Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Jawohl. Befehl ist Befehl!

Come on Cory!

Bonne chance.

[LadyRohan]

We can all choose to ignore logic and reason in favour of a campaign against the Royal Family, but surely it doesn’t need to be expressed in 17 consecutive posts?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

We can all choose to ignore logic and reason in favour of a campaign against the Royal Family, but surely it doesn’t need to be expressed in 17 consecutive posts?

Well, we've all seen this before haven't we...

[Cory]

Different opinions in the main political party regarding the possibility of the King's Family to continue to use the Elisabeta Palace:

http://www.romaniatv.net/mobi/premie...le_394272.html

https://m.antena3.ro/politica/tensiu...le-447600.html

[Benjamin]

Not surprised by this about-face from the Romanian government.

This is why one cannot trust fully in the promises of politicians...

PM Tudose: Royal Family already has enough properties; they can set up a residence in Savarsin

Prime Minister Mihai Tudose said on Thursday that the Government will give a negative review to the legislation by Liviu Dragnea and Calin Popescu Tariceanu, which proposes that the Royal House of Romania receive several facilities and material benefits.

Tudose argued, 'As far as I know, Romania is a republic, not a monarchy. The Royal House has enough properties – Savarsin, Peles – where they can establish a residence.'

More from: PM Tudose: Royal Family already has enough properties; they can set up a residence in Savarsin - Business Review

[Cory]

The government decides what to do with the protocol residences and Elisabeta Palace is in such a category. The different nephews and nieces or grand-nephews and grand-nieces of late Princess Elisabeta can ask for the restitution of the palace.

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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 reiging monarchies sons and daughters of the actual head of state have to provide in their very own housing, like we all have to do.

Not all the politicians of the prime minister party agreed with him on this issue.

The President of the Chamber of Deputees (who had proposed the bill about the "Royal House) said that the problem of Elisabeta Palace is in the hands of the government:

http://m.adevarul.ro/news/politica/c...e38/index.html

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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 reiging monarchies sons and daughters of the actual head of state have to provide in their very own housing, like we all have to do.

It’s not an entirely apt comparison, as you well know, but it takes a little too much time and sidestepping this thread to once again explain the difference between monarchies and their royal houses, and republics, and their former residents, especially if said monarchy was abolished illegally, etc etc.

The important thing here is that the PM seems to only oppose the residential bit of the law, and not the crux of it, so Im sure that with some gentle navigation and backroom debate, this issue will be resolved. Whether the Royal House will operate from Elisabeta Palace or not is perhaps not the most important thing, but the important factor at this point in time, is to create unity in the family, so the government and republicans who inherently might oppose this, have nothing to point to when they’re looking for a publicly acceptable reason to thwart the process.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

It’s not an entirely apt comparison, as you well know, but it takes a little too much time and sidestepping this thread to once again explain the difference between monarchies and their royal houses, and republics, and their former residents, especially if said monarchy was abolished illegally, etc etc.

The important thing here is that the PM seems to only oppose the residential bit of the law, and not the crux of it, so Im sure that with some gentle navigation and backroom debate, this issue will be resolved. Whether the Royal House will operate from Elisabeta Palace or not is perhaps not the most important thing, but the important factor at this point in time, is to create unity in the family, so the government and republicans who inherently might oppose this, have nothing to point to when they’re looking for a publicly acceptable reason to thwart the process.

You are avoiding the fish in the soup. Again from an objective view: is it normal that children of former heads of state get housing from the state, paid for by the taxpayer? And I have brought into consideration that there are monarchies in which children of the head of state simply have to provide in their own housing.

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.

[Cory]

The Kings Family have properties where to live and should not look for a compromise asking a residence from the state.

[Duc_et_Pair]

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".

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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".

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-po...a_1239353.html

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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.

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]

The Royal Throne is not at the Royal Palace but at Golesti:

http://evz.ro/tronul-regelui-mihai-gasit.html

[Cory]

A politician asked why the nephews and nieces,grand-nephews and grand-nieces of the late Princess Elisabeta do not ask to become owners of Elisabeta Palace:

https://www.stiripesurse.ro/documente-explozive-despre-averea-casei-regale--dezvaluiri-despre-proprietarul-palatului-elisabeta_1240384.html

[Cory]

Article about Peles Castle in "Point de vue" describing the beginnings of the castle:

http://www.pointdevue.fr/art-de-vivre/la-decouverte-du-chateau-de-pelesh-en-roumanie_4367.html

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Kings Family have properties where to live and should not look for a compromise asking a residence from the state.

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!

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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.

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.

[tommy100]

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.