Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The Kings Family have properties where to live and should not look for a compromise asking a residence from the state.
 
The convincing argument for me would be: "For the execution of the royal dignity, in the new role we are carving out for the former royal family, there needs to be an accomodation befitting the prestige of the former royal family: anyone will understand they have to maintain a certain state".

But a valid argument can also be: "The state will provide an office. For ceremonial purposes the former Royal Palace in Bucharest can be used. There is no need to give Elisabeta Palace for 49 years".
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
The convincing argument for me would be: "For the execution of the royal dignity, in the new role we are carving out for the former royal family, there needs to be an accomodation befitting the prestige and the dignity of the users."

But a valid argument can also be: "The state will provide an office. For ceremonial purposes the former Royal Palace in Bucharest can be used. There is no need to give Elisabeta Palace for 49 years".
Click to expand...

I have to admit that this time I agree with you. For important events the state can allow the Family to use the Royal Palace.


The President of the Senate ( who supported the bill about the King's Family from the beginning) says that to return the use to the State of Elisabeta Palace could be seen as a real step back:

https://www.stiripesurse.ro/calin-p...ala-sa-i-se-ia-palatul-elisabeta_1239353.html
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
What is the convincing argument that the republic has to do this? After all former royal residences have been already returned in the ownership of the former royal family.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone argue that the state of Romania has to do anything, and wherever this process leads, I think the most likely outcome is a compromise between the government, who can't be seen as succumbing to monarchical pressure without actually having the issue of the monarchy on the agenda, and the Royal House, who, no matter from what palace or castle they will run their operations, will again serve the Romanian people in a more formalized way.
 
Cory said:
The Kings Family have properties where to live and should not look for a compromise asking a residence from the state.
Click to expand...



Elisabeta Palace was a private residence, already belonging to a member of the Romanian Royal Family (Princess Elisabeth, daughter of King Ferdinand I and Queen Marie; aunt of King Michael I) so naturally, the palace should be returned to the Royal Family as it was illegally nationalised by the Soviets in Romania!
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
From an objective point of view I have to agree with the Romanian Prime Minister. They would never give the daughter of a former President a mansion from the State. So why should they give a mansion, for 49 years even, to the daughter of a former head of state, from 70 years ago?

It is the same as giving Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of a former head of state, a mansion paid for by the taxpayers. To give a comparison: in lots of reigning monarchies sons and daughters of the actual head of state have to provide in their very own housing, like we all have to do.
Click to expand...



The problem here is that, the Royal Family need a residence in Bucharest! Which is the most populated city and where the Royal Crowds can actually go to.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that, the Palace was built by the private funds of the original owner, Princess Elisabeth of Romania and after her during the socialist republic it was used by the state, so an illegal occupation and nationalisation of somebody's private estate, as they had done with all private owned royal residences. The reason taxpayers pay for the Palace, is because it was the official residence of the Romanian Head of State, who ruled the country longer than anyone in the republic, of course with the exception of the dictators.
 
If there was a strong enough claim that the Elisabeta Palace was personal property of the family then it surely would have gone back to the family with Savarsin Castle
& Peleş Castle.
I have to say there seems a lot of uncertainty in Romania at the moment. A republic giving the family of a deposed Monarch use of an official residence gives mixed messages IMO.
 
tommy100 said:
If there was a strong enough claim that the Elisabeta Palace was personal property of the family then it surely would have gone back to the family with Savarsin Castle
& Peleş Castle.
I have to say there seems a lot of uncertainty in Romania at the moment. A republic giving the family of a deposed Monarch use of an official residence gives mixed messages IMO.
Click to expand...


The entire Peles Castle Complex, consisting of the park, the castles, and the hunting lodge was already in possession of King Michael as well as Savarsin Palace and park.
It is clear and evident that Elisabeta Palace was in fact private property, as stated by letters published by the Royal House, stating that the funds to build the palace were Princess Elizabeth's so what dispute can their possibly be apart from the insistence of the government, which can already be deemed illegal.
 
RoyalJewelish said:
The entire Peles Castle Complex, consisting of the park, the castles, and the hunting lodge was already in possession of King Michael as well as Savarsin Palace and park.
It is clear and evident that Elisabeta Palace was in fact private property, as stated by letters published by the Royal House, stating that the funds to build the palace were Princess Elizabeth's so what dispute can their possibly be apart from the insistence of the government, which can already be deemed illegal.
Click to expand...

Elisabeta Palace was not built by the late King and had never been his property.
 
RoyalJewelish said:
But if you read my response then you'd have known what I said
Click to expand...

It is state property because none of the nephew's or nieces of the late Princess started a legal claim.
 
The Goverment gave a negative response to the so called "Law of the Royal House" underlining Elisabeta Palace was given in use to the King and not to his descendants:

m.antena3.ro

Lovitură din partea Guvernului pentru Casa Regală a României

Guvernul a decis, în şedinţa de miercuri, să dea un aviz negativ iniţiativei legislative referitoare la reglementarea statutului juridic al Casei Regale, au declarat, pentru Agerpres, surse...
m.antena3.ro
 
One Castle Savarsin is enough for The Crown Princess and her husband.
 
maria-olivia said:
One Castle Savarsin is enough for The Crown Princess and her husband.
Click to expand...


