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".
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.
The Kings Family have properties where to live and should not look for a compromise asking a residence from the state.
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.
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.
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.
Elisabeta Palace was not built by the late King and had never been his property.
But if you read my response then you'd have known what I said
One Castle Savarsin is enough for The Crown Princess and her husband.
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
This is not the responsability of the goverment.
In my opinion it should be, it is only because of the Romanian Royal Family that the government is as it is.
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
This is not the responsability of the goverment.
By my knowledge the State wanted to buy Peles castle but the negotiations for the sale are not completed?
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.
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.
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.
Why only one daughter of the King should own the castle and not all of them?
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 .