Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences

[Cory]

The Palace has never belonged to the Queen mother Helen but to the former Queen Elisabeth of the Hellenes. Any state building can be asked back by the heirs of the former owner.
The project of law has not even arrived at the Parliament so we will speak about its real consequences regarding the palace only if the project becomes law.

[LadyRohan]

The Crown Princess has legal right of residency for her lifetime, irrespective of the new law or not. If it passes, the Royal House gets occupancy rights for the next 99 years, or in practice, in perpetuity. In any other circumstance, the residency of the Elisabeta Palace is regulated by the compensation act of 2005 towards the Royal Family, granting her lifetime residency in the palace.

[Benjamin]

A comprehensive article from 10 May (Royalty Day) that outlines the various castles and palaces in Romania with links to the Royal Family:

King’s Day special: In the footsteps of Romania's Royal Family - Romania Insider

[Cory]

The Royal Palace and Casa Noua as well as Cotroceni have always been property of the state.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Royal Palace and Casa Noua as well as Cotroceni have always been property of the state.

This is a very non-nuanced statement, as of these 3, only the Royal Palace has not been the direct property of the Royal Family, but like in most monarchies, just as the Queen may own Windsor Castle technically, she cannot sell it.
The line between personal property and government owned/controlled is often murky in monarchies, and in a former monarchy turned republic, this is obviously an even more unclear area.

[Cory]

Cotroceni has never been a property of the Royal Family.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Cotroceni has never been a property of the Royal Family.

Cotroceni was built by King Carol I as a residence for his heirs in future according to every source I can find. If you can point to any other fact proving that a negative, I'd love to read it.

I would hope that 'evidence' isn't the illegal confiscation by the communists of all royal properties in Romania following the forced removal of the King.

[Cory]

Cotroceni was not a private property of Carol I but of the Crown. It was a Monastery of Serban Cantacuzino that was changed into a palace.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Cotroceni was not a private property of Carol I but of the Crown. It was a Monastery of Serban Cantacuzino that was changed into a palace.

The monastery was torn down and replaced with the current Cotroceni palace, and the distinction between private property and properly of the crown is not black and white, in most cases.

At any rate, as Romania is a republic nowadays, and the palace is the presidential palace, it's slightly irrelevant.

[Cory]

The proofCotroceni has never been a private property of the Royal Family is obvious: no King spoke about it in his will as a private property.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The proofCotroceni has never been a private property of the Royal Family is obvious: no King spoke about it in his will as a private property.

That is not the same as a castle being private or not.
Property owned in the name of the Crown is transferred automatically and does not need a will. The King who built it probably didn't envisage a communist takeover.

[Cory]

Cotroceni has never been a private property of any King. That's the big difference with Peles and Pelisor.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Cotroceni has never been a private property of any King. That's the big difference with Peles and Pelisor.

For every answer, you keep changing the premise of the comment.
The words you're using now were not the ones that I answered, as you said: 'this and that palace have always been the property of the State'. It was not whether or not the palace was 'private property'.

Well, the state was monarchical, King Carol I had Cotroceni Palace built and designated it to his heirs.
In plain English, that means that it was intended to be occupied and used by his heirs.
150 years ago, the Crown, the State and the Royal House were not easily distinguishable, so this debate is circular and pointless.

One cannot always separate in black and white what belongs to a Royal Family and what belongs to the state in a monarchy. That is part of why so many settlement processes have been complicated, and that is the background of Cotroceni.
It was built by a King, it was given a royal purpose and then the monarchy was abolished.

[Cory]

Only a part of the buildings at Cotroceni were built during the time of Carol I because there was the ancient monastery of Prince Serban Cantacuzino.
The goods of the Crown were not private property of any King and they were only used by the Royal Family. The members of the Royal Family had private property and that was very clear different from the goods of the Crown.
Cotroceni was established by King Carol I as future official residence of the Crown Princes of Romania and that happened only with Crown Prince Ferdinand and His Family before 1914.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Only a part of the buildings at Cotroceni were built during the time of Carol I because there was the ancient monastery of Prince Serban Cantacuzino.
The goods of the Crown were not private property of any King and they were only used by the Royal Family. The members of the Royal Family had private property and that was very clear different from the goods of the Crown.
Cotroceni was established by King Carol I as future official residence of the Crown Princes of Romania and that happened only with Crown Prince Ferdinand and His Family before 1914.

So basically there's no disagreement here. Great!

[Cory]

There was some years ago a nice book about the history and today realitues of Cotroceni Palace.

[eya]

Săvârşin park and watch holiday home

Săvârșin, parcul și casa la ceas de sărbătoare | Familia Regală a României / Royal Family of Romania

[eya]

Elisabeta Palace garden in spring!!!

Grădina Palatului Elisabeta, în primăvară | Familia Regală a României / Royal Family of Romania

[maria-olivia]

Do they have these Palaces because of King Michel ?

[MAfan]

They have it because of a 2001 law, which granted the use of Elisabeta Palace as an official residence for King Michael, Queen Anne and Crown Princess Margareta (not sure if also Prince Radu) during their lifetime.