The government can't take back The Peles Castle complex as she already owns it.
But the issue is that Bucharest is a capital and they need some sort of residence in the capital as an official residence where they can also receive dignitaries as well as Royal supports whereas in savarsin there are much less people than in Bucharest
 
RoyalJewelish said:
The government can't take back The Peles Castle complex as she already owns it.
But the issue is that Bucharest is a capital and they need some sort of residence in the capital as an official residence where they can also receive dignitaries as well as Royal supports whereas in savarsin there are much less people than in Bucharest
Click to expand...

This is not the responsability of the goverment.
 
RoyalJewelish said:
In my opinion it should be, it is only because of the Romanian Royal Family that the government is as it is.
Click to expand...

The country is a republic and the King's Family has enough properties where to live.
 
RoyalJewelish said:
The government can't take back The Peles Castle complex as she already owns it.
But the issue is that Bucharest is a capital and they need some sort of residence in the capital as an official residence where they can also receive dignitaries as well as Royal supports whereas in savarsin there are much less people than in Bucharest
Click to expand...

By my knowledge the State wanted to buy Peles castle but the negotiations for the sale are not completed?
 
Cory said:
This is not the responsability of the goverment.
Click to expand...

It is the responsibility of the government because the State made an arrangement with the late King Michael but still there are unclarities about the use and the future of Peles Castle.

Since the building belongs to the national patrimonium, since the state uses it as a national museum, it is logic that the state has a responsibility as well.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
It is the responsibility of the government because the State made an arrangement with the late King Michael but still there are unclarities about the use and the future of Peles Castle.

Since the building belongs to the national patrimonium, since the state uses it as a national museum, it is logic that the state has a responsibility as well.
Click to expand...



The entire complex is owned by Crown Princess Margareta, there is no exterior ownership, there is a lease for Peles (national history board) and the hunting lodge/foisor (local council) and the surrounding properties including Pelisor castle and certain areas of the park are off bound to the public as private residence of the royal family.
 
Not a lot off palaces for 3 members of a Royal Family of the past : Crown Princess , Prince Radu and Princess Maria and no Heir, no future .
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
It is the responsibility of the government because the State made an arrangement with the late King Michael but still there are unclarities about the use and the future of Peles Castle.

Since the building belongs to the national patrimonium, since the state uses it as a national museum, it is logic that the state has a responsibility as well.
Click to expand...

The state gave Elisabeta Palace as an official residence of the King because he was considered a firmer head of state. The Palace was not given in use for the Kings Family but for the King. The fact some members of the Famiy lived there was only because the King was still alive.
Now the government can ask for a big rent for the Palace or can ask the Family to leave the Palace at the beginning of February. The state has no responsibility towards a private family.
 
Last edited:
RoyalJewelish said:
The entire complex is owned by Crown Princess Margareta, there is no exterior ownership, there is a lease for Peles (national history board) and the hunting lodge/foisor (local council) and the surrounding properties including Pelisor castle and certain areas of the park are off bound to the public as private residence of the royal family.
Click to expand...

Why only one daughter of the King should own the castle and not all of them?
 
Cory said:
Why only one daughter of the King should own the castle and not all of them?
Click to expand...

Possibly a fideï-commis sort of systematic in a will (a "pass through the generations"-clausule to keep the historic patrimonium of the former royal family at the disposal of the Bearer of the Crown). This is not unusual amongst royal and noble dynasties.

Such a fideï-commis means the family is the heir but a designated person enjoys the usufruct and ownership's rights without actually being the owner.
 
Last edited:
The government does not accept to let the Family live in the Palace for an year without rent and then only to pay a rent:

m.adevarul.ro

Cum taie Tudose statutul de asistat social al Casei Regale. „Ai luat Peleşul, ai luat Săvârşinul, cu nişte pădurice, cu nişte pădure, cu nişte domenii“

Premierul Mihai Tudose a anunţat că Guvernul a dat aviz negativ proiectului prin care Casa Regală primea Palatul Elisabeta pentru 49 de ani, mai ales după ce reprezentanţii acesteia au venit cu o „solicitare de închiriere puţin ciudată“ prin care voi...
m.adevarul.ro m.adevarul.ro
 
maria-olivia said:
Not a lot off palaces for 3 members of a Royal Family of the past : Crown Princess , Prince Radu and Princess Maria and no Heir, no future .
Click to expand...



I aswell as many other people believe that they should be able to reside in Elisabeta Palace without having to pay rent, the palace is associated with the royal family.
Also there is an heir, Princess Elena who in turn will be succeeded by her daughter or either Nicholas so there is a future*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Prussian and Hohenzollern Palaces, Castles and other Royal Residences
2 3
Replies
89
Views
40K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Josefine
The Royal Palace of Stockholm, Stockholm
6 7 8
Replies
219
Views
57K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom