

So, finding scant support amongst the princely states, Victor Emmanuel II turned to an alliance with Great Britain and France. He was anxious to restore the lost glory from the defeat by Austria and was assured by Cavour that joining with Britain and France in their war against Russia (on behalf of Turkey) in the Crimea was the way to do it. The British constitutional monarchy had long been a model for Piedmont-Sardinia, providing liberty enough to maintain a content public but with a strong-enough monarchy to ensure security and an orderly society. France was more worrisome but most came to believe that only an alliance with France would enable Piedmont-Sardinia to eject the Austrian army from the Italian peninsula. So it was that the northern Italian kingdom joined a war in southern Russia despite having no tangible reason to do so. Russia had not offended or harmed them in any way but if it would win the favor of Britain and France, off to the Crimea they would go.

In the end, it took even more to secure the friendship of France, including great personal sacrifices for Victor Emmanuel II; Savoy, Nice and most painful of all his daughter in a marriage to a totally unsuitable Bonaparte relative of French Emperor Napoleon III. Freedom “from the Alps to the Adriatic” was what Napoleon promised but when France and Piedmont-Sardinia marched off to war against Austria, with the moral support of much of Europe since Austria had first invaded, the bloodshed soon turned Napoleon III into a fair weather friend. In the resulting treaty only Lombardy came under the Savoy crown with Austria retaining Venetia. Still, this was seen as a victory and deputations arrived from the central Italian duchies and even the Papal States requesting that Piedmont-Sardinia take them under their wing. King Victor Emmanuel II received them politely and was sympathetic but ultimately had to refuse them. He hoped that diplomacy might yet bring about a union of the existing Italian states to the exclusion of all foreign powers.

Toward that end, his hopes rose upon the death of the King of the Two-Sicilies and the accession to the throne of Francesco (Francis) II. The late Ferdinand II had refused an alliance with the Savoy, and was hostile to Sardinia to the bitter end, but with a new king, Victor Emmanuel II hoped things might be different and he offered an alliance again to King Francis II, uniting the Italian states between them with Sardinia responsible for the north and Sicily for the south. However, Francis II, one of those upright men who have often faced disastrous consequences for holding to their principles rather than practicality, refused the offer of friendship. With the Pope now refusing any sort of unity at all and the rejection of Francis II any hope that Italian independence could be achieved by a union of the existing monarchies evaporated. The only remaining choices were a revolutionary republic, as represented by the likes of Giuseppe Mazzini, or a constitutional monarchy as represented by King Victor Emmanuel II.

The moderates clung to him, in the words of the celebrated poet Alessandro Manzoni, “I see in the character of the king the intervention of Providence. He is exactly the sovereign that circumstances require to accomplish the resurrection of Italy”. And this was no rabid revolutionary but a man who had renounced his youthful rebelliousness for an austere Catholicism and who devoted much of his literary talents to writing, with religious guidance, on Catholic morality. Yet, whether the King liked it or not, events were unfolding rapidly and there was little he could do to control them for long. Immediately after the war, the professional revolutionary and ardent republican Giuseppe Garibaldi was preparing to march on Rome, overthrow the Papal States and force the area to join the slowly uniting Italy. Turin was in an uproar and the King summoned Garibaldi to order him to desist from such brash aggression. Garibaldi, though an ardent republican who had no use for kings, admired Victor Emmanuel II as a man and agreed to stand down. The King had also had a falling out with Cavour but still felt compelled to appoint him as his representative to a congress of the European nations gathering to deal with all the turmoil in Italy in early 1860. The King thought Cavour too rash and Cavour thought his monarch too deliberate. Nonetheless, an accord was reached and Cavour was back in power as head of the government.

The congress was never called as no country was willing to go out on a limb to restore the central Italian princes who had abandoned their thrones. Even the Church garnered little but moral support. Austria was under threat from France and Prussia, the anti-clerical party in France was strong and growing in anger over Papal support for the royalist cause. Belgium was divided on the issue and Spain and Portugal were both ruled by monarchs the Church had recently opposed, even if never officially. The issue of the Papal States soon dominated the “problem” of Italy. The liberals who had once applauded Pope Pius IX now vilified him and after being driven from Rome by a short-lived republic, the Pope had become an ardent reactionary. Only a tiny minority in Italy ever questioned the goodness and piety of the Pontiff but, given his shifting record, many were increasingly willing to question his ability as a monarch. The King and Pontiff exchanged many eloquent letters, each extremely polite and respectful toward the other but neither achieving any progress. The King professed that he took his duties seriously as a Catholic prince but that he also had a duty to safeguard the independence of Italy and, as he pointed out in one such letter, he did so, “following the impulse given from the Vatican” which was a thinly-veiled reference to the rather contradictory policy of the Holy See concerning Italy.

