Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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-punctu...rivind-statutul-casei-regale_826781.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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Elisabeta Palace is not private property now but state property.
 
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.
 
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/...rgareta-1_5a587030df52022f756e3e19/index.html
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Is he still alive to do It?
 
Is he still alive to do It?
No idea but if he's not I'm sure he did it before he died like the rest of us. In a matter of fact in most European countries you don't have to sign a will since your heirs are often regulated by the law.
 
No idea but if he's not I'm sure he did it before he died like the rest of us. In a matter of fact in most European countries you don't have to sign a will since your heirs are often regulated by the law.

If Marc Favrat is not alive and has no heirs the descendants of Queen Maria of Yugoslavia, of Princess Ileana and of Carol II can claim the Palace.
 
:previous:
And in addition to them also the heirs of Prince Nicolae would have a right to claim (part of) it.
 
:previous:
And in addition to them also the heirs of Prince Nicolae would have a right to claim (part of) it.

Prince Nicolae did not have children. Only Carol II, Queen Maria of Yugoslavia and Princess Ileana have descendants.
 
Is he still alive to do It?

According to the American biographer Marlene Eilers Koenig, Marc Favrat was born in Paris on 8 March 1924 and died in the same city on 5 March 2000.
 
Does anybody know who inherited Marc Favrat' s goods?
 
Prince Nicolae did not have children. Only Carol II, Queen Maria of Yugoslavia and Princess Ileana have descendants.

The fact that he didn't have children doesn't mean that he also didn't have heirs. When he died he had a wife and most likely she was his heir (or at least one of his heirs).
So also his heirs (as well as Princess Elisabeth's heirs and Marc Favrat's heirs, whoever they are) should be taken into account, if and when someone will claim back Elisabeth Palace.
 
The fact that he didn't have children doesn't mean that he also didn't have heirs. When he died he had a wife and most likely she was his heir (or at least one of his heirs).
So also his heirs (as well as Princess Elisabeth's heirs and Marc Favrat's heirs, whoever they are) should be taken into account, if and when someone will claim back Elisabeth Palace.

Prince Nicholas wife died herself and Marc Favrat died too. I do not know who inherited both of them.
There is no claim for Elisabeta Palace at the moment.
If nothing changes the Kings Family will move from the Palace.
 
If Marc Favrat is not alive and has no heirs the descendants of Queen Maria of Yugoslavia, of Princess Ileana and of Carol II can claim the Palace.


As I said in my previous post, the Yugoslavian Royal descendants of Queen Maria and Austrian-Tuscan descendants of Princess Ileana most probably wouldn't claim because of their closeness and allegiance towards the Romanian Royal Family
 
Back
Top Bottom