My Final Analysis, Part 3 Republic Decree

   Back to the question of ownership. I have to confess, even before my participation in Shroud research dating back before 2000, I always believed that the State-owned all the Savoy’s possessions, including the Shroud. I believed this because my mother told me. Yes, my mother. The explanation is quite simple. My mother was a dear friend of Gustavo and Fiammetta Ajo, Mr. Ajo was the executive vice president of Bache & Co and was in charge of the international branch representing high-powered people all over the world for financial investments. One of his clients was King Umberto. If memory serves me well, I believe my mother met the King in 1967 during an art exhibit at Bryon Gallery. The art exhibition was to benefit the Relief Fund of Florentine, Italy to help with the conservation and restoration of thousands of artworks destroyed the previous year due to flooding of the Arno River. Chaperoning the King for the event was Fiammetta Ajo, and afterward, Mrs. Ajo, ended the evening by entertaining the King with the traditional socialite cocktail party.
    A dear friend of the family, Mauro Lucentini, whose prestigious career spanned close to 70 years as an ANSA journalist, was the husband of Paola Ajo. Paola was the oldest daughter of Gustavo and Fiammetta. On occasion, the Lucentinis met with the King in an informal setting. I visited Mauro in 2018 for confirmation of my mother’s knowledge about the Savoy’s properties. Unfortunately, Mauro does not remember discussing proprietorship or anything relating to the Shroud with the King. Instead, Mauro recalls his offer to write the King’s autobiography, to which the King entertained the possibility. When I pressed Mauro again on legal dealing with the State about ownership, specifically on the Shroud, he explained that the matter was never brought to light. It is understandable since the King dominated the conversation, and Mauro was being a gracious host.
I explained to Mauro my interest in this topic because I am finishing up my book using documents from the Guild’s archives. Understanding the importance of this chapter, Mauro was eager to assist me and would ask a friend who was very much involved in Shroud politics, Vittorio Canuto.
   What prompted my interest in ownership was the mass amounts of documents found pertaining to the proprietorship of the Shroud. However, objectively, I will admit, I found nothing definitive in any of these letters because the authors who penned them were not the primary source. The initial document I came across that stimulated my investigation was a letter penned by Monsignor Coero Borga to Father Rinaldi.  On October 28, 1966, here he offered his own opinion on the matter of ownership while planning for the 1969 examination of the Shroud. Monsignor Coero Borga writes,

In my opinion, the moving of the Holy Shroud from Italy should not be considered (the question of ownership would surely come up); nor should it leave Turin. In the opinion of the majority, the best solution would be to transfer it secretly to the Archbishop's palace where the necessary equipment could be installed.
(Bracaglia, Uncovering the Paradox within the Archives of the Holy Shroud Guild, 2019)

   The letter from Monsignor Coero Borga does demonstrate the church’s concerns in dealing with the delicate matter between the House of Savoy and the State. Another supporting document found was the guest list, which included prominent State officials at the 1969 examination of the Shroud. The two most important representatives for the State were, Professor Umberto Chierici, Ministry of Education, and Nino Riccardo Toncelli, Ministry of Finance. Digging deeper into the importance of these representatives for the State, I researched the ministries they represented.
   Nino Riccardo Toncelli represents Italy’s Ministry of Finance. The Ministry has four main departments: The Department of Treasury; General State Account; Finances Department; and the Department of General Administration. Of the four, the Treasury Department funds the Cultural Heritage of Italy’s tangible and intangible historical past. Italy and many other European countries depend on cultural heritage for their tourism economy. But, more importantly, for humans’ psyche, it defines civilization. 
Elegantly explained by archaeologist and art historian, Salvatore Settis during a presentation at BARD Graduate Center, states,

While current laws (protection of Cultural Heritage) belong to a sequence started after Italian unification (1859–70), they cannot be explained in terms of nationalism. Rather, ethical and juridical principles of conservation have a much deeper root, i.e. a lasting tradition, starting (for instance in Rome, Naples, or Venice) long before the very concept of “nation” was operative in Europe.
(The Protection of Cultural Heritage in Italy.)
https://www.bgc.bard.edu/events/56/02-nov-2016-the-protection

   Unlike consumerist nations such as the United States, cultural heritage plays an important resolution in nations' historical history. In principle, cultural heritage defines human development; the good, and the bad.     
   The second State’s dignitary guest present during the 1969 examination was Professor Chierici. As Minister of Education, his expertise was in conservation. Born into one of the most influential families in conservator-restoration, his father, Gino Chierici was the leading architectural conservator-restorer during the first half of the twentieth century. After World War Two, Gino retired and now the baton was in the hands of his son Umberto. As part of the team for postwar reconstruction, Umberto was appointed to the position of Superintendence of medieval and modern art for Abruzzo and Molise in the L’Aquila region
    The Superintendence, (Soprintendenze) is assigned by the Ministry of the Cultural Heritage as the regional directors protecting and restoring historical assets in their respective localities. The history of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage has gone through many official names and organizational hierarchy, though the underlying mission has never changed. Its mission is to protect the Italian Republic’s historical and artistic cultural heritage. The Vatican is also obliged to protect the Church’s cultural heritage. In the modifications to the Lateran Concordat in 1984, Article 12, both the Church and State agreed to collaborate for the protection of these assets. Articles 13 and 14, discusses implementation and mitigation for these processes.
   After World War Two, Italy began to revitalize its commercial infrastructures and expanded its development in housing projects away from historical centers. Afraid of unregulated expansion throughout Italy, in 1964, the Ministry of Education proposed a public inquiry.  Known as the Franceschini commission, it was named after Francesco Franceschini who presided over the assignment. The Commission was composed of 16 parliamentary members and 11 experts in artistry, archaeology, law, and library science. Due to the Italian bureaucracy, the commission only lasted three years and was dissolved favoring a new group. Not all was lost. In the three years of the commission’s existence, they managed to propose nine urgent recommendations of which one was to systematically inventory Italy’s cultural heritage.
   In a cost projection report in 1966, the now Superintendent, Umberto Chierici of Piemonte, inventoried the once magnificent Royal Residency, Palazzo Venaria. In disgust, he reported the physical condition of the Royal Residency, stating,

[…] Even today, through the abandoned halls, the vandals continue to roam and to demolish all that is possible, cutting and removing wooden beams wherever they are. Nothing remains of the floor, not a window or door, the iron keys that the driving thrust to the vaults and arches of the Gallery di Diana, chimneys have been removed, as well as the stone slabs to cover the terraces […].
 https://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/15002/1/tesi.pdf
(Main Source on Page (p 24), 28 Dalla perizia di spesa n. 8 del 30 aprile 1966 a cura del Soprintendente Umberto Chierici.

   In 1969, as Soprintendente of Piedmonte, Professor Umberto Chierici published his book titled, Torino, Il Palazzo Reale. The book’s introduction was a brief history of the Royal Palace, which followed with documentary photographs categorizing historical artifacts and each room located inside the Royal Palace. Oddly, the book only photographed three items inside the Cappella Regia, with its main focus on Pietro Piffetti’s Tabernacolo. What was not categorized in the book was the La Cappella della Sindone and no mention of the Sacra Sindone. Many attribute the absence of these items because the four secretive rooms off the Swizz Hall is not part of the Palazzo Reale. Nonetheless, Professor Chierici was in a position to categorize La Cappella della Sindone as well as the Sacra Sindone because of his presence in the 1969 Shroud Commission.
   It does appear Professor Umberto Chierici, was involved in appraising the cost of structural repairs and the monetary assets of the confiscated property and contents of Palazzo Venaria. The cost report is used by the States Treasury Department as well as the Cultural Heritage and Activities. In my research, I did not find a cost report for the Palazzo Reale, however, inside the 1969 publication of Torino, Il Palazzo Reale, an official Soprintendenze of Piemonte stamp printed on the first page of the book is clearly marked. The significance of the official stamp indicated that Professor Chierici executed a systematic inventory inside Il Palazzo Reale, as recommended during the Franceschini commission.
   More recently, In June of 1997, a report to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee compiled a list of all the residences of the Royal properties owned by the State. The report was prepared to secure international funding for the conservation and preservation of the Royal Houses. On page 98 of the report, it emphatically states, “In the west wing the Cappella of the Sacred Shroud, is structurally part of the Palace.”

https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/823bis.pdf
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1997)

   The report submitted to the World Heritage Committee demonstrated that the Cappella of the Sacred Shroud where the Shroud was kept, belonged to the Republic. Ironically, The Shroud was removed the same year of the World Heritage Committee report was compiled because of the 1997 fire inside the Chapel. In 2018, the restoration of the Chapel was completed and supposedly, the Shroud was to be returned. But, due to the conservation of the Shroud, the Chapel at this time is not favorable, and the Shroud has remained at the Cathedral.
   Before the evidence I just previously discussed, in 2016, I gathered my documents from the Holy Shroud Guild’s archives, months of research, and my mother’s testimony, and contacted Carlos Evaristo to clarify the matter of ownership. Evaristo’s expertise as a Shroud historian is exemplified in his 2011 book, The Untold Story of the Holy Shroud. His book is a collection of his presentations, which include unknown facts and rituals regarding the Shroud that was communicated to him by Prince Vittorio Emanuele himself. As luck would have it, Evaristo was going to receive the Savoy Prince in a few weeks during the FIDES conference that Evaristo hosts. He explained that he was going to show the letters that I had presented to him to the Prince for his evaluation.
    I had forwarded Evaristo that brought to light more information about the relationships between the King, the Church, and the State regarding the ownership of the Shroud. Throughout my investigations and the documents that had been retrieved from the Guild, I was convinced the Shroud belonged to the State. The underlying theme of documents that related to the Shroud’s ownership revealed that the Church and the King were fearful that the State might intervene at any time to take legal action and confiscate the Shroud on behalf of the Republic. On June 3, 2016, just was one day after the FIDES conference, I received Evaristo’s email with the Prince’s confirmation. In the E-Mail he writes,

“Hi, Giorgio, the visit of HRH the Prince of Venice for the institution of FIDES and the King Umberto II of Savoy medal for Shroud promotion and Research went great. I referenced you and your letters in my talk on King Umberto and the Prince confirmed the truth of this.” 
(Bracaglia, Uncovering the Paradox within the Archives of the Holy Shroud Guild, 2019)

   The Prince agreed with the reason that I had given for the Italian State having never acted to repossess the Shroud. As I mentioned to Evaristo, it would be safe to assume that the Italian State understood the importance of the Shroud to Catholics and Christians alike and would have never interfered with the Kings wishes to will the relic to the living Pope. It was also prudent for the King to establish ownership by entertaining experiments with the Shroud in hopes that one day he would be able to return to his homeland. Confirmation of my hypothesis was announced at the Fides Conference at Fatima. Here is a YouTube link provided by Carlos from his presentation during the June 2nd, 2016, FIDES Conference at Fatima,
https://youtu.be/SKnaRVlrwk8?t=536
   It was Dr. Ceroni who was the first Guild member to ask permission for a private exposition for American Scholars to examine the Shroud. In 1955, as a member of the Holy Shroud Guild, Dr. Ceroni visited the exiled King of Italy, Umberto II, requesting his approval for a new investigation, including carbon dating of the Shroud. The meeting between his Majesty and Dr. Ceroni was agreed upon after Dr. Ceroni composed nine queries for the King’s approval. The meeting took place in Cannes, where the King gave his blessing to all of Dr. Ceroni requests and expressed his great admiration for the work of the Americans Sindonologists on the behave of the Shroud. (Bracaglia, Uncovering the Paradox within the Archives of the Holy Shroud Guild, 2019)
            Throughout His Majesty’s exile, King Umberto was always entertaining Shroud research with the Church acting as the custodian. The relationship between the House of Savoy and the Church, remained as it was even after to abdication of the King’s throne. This interdependent relation allowed the Church to continue venerating the Holy Cloth, and the King affirming his justly claim to legal ownership. A simple example to understand his Majesty’s logic is to imagine you own a private driveway that is used by other neighbors continuously and uninterrupted for more than 20 years. If within a 20 year time period and never obstructed to prevent egress or ingress, the private driveway is considered public domain.  To prevent loss of ownership, the driveway must be impassable for at least one full day within the 20 years. Subsequently, this action demonstrates proprietorship of the driveway and provides sufficient proof of ownership for litigation.
An actual example to assert ownership of the Shroud is seen during a parliamentary hearing. An amendment to the Constitution was ratified on October 23, 2002, allowing the descendants of the Savoys to be permitted to return to Italy. However, the House of Savoy’s assets and territories will adhere to the original 1946 Italian Constitution. To assure the Republic’s claim to the House of Savoy’s possessions, in 2007, Legislators, Marco Perduca and Donatella Poretti, from the Democratic Party submitted a written question to the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities. They write;

Al Ministro per i beni e le attività culturali - Premesso che:
la XIII disposizione transitoria e finale della Costituzione della Repubblica italiana, come risultante dopo le modifiche di cui alla legge costituzione 23 ottobre 2002, n. 1 (Gazzetta Ufficiale 26 ottobre 2002, n. 252) così recita: "I beni, esistenti nel territorio nazionale, degli ex re di Casa Savoia, delle loro consorti e dei loro discendenti maschi, sono avocati allo Stato. I trasferimenti e le costituzioni di diritti reali sui beni stessi, che siano avvenuti dopo il 2 giugno 1946, sono nulli."; nei giorni scorsi, il professor Francesco Margiotta Broglio, uno dei massimi studiosi dei rapporti fra Stato e Chiesa in Italia, a cui si deve la revisione del Concordato del 1984, ha espresso un parere motivato, ribadendo che, ai sensi della suddetta XIII disposizione, la Sindone è di proprietà dello Stato italiano, poiché deve essere considerato giuridicamente nullo l'atto di donazione della reliquia al Papa, compiuto dai Savoia, a seguito di un lascito testamentario, alla morte dell'ultimo re d'Italia, Umberto II, nel 1983;
la riaffermazione della proprietà dello Stato sulla Sindone, a giudizio degli interroganti, può e deve significare soprattutto la possibilità di nuovi studi scientifici indipendenti, non condizionati, sulle origini del lenzuolo, si chiede di sapere quali iniziative il Ministro in indirizzo intenda prendere, alla luce del parere autorevolmente espresso dal professor Margiotta Broglio, per riaffermare e ribadire la proprietà dello Stato italiano sulla Sindone, senza per questo negare in alcun modo sia a credenti e fedeli la possibilità di accesso e di venerazione, sia all'Episcopato torinese la possibilità di conservazione e di ostensione della reliquia. (Poretti & Perduca, 2009)
http://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Resaula&leg=16&id=424222&part=doc_dc

Using Google translator, here is an adequate English version.

To the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities - Given that:
the XIII transitional and final provision of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, as resulting after the amendments referred to in the Constitution Law of 23 October 2002, n. 1 reads as follows: "The assets, existing in the national territory, of the former kings of the House of Savoy, their spouses and their male descendants, are advocated to the State. Transfers and constitutions real rights on the assets themselves, which occurred after June 2, 1946, are null. " in recent days, Professor Francesco Margiotta Broglio, one of the leading scholars of the relationship between State and Church in Italy, who is responsible for the revision of the 1984 Concordat, has expressed a reasoned opinion, reiterating that, pursuant to the aforementioned XIII provision, the Shroud is the property of the Italian State, since the act of donation of the relic to the Pope, made by the Savoy, following a testamentary bequest, on the death of the last king of Italy, Umberto II, in the 1983; the reaffirmation of State ownership of the Shroud, in the opinion of the interrogators, can and must above all mean the possibility of new independent scientific studies, not conditioned, on the origins of the sheet, we ask to know what initiatives the Minister intends to take, in the light of the authoritative opinion expressed by Professor Margiotta Broglio, to reaffirm and reaffirm the ownership of the Italian State on the Shroud, without denying in any way both believers and faithful the possibility of access and veneration, and to the Turin Episcopate the possibility of preserving and displaying the relic.

  Observing this inquiry, the Shroud’s proprietorship continues to be ambiguous, even among elected officials. Instead, Poretti and Perduca provide writings from a legal expert supporting States ownership. The question remains, does the Holy See through the living Pope have the full title of the Holy Relic? Or, according to legal scholar Professor Broglio, he asserts that the ownership of the Shroud belongs to the State. Perduca and Poretti addressed the question to the Minister of Cultural Heritage probably just to have it recorded in the Government records.
One of the main functions of the Cultural Heritage is to protect Italian tangible artifacts and relics including the possessions owned by the Church. Article 12 of the 1984 Concordat revision stipulates that both parties, the Church and the State agree to collaborate in protecting Italian heritage. These measures also necessitate cooperation protecting other countries' heritage as well.
   About 20 years ago I had a discussion with Father Brinkman, the last President of the Holy Shroud Guild. He raised an interesting hypothesis. Father Brinkman told me that during the time of carbon dating, he was told if the Shroud dated back to the first century, international jurisdiction of proprietorship can be claimed by the Turkish Government. The assertion was based on the historical documents from the fourth Crusades. The responsibility of the determination of proprietorship falls to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and is enforced by Interpol or local jurisdictions, and in this case, Italy’s, Il Comando Carabinieri Tutela Patrimonio Culturale. At the time, I did not think much of the information shared by Father Brinkman. However, with the ambiguous actions of the radiocarbon Labs, imagine if the Shroud was dated back to the first century?
   In 2019, I was back in New York City to have paperwork finalized at the Italian Consulate for my daughter’s wedding. While there, I visited Mauro Lucentini. Our discussions were more informal, mostly talking about our families. Thankfully, during our conversation, Mauro brought up Vittorio's response relating to the proprietorship of the Shroud. In essence, Professor Canuto agreed with my analysis.  
   The strongest evidence of ownership I provide of the Shroud is from the June 2nd, 2016, FIDES Conference. It was during the conference that Carlos Evaristo relayed Prince Vittorio's response to my inquiry. Prince Vittorio’s acknowledgment is the most powerful evidence of Shroud ownership. During my conversation with Carlos Evaristo, I made Carlos aware that the Prince’s family and ours both had mutual acquaintances with the Ajos, and Lucentini. The Prince was probably aware that Fiammetta or Gustavo Ajo might have whispered to my family his father’s affair. Gustavo undoubtedly would have known about Umberto’s estate as his financial advisor.           
   Today, the Shroud is definitely under the Pope’s custodian. With the modifications of the Lateran Concordat in 1984, cultural historical and artistic heritage belonging to the Church is administered by the Ecclesiastical authorities. As for ownership, the authoritative opinion expressed by Professor Margiotta Broglio emphasizes that the title of the Shroud belongs to the State, under the supervision of Il Ministro per I beni e le attività culturali.  And as previously done throughout King Umberto’s exile, the Government will not impede Turin’s authority assigned to the Cardinel to preserve and display the Holy Shroud to all of Christianity. As it was done during the King's exile.

In Memory of Mauro Lucentini. My 2019 meeting with Mauro was the last time I would see him.
He was a renowned Journalist and author of my favorite book, 
The Rome Guide: Step by Step Through History's Greatest City,
His investigating style inspired me to write my book in the same fashion.  
God Bless you Mauro
May he Rest in Peace