What Do the Hohenzollerns (And other obsolete royals) deserve?

[Tuor]

Its always the same story, where is an extinct monarchy systhem there is always someone claiming the right to rule just because of... progeniture...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_o...tuguese_throne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Braganza

Same story everywhere in europe.

[Thekri]

How did it go from being personal property of the royals to state property though? In most cases, it wasn't that the royals gave it over. It's that a new governing body said "Ours now losers, yoink!" and expropriated it without consent or compensation. And yeah, I gotta say, it IS very American to take the stance of possession being 9/10ths of the law, because that's more or less what the US was built on to begin with. I personally feel that it is not so clean cut though. I don't know the specifics of the Hohenzollerns claims and details, so I cannot opine with any authority on this exact scenario, but I am generically uncomfortable with the idea of governments claiming property on the basis of 'because we can'.

It didn't. My point is that it was always state property to begin with, it used to also be personal property, but never wasn't state property, because under a king, State property is also the personal property of the Monarch, so "Royal Property" is inherently both. When the King stops being the state, that property remains state property, but stops being personal property.

Now as @ranzino very correctly pointed out, if there was some agreement that allowed the abdicating royal to retain property, then it stops being state property and becomes personal property instead. However personal property doesn't get to skip generations, once you stop owning personal property, your future descendants don't get to just start owning it again. So if Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated, but kept living in Charlottenburg Palace as its owner, it would unquestionably still belong to whomever that natural process of property passed too. In other words, if nobody sold it, it should belong to his heirs. But that isn't what happened. The Weimar Government seized it, the Nazis took ownership once they took over the government, then Communist shot all the Nazis and took the palace from them, and then the Communists collapsed and the Modern German Government took over the palace. Like all the other state property in Germany.

Essentially, the German Government did inherit the palace, from the East German Government, but the Hohenzollerns alive today did not inherit it, because their parents didn't own it. Kaiser Wilhelm did own it, but only as royal property, never as personal property, but he lost it to the Wiemar Republic, and so the modern Hohenzollerns have no right to it in my opinion.

[Ripster42]

it is a shadowy condition and Hohenzollern is able to challenge it.

Not really a shadowy condition. Did you support a regime that murdered millions of people (in this specific case, literally giving speeches and using the prestige of their de jure title to bolster the nazis)? If yes, you get fined you de jure claims.

From the linked story again:

Yet he comes to the remarkable conclusion that Wilhelm was “one of the politically most reserved and least compromised persons” among the aristocratic Nazi collaborators.

That's a person who was attempting to say wilhelm wasn't involved while listing them among collaborators. The supporter admits wilhelm was instrumental in the process of getting the SS of the ground for shit's sake.

[Lynarii]

It didn't. My point is that it was always state property to begin with, it used to also be personal property, but never wasn't state property, because under a king, State property is also the personal property of the Monarch, so "Royal Property" is inherently both. When the King stops being the state, that property remains state property, but stops being personal property.

I think your point is flawed though. The state formed around the person and personal property of the Monarch. It was their property before the state even existed. So I think the manner in which it transitioned from being personal property of the family TO state property is significant.

[ranzino]

Not really a shadowy condition. Did you support a regime that murdered millions of people (in this specific case, literally giving speeches and using the prestige of their de jure title to bolster the nazis)? If yes, you get fined you de jure claims.

From the linked story again:



That's a person who was attempting to say wilhelm wasn't involved while listing them among collaborators. The supporter admits wilhelm was instrumental in the process of getting the SS of the ground for shit's sake.

Wilhelm died in 41, which means you got a bunch of Hohenzollern heirs at this stage. unless you want to change law retroactively, those heirs inherited rightfully.

to tinker with the legal bedrock of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" is a can of worms you should not even dare to open.

[Thekri]

I think your point is flawed though. The state formed around the person and personal property of the Monarch. It was their property before the state even existed. So I think the manner in which it transitioned from being personal property of the family TO state property is significant.

Fair enough, but Dynasties do not arrive from nothing. Each form of government has some sort of transition from the previous, and are not obligated to honor the traditions of all previous forms of government. Monarchs tend to gain power from other monarchs, or by combining a collection of smaller powers (As was the case in Germany). When Monarchies fall, it is usually either because they lost a war, in which case their rights are limited to whatever they were able to negotiate in the treaty, or because they were overthrown by an internal revolution, in which their rights are typically limited to whatever they were able to escape the country with.

Returning the Palace to the Hohenzollern's is asking the German Government to honor the traditions of four governments prior. Which seems silly to me. Since the Kaiser went into exile, there have been a lot of government Traditions. One was voted out of office and became a brutal dictatorship, then the brutal dictatorship got the crap beaten out of it and was occupied by foreign powers, then the foreign powers installed a corrupt and also evil communist government, and then that government collapsed and we got a Democracy. With so many transitions in Germany in the last century, it seems stupid to give a palace to some Shmucks that have never done anything useful in their life, because of who their great granddaddy was.

[Ripster42]

Wilhelm died in 41, which means you got a bunch of Hohenzollern heirs at this stage. unless you want to change law retroactively, those heirs inherited rightfully.

to tinker with the legal bedrock of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" is a can of worms you should not even dare to open.

His nonsense (supporting the nazis which murdered of millions of people in death camps, [which was illegal, at least I've never seen the law that allows a government to conduct unjust killings, as even the nuremburg laws don't give that authority, which, go figure, was why I pointed out he was instrumental in getting the SS off the ground, so please, miss me with "nullum crimen..."]), necessarily, proceeds his death. You can absolutely sue estates for torts (in this case, effectively a criminal fine) the owner of the estate generates. As should be painfully obvious, those heirs were never in control of those lands or they wouldn't be fighting for them now, thus, the property's de jure claim was property of the estate (and as it had gone thru several successive governments, the de jure claim is basically moot) until the '94 law that meted out punishment.

[Drutt]

the possessions of royalty are inherently the possessions of the state

I think that could be a difficult statement to back up, depending on the country you're talking about. For example, in the UK, even today all land in England and Wales technically belongs to the monarch (except Lancaster and Cornwall). It's a relic of our legal system that basically trails back to pre-Magna Carta society.

Conflating the state with the monarch and thus leaving lands/property in the control of the state in the event of abolition wouldn't necessarily follow, and I would be willing to bet that in most countries with monarchies there is no law that would handle such an event. If and when a modern abolition were to happen, we'll inevitably see a lot of specific bespoke legislation relating to that.

[Yadryonych]

It's a good reminder that the US and other Western states need to up inheritance taxes.

Generational hoarding only encourages to act like entitled assholes.
Generational hoarding is the enemy of progressiveness.

Are you this spiteful because your old men failed to pass some wealth onto you and mindlessly wasted it, or what?

[Lynarii]

Fair enough, but Dynasties do not arrive from nothing. Each form of government has some sort of transition from the previous, and are not obligated to honor the traditions of all previous forms of government. Monarchs tend to gain power from other monarchs, or by combining a collection of smaller powers (As was the case in Germany). When Monarchies fall, it is usually either because they lost a war, in which case their rights are limited to whatever they were able to negotiate in the treaty, or because they were overthrown by an internal revolution, in which their rights are typically limited to whatever they were able to escape the country with.

Returning the Palace to the Hohenzollern's is asking the German Government to honor the traditions of four governments prior. Which seems silly to me. Since the Kaiser went into exile, there have been a lot of government Traditions. One was voted out of office and became a brutal dictatorship, then the brutal dictatorship got the crap beaten out of it and was occupied by foreign powers, then the foreign powers installed a corrupt and also evil communist government, and then that government collapsed and we got a Democracy. With so many transitions in Germany in the last century, it seems stupid to give a palace to some Shmucks that have never done anything useful in their life, because of who their great granddaddy was.

So at this point we can pretty much establish that the land was his families, and it was taken from them forcibly. And that will be the basis if his claim to get it back.

The question will come down to whether or not it was legal for his family property to be forcibly taken from them. And the answer is, most likely, yes it was. Even if doing so would NOT be legal in the current Germany under the current government, the laws of the time when it happened matter a lot, and those are almost guaranteed to not be in his favor. And the laws passed since then, regarding restoration of claims, ALSO seem to be against him due to his family's support of the Nazi regime (And I don't think anyone is going to be swayed by "Our support doesn't count because we were too useless to matter").

Do understand that I'm not arguing that this guy's claim is legitimate and he should get what he wants. Mostly I just think that actually going through the legal arguments is a better plan than dismissing it based off a dislike for monarchies and historical claims. I rather expect this one will fail on legal grounds anyway.

[Thelxi]

I don't know about "deserve", but royal families can still play a valuable and benign role in today's society imo. I've personally seen many British and Dutch people have great interest and pride in their royals, and enjoy having them around. I imagine that in times of desperation and crisis they can be a great unifying force for any nation.

Of course it all comes with a price tag, but I'm pretty sure the Dutch have completely neutered their royal family by stripping them of even symbolic powers, so really the leash can be as tight as the people want it to be. So if the German people want to give their royals some of their status back go for it I say, though I doubt that is the case lol.

[Thekri]

So at this point we can pretty much establish that the land was his families, and it was taken from them forcibly. And that will be the basis if his claim to get it back.

The question will come down to whether or not it was legal for his family property to be forcibly taken from them. And the answer is, most likely, yes it was. Even if doing so would NOT be legal in the current Germany under the current government, the laws of the time when it happened matter a lot, and those are almost guaranteed to not be in his favor. And the laws passed since then, regarding restoration of claims, ALSO seem to be against him due to his family's support of the Nazi regime (And I don't think anyone is going to be swayed by "Our support doesn't count because we were too useless to matter").

Do understand that I'm not arguing that this guy's claim is legitimate and he should get what he wants. Mostly I just think that actually going through the legal arguments is a better plan than dismissing it based off a dislike for monarchies and historical claims. I rather expect this one will fail on legal grounds anyway.

