Romanian Castles, Palaces and Residences


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
You're welcome An Ard Ri! I love the interiors of this Palace, traditional but not old-fashioned and homely too!
 
The visits of HRH the Prince of Wales in Transylvania really support the tourism in the area. The Castles and the noble residences become more known like this.
 
The Prince of Wales greated his Cousine shortly and then had quiet life in his lands with bio food etc...
 
Cory said:
The visits of HRH the Prince of Wales in Transylvania really support the tourism in the area. The Castles and the noble residences become more known like this.
Click to expand...

This is very true - more and more people are discovering what an exceptionally beautiful country Romania is, including the various castles and palaces.
 
Transylvania is really one of the most beautiful parts of central-oriental Europe.
 
Hairball said:
I agree!

Do they still own Vlad's Castle in Brasov? Wasn't it a royal residence once? Didn't Queen Marie redecorate it?
Click to expand...

Bran Castle, the one referenced as Dracula's Castle by some, became a royal residence after WWI, and was indeed enjoyed by Queen Marie until her death, when it was inherited by her daughter, Princess Ileana. After the monarchy was abolished, the communists would seize all royal properties including Bran Castle, and it was only in, I think 2009 or so that a long court battle was over (the government signed a law giving the castle back to the rightful owners, but the courts struck it down as illegal at first), and the children of Princess Ileana, H.I & R.H Archduke Dominic of Austria-Tuscany (Dominic von Habsburg) and his sisters received ownership of the castle.
It's been used as a museum for many years now, and the Archduke has said the family wanted it to remain that way, showing lots of possessions from the days the Queen lived there etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is the only castle owned by the Habsburgs in Transylvania.
 
No other member of any branch of the Habsburgs have properties in Transylvania except the son of Archduke Anton and his sisters. The Habsburgs are of course still very respected in the ancient Principality.
 
Cory said:
No other member of any branch of the Habsburgs have properties in Transylvania except the son of Archduke Anton and his sisters. The Habsburgs are of course still very respected in the ancient Principality.
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed.
 
Jacknch said:
This is very true - more and more people are discovering what an exceptionally beautiful country Romania is, including the various castles and palaces.
Click to expand...

The majority of the visited castles would be in Transylvania but not all can be visited and many have to be renewed.
 
Cory said:
The majority of the visited castles would be in Transylvania but not all can be visited and many have to be renewed.
Click to expand...

Most castles are however kept up, and run as museums or similarly, contributing to their upkeep.
 
Jacknch said:
Hopefully, the government will continue to allow it to be used by the royal family as Margarita and Radu spend a lot of time there.
Click to expand...

If the palace is not asked back by the descedants of all the nephews and nieces of the firmer Queen Elisabeta of the Hellenes it could be rented in the future to Princess Margareta.
 
Cory said:
If the palace is not asked back by the descedants of all the nephews and nieces of the firmer Queen Elisabeta of the Hellenes it could be rented in the future to Princess Margareta.
Click to expand...

As you know very well, the palace does not need to be rented to the Crown Princess, as she lives there already and it is designated to the Royal Family as part of the law to be enacted regarding the Royal House of Romania.
 
In this moment the palace is an official residence of the King as (former) Head of State.
All the descendants of the nephews and nieces of the former Queen Elisabeth of the Hellenes can ask for the restitution of the palace as heirs to their great-aunt.
The project of law 's future is uncertain.
 
Cory said:
In this moment the palace is an official residence of the King as (former) Head of State.
All the descendants of the nephews and nieces of the former Queen Elisabeth of the Hellenes can ask for the restitution of the palace as heirs to their great-aunt.
The project of law 's future is uncertain.
Click to expand...

The Elisabeta Palace is the official residence of the King, and the Crown Princess and her husband. They are both named as parties in the provision made when it came to housing for the former King, AND his heir. You can disagree with that all you like, but it's a fact, and that's how it stands right now.
If and when the law passes, it will be assigned to the Royal House of Romania as an official residence, so nothing practical will change from the current situation.
 
The King received this residence because he was considered a former Head of State. The palace belongs to the state if the great-nephews and great-nieces of the last owner of it do not ask it back.
 
Cory said:
The King received this residence because he was considered a former Head of State. The palace belongs to the state if the great-nephews and great-nieces of the last owner of it do not ask it back.
Click to expand...

Romania: Former Monarch Wins Restitution Claim

The bill of compensation, not the law of former heads of state, is what regulates the use of the Elisabeta Palace. You can keep on saying otherwise, but you're no less wrong, as the compensation deal includes the lifetime use of the palace by T.M the King and Queen and T.R.H Princess Margareta and Prince Radu.

You're wrong on your second point as well, the palace belongs to the state even if a descendant of Queen Elisabet asks for it back. It has to be awarded by a bill in parliament to be transferred anywhere else, and as it is about to be designated to the Royal House of Romania for future use (current proposals say 99 years, a standard use of years when assigning something 'permanently'), it won't be assigned elsewhere at a later date.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Royal Palace and Casa Noua as well as Cotroceni have always been property of the state.
 
Cory said:
The Royal Palace and Casa Noua as well as Cotroceni have always been property of the state.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cotroceni has never been a property of the Royal Family.
 
Cory said:
Cotroceni has never been a property of the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Cory said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Prussian and Hohenzollern Palaces, Castles and other Royal Residences
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
42K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Josefine
The Royal Palace of Stockholm, Stockholm
6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
60K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom