Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

You stated the government can ask for rent yet the entire republic is a forced foundation of an illegal abolishment of a monarchy

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

Why only one daughter of the King should own the castle and not all of them?

Because they are a Royal Family and rather than having issues with inheritance, the properties stay in the family

[Cory]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

Because they are a Royal Family and rather than having issues with inheritance, the properties stay in the family

The King's Family has to respect the legal system regarding inheritance like any other family of tge country.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

You stated the government can ask for rent yet the entire republic is a forced foundation of an illegal abolishment of a monarchy

The palace is officially a property of the state so the government can ask the Family to move or to pay a considerable rent starting with february.


The document if the Government opposing the proposed bill was published by the press:

http://stiri.tvr.ro/exclusiv-punctul...6781.html#view

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

The palace is officially a property of the state so the government can ask the Family to move or to pay a considerable rent starting with february.


The document if the Government opposing the proposed bill was published by the press:

http://stiri.tvr.ro/exclusiv-punctul...6781.html#view

Legally it should be the property of the Royal Family as it was owned by Princess Elisabeth of Romania and was nationalised ILLEGALLY during the socialist republic

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

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*

Why should Romania do it without rent? Everyone has to pay. And suddenly Margareta not? It would be the same as the USA giving a house for free to the Kennedy children or grandchildren.

Romania has bern very generous. As long as Michael was alive, they offered him the use of Elisabeta Palace. But why should this be extended -for free- to his children, or grandchildren?

In all fairness: Romania has a point. Note that there are also monarchies in which it is completely the Heir's own responsibility to find accomodation. They have to live in private property. And that while they are the future monarch.

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Why should Romania do it without rent? Everyone has to pay. And suddenly Margareta not? It would be the same as the USA giving a house for free to the Kennedy children or grandchildren.

Romania has bern very generous. As long as Michael was alive, they offered him the use of Elisabeta Palace. But why should this be extended -for free- to his children, or grandchildren?

In all fairness: Romania has a point. Note that there are also monarchies in which it is completely the Heir's own responsibility to find accomodation. They have to live in private property. And that while they are the future monarch.

The thing which you clearly fail to understand is that the Palace was Private Property so it's quite hypocritical of the government to be saying what they've said.
Also you've got to understand the difference between a monarchy and a republic, a president doesn't own any of the presidential properties or items, but can use them as they please and leave for the next president, similar to a monarchy but in a monarchy it stays with the family and the monarch has more privileges and power, what you said about the Kennedy's has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever because their private property is theirs and the US government would have no right to seize that but what you've failed to understand is that the Romanian Royal Family should legally own the palace as it was private property and was seized/nationalised which is unlawful

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

Legally it should be the property of the Royal Family as it was owned by Princess Elisabeth of Romania and was nationalised ILLEGALLY during the socialist republic

Then it should not be the property of the Royal Family, but rather of the heirs of Princess Elisabeth, shouldn't it?
IIRC Elisabeth some time before her death adopter her last lover, Marc Favrat, and I believe he was also her heir; then only he and, after his death, his own heir could have a claim to the property of the Palace.

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Then it should not be the property of the Royal Family, but rather of the heirs of Princess Elisabeth, shouldn't it?
IIRC Elisabeth some time before her death adopter her last lover, Marc Favrat, and I believe he was also her heir; then only he and, after his death, his own heir could have a claim to the property of the Palace.

The Royal Family are the heirs of princess Elisabeth as she had no children so her property would obviously be inherited by the closest family but no I doubt that his heirs would even stand a chance

[JR76]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

The Royal Family are the heirs of princess Elisabeth as she had no children so her property would obviously be inherited by the closest family but no I doubt that his heirs would even stand a chance

As the previous poster wrote Princess Elisabeth adopted someone late in life. Given that adoption is valid that man or his heirs are the heirs of the princess.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

Legally it should be the property of the Royal Family as it was owned by Princess Elisabeth of Romania and was nationalised ILLEGALLY during the socialist republic

The descendants of the late King could be some of the heirs of Princess Elisabeta but also the descendants of Princess Ileana and Queen Marie if Yugoslavia are heirs too.

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

The descendants of the late King could be some of the heirs of Princess Elisabeta but also the descendants of Princess Ileana and Queen Marie if Yugoslavia are heirs too.

I doubt they'd claim because of their respect and allegiance towards the Romanian Royal Family

[Cory]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

I doubt they'd claim because of their respect and allegiance towards the Romanian Royal Family

If Marc Favrat did not have descendants all the nephews of Princess Elisabeta can claim the property. This Palace have never been property of King Mihai. Until such a claim is made and a possible case is won the state owns the Palace.

[RoyalJewelish]

Originally Posted by Cory

If Marc Favrat did not have descendants all the nephews of Princess Elisabeta can claim the property. This Palace have never been property of King Mihai. Until such a claim is made and a possible case is won the state owns the Palace.

Favrat has no know descendants or family, but in this case they're quite irrelevant.. adoption laws in France are different to that of the ones in Romania

[Cory]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

Favrat has no know descendants or family, but in this case they're quite irrelevant.. adoption laws in France are different to that of the ones in Romania

An adopted son and his descendants have rights if inheritance in Romania too but the problem has probably no consequences because Marc Caveat did not have descendants
Because the different nephew's if Princess Elisabeta did not claim the Palace si the property remains in the hands if the Government.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by RoyalJewelish

The thing which you clearly fail to understand is that the Palace was Private Property [...]

Was private property indeed.

18 years ago the former King accepted the arrangements made with the State about the use of Elisabeta Palace. With this the King accepted that the State is the owner of the former royal residence, which was given in usufruct to him.

[Cory]

Elisabeta Palace is not private property now but state property.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Cory

An adopted son and his descendants have rights if inheritance in Romania too but the problem has probably no consequences because Marc Caveat did not have descendants
Because the different nephew's if Princess Elisabeta did not claim the Palace si the property remains in the hands if the Government.

You don't need descendants to have heirs. I don't have children and I can leave my properties to whoever I like who are then my heirs.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JR76

You don't need descendants to have heirs. I don't have children and I can leave my properties to whoever I like who are then my heirs.

We do not know if Princess Elisabeta signed a will to leave her properties and goods to somebody else than Marc Favrat.Certainly she did not leave her goods to King Mihai.

Anyhow it seems that the Family will respect the nowadays legislation and probably move from the Palace in february:

http://m.adevarul.ro/news/politica/c...e19/index.html

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Cory

We do not know if Princess Elisabeta signed a will to leave her properties and goods to somebody else than Marc Favrat.Certainly she did not leave her goods to King Mihai.

If the princess left her properties to Marc Favrat it's up to him to sign a will naming his heirs not his adopted mother.