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. I am not familiar enough with German law to properly assess their legal chances, but I am about 99% sure they don't really expect to actually be awarded Charlottenburg Palace, I suspect that is just demanding the max they can, so they can negotiate from there. I am pretty sure the real goal is some settlement of far less than that.

I readily admit that my opinion is not so much based on the law as it is based on dislike of Aristocratic grifters extorting a modern democracy based on their ancient property claims. German taxpayer money would be far better spent on the millions of less fortunate people who still suffer from damages caused by directly and indirectly caused by the Hohenzollern Dynasties greed and ambition. Basically, on the list of people that should be considered for massive government handouts, the pretentious children of obsolete aristocracies falls pretty much at the bottom of the list. I do readily acknowledge that laws do matter, and Germany should treat this case with all the legal merit it deserves. Which is hopefully not much.

[Mehrunes]

Forget the Nazis. Hohenzollerns' transformation of Brandenburg-Prussia from a mere personal union into a unified country is based on treason. They can go fuck themselves straight into the trash bin of history where they belong.

I think your point is flawed though. The state formed around the person and personal property of the Monarch. It was their property before the state even existed. So I think the manner in which it transitioned from being personal property of the family TO state property is significant.

I know you're talking in general here, but this general bit applies more to early monarchies. Whereas Hohenzollerns got the Margraviate of Brandenburgia from Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1415, near the end of the middle ages, long after various crowns were established as geopolitical entities that weren't this tied to any particular monarch. And they got Ducal Prussia from the secularization of the Teutonic Order, where no monarchs were involved in the original state-building (well, not directly, at least).

[Ripster42]

Our support doesn't count because we were too useless to matter.

Too useless to matter... when wilhelm was lobbying for the restrictions on the SS to be removed (and "allow" them to conduct extrajudicial kidnappings and killings), which freed them to conduct the holocaust. I don't really care how effective that support was. The monster did what it was within his power to do. He can burn.

[Dsonsion]

What do they deserve? The right to work, of course!

[josykay]

May i ask... why crown prince Wilhelm's opinion is relevant when Wilhelm II was still alive, and the de jure owner of those estates, when the supposed support happened?

[Puupi]

His nonsense (supporting the nazis which murdered of millions of people in death camps, [which was illegal, at least I've never seen the law that allows a government to conduct unjust killings, as even the nuremburg laws don't give that authority, which, go figure, was why I pointed out he was instrumental in getting the SS off the ground, so please, miss me with "nullum crimen..."]), necessarily, proceeds his death. You can absolutely sue estates for torts (in this case, effectively a criminal fine) the owner of the estate generates. As should be painfully obvious, those heirs were never in control of those lands or they wouldn't be fighting for them now, thus, the property's de jure claim was property of the estate (and as it had gone thru several successive governments, the de jure claim is basically moot) until the '94 law that meted out punishment.

Nazis hadn't killed millions in death camps by the time Wilhelm II died.

In fact, death camps didn't even exist yet.

[Ripster42]

Nazis hadn't killed millions in death camps by the time Wilhelm IIdied.

In fact, death camps didn't even exist yet.

Died in '41. Dachau opened in '33.

[Ripster42]

I think the clear divider is: "can the property or its owner pay for it on their own". Being paid directly with tax money makes it the goverment's property.

So no punishment for supporting nazis? I think, in most places, intentionally taking actions that lead to millions of people dead usually carries at least a fine.

[josykay]

Died in '41. Dachau opened in '33.

Dachau wasn't a death camp though, but a prison camp, in which the nazis started to inprison political opponents, mostly Communists and Social Democrats, under bogus charges like conspiraciy terrorism and so on for example after the Reichstagsfire. Those camps were inheretly evil, cruel and inhumane, but a far cry from that, what the KZs in Poland for example would became after the "Wannensee Conference" in january 1942, where the Nazis talked about the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question".
The first testrun of gassing was started in August 1941, 2 months after William IIs death.
Wilhelm II initially hoped, the Nazis would somehow manage to reinstate monarchy with his grandson as king/ emperor. However he became quickly distanced. After the Night of the Long Knives he said:

"We have ceased to live under the rule of law and everyone must be prepared for the possibility that the Nazis will push their way in and put them up against the wall!"

- Particulary refering here to the murder of Kurt von Schleicher and his wife.

With regards to the Night of the broken Glass he said:

"I have just made my views clear to Auwi [August Wilhelm, Wilhelm's fourth son] in the presence of his brothers. He had the nerve to say that he agreed with the Jewish pogroms and understood why they had come about. When I told him that any decent man would describe these actions as gangsterisms, he appeared totally indifferent. He is completely lost to our family".

and

"There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God ... He builds legions, but he doesn't build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, traditions: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children ... For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought of it as a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a time, some of the wisest and most outstanding Germans. But these, one by one, he has got rid of or even killed ... He has left nothing but a bunch of shirted gangsters! This man could bring home victories to our people each year, without bringing them either glory or danger. But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics."