I have always wondered if italians feel any affection for their former royal house (the House of Savoy). As I recall, the last king of Italy abdicated at the end of WWII.
Presumably, the 67 years since have made the royal family pretty remote.
Still, Spain went back to a monarchy (after decdes of fascist distatorship).
So, , the question is:
-are there any constitutional bar to this?
-is the House of Savoy willing to take the jon back?
-is there any popular support for a constitutional monarchy?
Maybe the italians are sick of politicians like Bulusconi-they might welcome a monarch with some (perceived) ethics?
It’s a crazy idea I know, but did it occur to you that the answer might be right there in the text of the Constitution of Italy? (The link is to a PDF copy of the English translation.) It starts, “Italy is a democratic Republic founded on labour. Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised by the people in the forms and within the limits of the Constitution.” Later it says, “Access and sojourn in the national territory shall be forbidden to the ex-kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants.” So in my non-legal opinion, the answer to your question is yes, the constitution of Italy precludes Italy from becoming a monarchy again.
Note also Article 139, in the section on constitutional amendments:
So are male decendents of the House of Savoy really legally barred from entering Italy?
There’s a footnote indicating those provisions have been repealed.
The ban was very real. The last king was never allowed to return, and his son was also prevented from entering Italy. He threatened to take Italy to the European Court of Human Rights. Eventually in 2002 the constitutional provision was overturned and he is now allowed to enter the country at will.
To answer the OP, while the constitution of the Republic can not be amended to allow for a monarchy, it’s possible for a republic to transition to a monarchy by suspending the constitution and replacing it with a new one. It’s happened in France numerous times, for example in 1852.
I think you may misunderstand how countries with a prime minister work: in Italy the prime minister is not the head of state. It has a non-political president that takes on the role that the monarch would have in a constitutional monarchy. Germany, Ireland, Israel and India are also countries with a similar non-political president (and you probably couldn’t name most of those presidents even if you know who the prime minister is (the Chancellor of Germany is the prime minister)).
Even if Italy did become a monarchy again, it is extremely likely that it would be a constitutional monarchy like the UK or Spain - in this type of country, as in those mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is the prime minister who has the political power.
I think most countries in Europe use one of these models - France confuses things by having a political PM and a political president.
Goddamit Silvio, no: you can’t declare yourself king.
Oh, how cute. I suppose it never occured to the authors of this document that a future monarchist legislature could simply pass an amendment to remove Article 139 and then introduce a new amendment to install a king.
Why should it have? They’re simply making clear how firm they feel about this issue. Future legislatures could do a lot of things and would you want a constitution that was so locked down future people couldn’t effect changes on important aspects of it?
Lots of Constitutions have similar clauses (including the US, IIRC Senate representation isn’t “amendable” without the consent of the states affected). Its at least debatable whether you can legally amend out the “blocks” themselves. I take the view you can’t, you’d need to start over with a new Constitution if you wanted to change those portions, but views vary.
You could also quibble about the exact definition of “form of a Republic”, if what you wanted to do was establish a modern constitutional monarchy with a parliament, and a monarch whose powers are largely symbolic. It is sometimes argued that such things are effectively republics in all but name. The term “crowned republic” is sometimes used. The important point for a loose definition of what you mean by a republican form being the existence of a directly elected legislative body.
And what if Italy breaks up? The “Northern League” has been making noises for some time. This wold present an interesting situation…maybee the Kingdom of Sardinia could be revived too!
I believe the OP was answered pretty well. Now you’re just starting to post “…what if?”
Closing this one.
samclem, Moderator