That last one is remarkable as the current Italian state itself is the legal successor of the previous state in which Mussolini -as early as 1924- won a landslide qualified majority via democratic (!) elections. The snipe towards the Savoys sounds very much the blind leading the blind.
I moved this discussion from the Danish forum because I thought it would be more appropriate here.
Generally speaking, I think it is correct to say that the House of Savoy, or at least Vittorio Emanuele III (possibly also his son), colluded with Mussolini. The King could have cracked down on the fascists following the March on Rome by declaring a state of siege. Instead he chose to appoint Mussolini prime minister. Then he could have dismissed Mussolini following Matteotti's assassination in 1924, but he did not do it. Then, in 1925-26, the King signed without protest laws that eliminated freedom of speech and assembly, abolished freedom of the press, and declared the Fascist Party to be the only legal party in Italy. He also remained silent when Mussolini illegally evicted all opposition MPs by declaring that they had forfeited their seats in Parliament.
Furthermore, although the King was probably personally against Italy entering WWII and was prepared to dismiss Mussolini in 1939 over that issue, he showed weakness again and eventually gave in to Mussolini's demands following Germany's spectacular victory in the western front and the collapse of France in 1940. Following Italy's defeat in North Africa, once again the King resisted calls from the military to sack Mussolini and sided with the dictator. And, in December 1941, he agreed to Mussolini's demand that Italy declared war on the United States.
In fact, the King did not dismiss Mussolini and sign an armistice with the Allies until 1943, when the direction of the war was clearly turning and allied troops were already in Sicily. Even then, he still sought guarantees that the Italian colonial empire in the horn of Africa would be restored and that Italy would keep the territories that Mussolini had annexed in the Balkans, none of which of course the Allies ultimately agreed to.
My take is that Vittorio Emanuele III probably saw the Socialists and the Communists as the main threat to his family and to the country and felt that fascism was the "safest" alternative to preserve Italy's status quo, even if that meant abandoning parliamentary democracy as it had been
de facto practiced by unwritten constitutional convention until the 1920s. The King was hardly alone in that opinion, which was probably once shared by a significant percentage of the Italian elite, but the fact that, of all people, he was the one who had the power to intervene and stop Mussolini, especially before 1930 or early during the war, makes him especially guilty in my humble opinion.
As those who knew best warned him at the time, the King would live to regret his decisions, which ultimately sealed his fate and the fate of his illustrious 1,000-year-old dynasty.Still, the way his family was treated by the Italian Republic was appalling.