O Príncipe que Nunca Foi Rei

This is a true crime documentary series that is more about personalities than the events that took place. It follows the lives of the last heir to the throne of Italy and the sister of the boy who he killed. I don't think the series is as interesting as it could have been. I think the reason is that while Savoy did kill the boy it was not by any objective reasoning murder. It was manslaughter. He got into an argument and in the course of an argument fired a rifle as a warning shot, was immediately jumped by another man who pushed him into the water and as he fell the rifle discharged and the bullet went through the wall of a nearby boat and shot an 18 year old boy. The boy eventually died. The Savoy family had a lot of influence on this island and so the investigation was delayed but there was a trial and he was acquitted. Was it a fair trial? No, probably not, but convicting him of murder also I think would have been an exaggeration. The sense of entitlement that savoy emits just makes him an unlikable character and it's easy to see how he got into that situation. And while I empathize immense with the family of the boy who was killed for me it just seems like a tragic accident. The rest of his shady deals were probably much more criminal.

Even if you put aside his confessions, circumstantial evidence, improbable alternative theory... there's a chilling nonchalance about his demeanour - smirking or making inappropriately trivial comments at the wrong time - which is either a consequence of his unbridled privileges or psychopathy, or both.

This whole series of events can serve as a good case study for history (monarchy, Europe), psychology, judiciary system, criminology (including corruptions), geography, anthropology and linguistic.

Hope the Hammer family will continue to find peace after such a tragedy.

This documentary succeeds in being compact and concise. With all the events unfolding, other docus might have dragged on for many more episodes.

I (American, 63) knew nothing of this story. In found it fascinating. It struck me, both as history and as documentary, as startling, moving, repellant, and well-made by turns. The contemporary footage-these people are rich and privileged, and they filmed their lives, it seems, regularly-is striking, as is the use the documentarians made of it. The interviews are also compelling. I like the digressions too; others may find them distracting. The music seemed pushy to me, but every minute of film and interview struck me as telling. It doesn't hurt that everyone is good-looking, tan, wealthy-and often around lovely beaches in Italy-France. And that everyone speaks three or four languages-and one hears Italian in three or four or five marked accents.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows this low life loser murdered that boy and lied about it. His son and wife join him in lying about the killing. The French and Italian justice system are as corrupt or more so than that of the USA's in this regard. They ignored witnesses, lied, clearly were biased in favor of the killer, who even after admitting on camera and on tape that he killed the boy, was never convicted. This is a very convincing judgment of a bad man with a bad family connected to evil people. At times is was difficult to watch the human scum that never would be king, who deserves to be in prison.

I include myself in the group of people who had never heard about this story and found it fascinating.

The documentary itself explains the most important points and respects the viewer, leaving out irrelevant information.

As for constructive criticism, in the beginning it could be a bit more clear so we understand better the different characters. Also, it would have been good to know what is going on with the main characters today.

The more I learned about the case, the more outraged I felt about the system. A very clear example of how justice is different depending on the subject. It must have been very hard to endure for the family.