The Pope had righteous principle on his side but little else and it did not present a pleasant picture to the world that so saintly a man as Pius IX was only able to maintain his rule by the presence of, first, Austrian and later French bayonets. The Pope replied, politely and with great refinement, that the annexation of those parts of the Papal States outside Rome were beneath the dignity of so great a king and son of so august and ancient a Catholic royal house as the Savoy. His greatest concern, the Pontiff said, was for the soul of the King which would surely be lost if he persisted in challenging the temporal rule of the Church over central Italy. In short, there could be absolutely no compromise on the subject. Either Italian unity and independence would be abandoned or the theocracy must be destroyed. There could be no other option. Both men were convinced that right was on their side and neither could be moved from their positions even an inch. Conflict was inevitable.

The central Italian states were annexed by Piedmont-Sardinia after referendums which the nationalists hailed as positive proof of popular support and which the Church condemned as totally fraudulent. In truth, and this would continue for a long time in Church-State relations in Italy, the nationalists were probably correct since the Church, which was not about to abide by the referendum, forbid anyone from participating. Today this seems harsh but the Papal position was perfectly understandable. In the Papal States, moral law was secular law. To work on Sunday, miss monthly confession or get too friendly before marriage was not only immoral but illegal; in fact it was illegal *because* it was immoral. Things like moral law, right and wrong, or the legitimacy of papal rule could not be subject to popular opinion. It would have negated what the Papal States stood for (the beginning of an issue that remains problematic for the Church even today). So, the Pope could not recognize the results of the referendum which were unanimously in favor of union with Italy because all of those loyal to the Pope obediently refrained from voting.

King Victor Emmanuel II immediately wrote to the Pope, defending his position and asking the Pope to accept his religious sincerity and to work with him to reconcile their differences. Six days later the Pope publicly excommunicated the King, while still, in his written reply, asking God to bless the King. Such was Pius IX. The King was, naturally, deeply troubled by all this, as were all Italians who were, despite political differences, overwhelmingly Catholic. None could fail to admire the courage of the Pontiff and yet, when he claimed it as his sacred duty to uphold the temporal power, they remembered how he had once granted a constitution and the laity in government and other liberal reforms only to revoke them all later. This lack of consistency allowed the nationalists to pick the version of Pius IX that most pleased them and blame the harsher version on wicked advisors from whom the Pontiff must be rescued and so also be relieved of the “burdens” of temporal rule. There were also plenty of priests and bishops throughout Italy who continued to administer the sacraments despite the blanket excommunication on the King, his government, his army and any who cooperated with him, obeyed him or recognized his authority. Italy was not only split by being forced to choose between “nation” and “religion” but the Church was as well.

The King continued to go to mass, be given communion and so on. He also continued to write to the Pope explaining to him that his position would be unchanged, his authority and inviolability would be guaranteed and that the only difference would be that Italian troops would protect him instead of Austrian or French ones. Each time the Pope responded with two words, “not possible”. Meanwhile the King, who never liked being away from Piedmont, toured his new domain to a rapturous welcome with his record of success having won over most of the liberals as well as the moderates. Only the clerical faction and the most ardent republican revolutionaries remained opposed to the idea of a united Kingdom of Italy under Victor Emmanuel II. The clerical faction was mostly powerless as they refused to participate in the political process and the republicans had diverted their attention southward to the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies where Garibaldi turned his attentions after being dissuaded from attacking Rome by Victor Emmanuel II.

The southern Bourbon bastion was gripped by crisis. The Swiss mercenaries who made up the backbone of the military had mutinied and been bloodily suppressed. The uncle of King Francis II had even joined the nationalists after his nephew had refused to go along with the liberal movement and turned down two offers of friendship from Piedmont-Sardinia. There had even been an effort, talked about in Naples, Rome and Vienna to form a ‘Holy League’ to oppose Piedmont-Sardinia by bringing in Spanish troops (the only other monarchy where the Bourbon dynasty still ruled). However, Spain refused on the grounds that such an effort would be too unpopular and dangerous. This is not surprising given that the Church had backed the Carlist faction in trying to overthrow Queen Isabella II and bitter divisions remained in Spanish society. Those loyal to the Queen were sympathetic to the liberals, not Francis II or the Pope and the Queen would not dare weaken her army at home and risk being overthrown herself by the Carlists who remained a force to be reckoned with no matter how religious and reactionary (both good things) she herself was seen as being by the liberals in Spain.

Thus Naples was already rife with revolutionary conspiracies when Garibaldi and his red-shirt republicans invaded Sicily and quickly overran the island. Count Cavour supported the expedition which brought down a storm of outrage on Turin. The King had been reluctant to have Cavour back and when he did, made it clear that Cavour would be responsible for his own actions. Cavour refused to back down. They had twice offered Naples an alliance and been twice refused so they felt no great guilt in viewing King Francis II as their unofficial enemy. The King had and would continue to have stringent disagreements with Garibaldi (who certainly felt no great loyalty toward him) yet he could not help but admire the man who showed such audacity, devotion to his nation and strict adherence to his principles -even if those principles made him opposed to the very concept of monarchy. In Naples King Francis II belatedly offered a constitutional government but it was too little, too late. His ministers resigned, most of his military forces melted away and with Sardinian ships looking on, Garibaldi crossed to the mainland (despite the King asking him not to) and occupied Naples, proclaiming a provisional government.

At the end of the year King Victor Emmanuel II decided to intervene directly and Piedmontese troops began investing the port city of Gaeta on November 6. The French had guarded Gaeta by sea but finally their support was withdrawn, yet King Francis II and his lovely Bavarian Queen resisted with great heroism that inspired everyone, friend and foe alike, at the last stand of the Bourbons in Italy. On February 13, 1861 the fortress city finally surrendered. The Two-Sicilies were annexed and, after the usual plebiscites, on March 17, 1861 Victor Emmanuel II was declared the first King of Italy by the first national government based in Turin. However, one final step remained toward full unification and, in some ways, it would be the most difficult. That was the Eternal City of Rome, all that remained of the Papal States and that held up only by the presence of French troops. Napoleon III had shifted positions again, fearing a potential rival rather than a strong ally and was being influenced by his devout and virtuous Spanish wife the Empress Eugenie. Despite their many differences, the French had actually given military support to the House of Savoy in the past and King Victor Emmanuel II wanted no conflict with them. As long as the French army remained in Rome the city every Italian looked to as their capital would remain out of reach of the new kingdom.

Garibaldi felt no such hesitation and tried twice to conquer the city only to be defeated by the French and the Papal army of international volunteers who had made their way to Rome to defend the theocracy, cheering Pius IX as the ‘Pope-King’. In the meantime, in 1866 King Victor Emmanuel II allied with Prussia in another war against Austria. The Prussians effectively used the Italians as a red flag to arouse Austria and then claim self-defense and drive the Austrians from their place of preeminence in Germany. It was not a pleasant affair for Italy but, in the end, Veneto was at long last added to the Italian nation. All that remained was Rome and, in a way, it would be Prussia that proved instrumental in removing that obstacle as well. In 1870 the Prussians provoked France into launching a foolhardy attack and used that to rally the German states in a war against Napoleon III that would result in the creation of the modern Germany.

The French troops were hurriedly pulled out of Rome at this crisis at which point Italy moved to take the city, claiming (rather lamely) to be responding to ‘riots and disorder’. As he had done before, the Pope deployed his army but then tried to prevent them from actually fighting. He knew it was hopeless, yet he wanted some symbolic shots to be fired to show that he was being conquered and not going along with the takeover willingly. However, some of his forces resisted anyway but the poorly maintained force of volunteers from around the world were brushed aside by the Italian army with little difficulty. Rome was taken and, after a brief stay in Florence, the Italian government moved there to make the Eternal City their capital. The Pope withdrew behind the walls of the Vatican, declaring himself a prisoner and refusing to recognize the Kingdom of Italy in any way. It was the start of a stand-off that would last well into the next century.

King Victor Emmanuel II was undoubtedly an ambitious man, yet he was reticent to be seen as a conqueror and had held back at almost every step on the road to unification. He was, however, willing to take advantage of opportunities that presented themselves even while he was troubled about it. For instance, once Rome had fallen the King was reluctant to even visit the city and the first time he did, informally, was after the Tiber flooded, causing great suffering, and he came with a few courtiers to survey the damage and help in any way he could. Later, when he made his formal entry into Rome, he did not want to take up residence in the Quirinal Palace which had formerly belonged to the Pope. He finally did some time after it became clear that no accommodation would be reached. The King felt the offer of his government had been more than generous; guarantees of independence for the Church, exclusive use of Church property, control over all of Rome within the Leonine Wall and a substantial annual pension. When the Pope refused this offer, many admired his principled stand but others, especially in the increasingly anti-clerical government, saw the Pope as unreasonable and lost interest in even trying to come to any agreement and adopted the attitude that the radicals had been right all along about the Church being on the side of their foreign enemies.

When the King came to open the first national parliament in Rome his speech was largely dominated by assurances to the Church, a “free Church in a free State” was the catch phrase of the time. Other than that, he remarked on the historic nature of their meeting that, for the first time since the era of the Roman Empire, the people of Italy were united under one monarch, led by one government in Rome and that no foreign armies stood on Italian soil. They had fought long and hard to see this accomplished and the King wished to embark on a period of rejuvenation after this ordeal and having made Italy united to focus on making Italy prosperous and a member of the community of great European powers. It was a period of seemingly limitless possibilities for Italy and her new Royal Family. In 1870, with some difficulty, the King persuaded his son to accept the offer of the throne of Spain from the provisional government there. To rescue Spain from disorder and anarchy and restore her to benevolent power seemed, to Victor Emmanuel II, a glorious and worthy undertaking for a Savoy prince. He would have been wiser to have listened to his advisors who all warned against it. Queen Isabella II had been overthrown for being too conservative for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives. Spain was torn by more factions and more pretenders to the throne than any country in Europe. The liberal moderates called for a Savoy but the conservatives supported the line of Isabella II, the Carlists supported the line of her uncle and there were republicans who wanted a President. However, the Duke of Aosta was accepted as King Amadeus I of Spain though it would prove to be a doomed enterprise.

As King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II toured the country, noting improvements and infrastructure projects that would have to be made. He also accepted friendly visits from princes from Great Britain, Prussia and even Austria. To the surprise of many he was invited to Vienna to be the special guest of Emperor Francis Joseph. The two former enemies met and embraced as friends in a touching moment of reconciliation between two ancient royal houses that had once been the closest of allies. Going on to Prussia the public gave him a rousing welcome and he won over the princes and people alike with his simple manners, good humor and friendly nature. When he told the Kaiser that, were he not bound to follow the advice of his ministers, he would have made war on Germany at the side of his old ally France but was of course now glad to be good friends, Kaiser Wilhelm I thanked him for his honesty. When these monarchs returned the visit of the King there was another touching moment on the part of the gentlemanly Emperor Francis Joseph. He could not come to Rome for fear of offending the Pope, nor could he meet the King at Florence or Naples for fear of offending his relatives so he decided on Venice, which had been his own domain but which showed the bigger man he was in putting the past behind him.

Even toward the end of his life the King kept up his formidable schedule. Some eyebrows were raised in 1869 when he married a commoner-turned-countess named Rosa Vercellana. According to some, he did this while in a fever and later regretted it but nonetheless continued to regard her as his wife for the rest of his years and had two children by her. He was famously punctual, familiar and informal though he could manage proper regal dignity when the occasion demanded. His good nature made him generous with the endless petitioners who came to him for help, despite his very meager allowance, and he was often taken advantage of by fraudsters, but it never dissuaded him. He left debts rather than a fortune behind him which his son, King Umberto I, insisted on paying himself though a grateful nation offered to cover it. The King never refused a favor and even the Pope once asked him for one though he continued to officially refuse to recognize the King or the new country. Victor Emmanuel II had even offered to abdicate if it would spare the Pontiff pain but the Pope, unlike many others then or since, was not so petty a man as to hold a grudge.

When the King, for whom it was always a sacrifice being away from his beloved Piedmont, fell deathly ill in the damp climate of Rome, the Pope lifted his excommunication and sent a priest to administer the last rites, saying his first thought had been to go himself. Few knew that the King and the Pontiff had resumed their secret correspondence in their final years. When word reached the Vatican Palace that the King had died, the Pope was heard to say, “He died like a Christian, a Sovereign and an honest man”. He died on January 9, 1878 surrounded by such of his family as could arrive in time, after being confessed and given the Sacrament by his chaplain, with permission from the Vatican. A great monument was built in his honor and praise poured in from all quarters. There was a great deal of exaggeration at times, to be expected from a nation still young and exuberant but his status as the first King of Italy and “Father of the Fatherland” cannot be denied. All patriotic Italians, not only the monarchists, should remember that and reflect on the man and monarch who brought about the necessary unity and guiding hand to create their country.