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

[Thekri]

I fancy myself an amateur history buff, but I really didn't know hardly anything in this article, so I found it fascinating.

What Do the Hohenzollerns deserve?

The article is worth a read, but the short version is that Germany's Royal Family, which was removed from power at the end of WWI, is lobbying to get some of their imperial properties back, which are currently owned by the German state, and they are twisting history in order to support their claims.

I find this interesting, because it seems absurd on the face of it. While I am all for individual property rights, the possessions of royalty are inherently the possessions of the state, and when Royalty is not longer associated with Government, I don't feel Germans have any responsibility to compensate them for what never really belonged to them in first place.

I am curious to expand this example though, what really should be the ultimate fate of the many obsolete European monarchies? They still hold vast amounts of land, which belongs to their respective nations in practice, but when a nation like Germany no longer has a monarchy, what becomes of the families? I am inclined to tell them to go fuck themselves and get a real job, but then I am an American with an inherent dislike of Aristocracy in the first place, and I am curious as to other points of view here (Legitimately curious, this is not a trap).

Hopefully this won't be a contentious thread, I don't think there is a lot of partisanship on here about this issue, but it still clearly belongs in politics.

[zealo]

They should count themselves lucky their family did not get the Romanov treatment when the German monarchy was abolished.

They don't deserve to be granted anything, especially not with their family's documented support of the Nazis in the years after the monarchy ending.

[Ripster42]

I find this interesting, because it seems absurd on the face of it. While I am all for individual property rights, the possessions of royalty are inherently the possessions of the state, and when Royalty is not longer associated with Government, I don't feel Germans have any responsibility to compensate them for what never really belonged to them in first place.
.

That premise basically precludes all discussion. So lets just say I don't agree with it.

Do these people, specifically, deserve anything? No. Supporting hitler's regime means you forfeit your claim to the lands you never held de facto.

In general, though, royalty does have a claim to some of their holdings. The nonsense about "never really belonged to them in the first place" is just that, nonsense. Property rights don't just disappear. In england, the royals basically leased their land to the government. Just because it's basically a perpetual lease on the lands the royals get payments for that was signed hundreds of years ago (and updated recently), doesn't mean those agreements should be void. At what point do the heirs of jeff bezos get told they're royalty and are going to have their property expropriated by the state? When their taxes make up 75% of total tax revenues? Where's the threshold? How much political influence do they have to wield through lobbies before that's okay? As far as property rights, there's not really much difference. It's inherited wealth used to fund state functions which garners some measure of political control.

[Milchshake]

So some chinless blueblood is demanding reparations ... fuck no.

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.

[Thekri]

That premise basically precludes all discussion. So lets just say I don't agree with it.

Do these people, specifically, deserve anything? No. Supporting hitler's regime means you forfeit your claim to the lands you never held de facto.

In general, though, royalty does have a claim to some of their holdings. The nonsense about "never really belonged to them in the first place" is just that, nonsense. Property rights don't just disappear. In england, the royals basically leased their land to the government. Just because it's basically a perpetual lease on the lands the royals get payments for that was signed hundreds of years ago (and updated recently), doesn't mean those agreements should be void. At what point do the heirs of jeff bezos get told they're royalty and are going to have their property expropriated by the state? When their taxes make up 75% of total tax revenues? Where's the threshold? How much political influence do they have to wield through lobbies before that's okay? As far as property rights, there's not really much difference. It's inherited wealth used to fund state functions which garners some measure of political control.

Fair, and that is why I said I am legitimately open and interested in discussion on this. Because I do understand the point you are making, but my opinion is based on the fact that I see a fundamental difference between Royal Property rights and everyone elses.

The way I see it, and I understand that you don't, is that Royal property is the federal property of a monarchy. For instance, monarchs typically owned shipyards, forts, and other military infrastructure as well as their personal palaces. In many cases, especially further back in history, there is no distinction between a military base and a residence. A Castle is both. A King holds these lands in behalf of the state, because the King is the state, and as long as they rule, that is appropriate due to the form of government being used.

But when a country such as Germany moves away from a monarchy, that federal land belongs to the new government, not the family of the exiled royalty. Any property they are allowed to keep is generosity, not a right. The German house of Saxberg-Gotha originated the majority of Royal Families in Europe, including many that are still in power, including England. As their political positions changed, so does their property.

The British Royal Family that now exists acquired their property when their family assumed the monarchy, the land and the title are inseparable. Even now, what property they own changes if their title changes. When Prince Charles becomes King, he will relinquish the properties of the Prince of Wales to his son, and assume the properties of the Crown. No title, no land. That is how the system works. The current royal family doesn't recognize any claims on the land from the many previous British Royal Families, an heir of the house of Tudor, Stuart or Hanover can't claim to own Buckingham Palace, because it isn't their property, it is the Crowns property, and someone else is wearing the crown.

So my argument, which I acknowledge is an opinion, is that when a government transitions from a monarchy to a democracy, all lands and property that are tied to a title are by default possessions of the new state, as the titles no longer exist. No compensation is required, because they don't have the job that granted them the title.

[Ripster42]

Fair, and that is why I said I am legitimately open and interested in discussion on this. Because I do understand the point you are making, but my opinion is based on the fact that I see a fundamental difference between Royal Property rights and everyone elses.

The way I see it, and I understand that you don't, is that Royal property is the federal property of a monarchy. For instance, monarchs typically owned shipyards, forts, and other military infrastructure as well as their personal palaces. In many cases, especially further back in history, there is no distinction between a military base and a residence. A Castle is both. A King holds these lands in behalf of the state, because the King is the state, and as long as they rule, that is appropriate due to the form of government being used.

But when a country such as Germany moves away from a monarchy, that federal land belongs to the new government, not the family of the exiled royalty. Any property they are allowed to keep is generosity, not a right. The German house of Saxberg-Gotha originated the majority of Royal Families in Europe, including many that are still in power, including England. As their political positions changed, so does their property.

The British Royal Family that now exists acquired their property when their family assumed the monarchy, the land and the title are inseparable. Even now, what property they own changes if their title changes. When Prince Charles becomes King, he will relinquish the properties of the Prince of Wales to his son, and assume the properties of the Crown. No title, no land. That is how the system works. The current royal family doesn't recognize any claims on the land from the many previous British Royal Families, an heir of the house of Tudor, Stuart or Hanover can't claim to own Buckingham Palace, because it isn't their property, it is the Crowns property, and someone else is wearing the crown.

So my argument, which I acknowledge is an opinion, is that when a government transitions from a monarchy to a democracy, all lands and property that are tied to a title are by default possessions of the new state, as the titles no longer exist. No compensation is required, because they don't have the job that granted them the title.

I think it's better to think of them as single owner corporations that had to take over governance, replete with subsidiaries. Just because other people slowly bought shares of their corporation (buying titles) or took over a subsidiary (often through marriage and normal hereditary inheritance), doesn't mean the royals (as shareholders) don't own the shares that are still theirs when the other owners of the now majority shares decide to exercise their voting rights. Even shareholders in hostile takeovers get paid for their shares. Even in the US, when the government uses or expropriates people's property, they're entitled to fair compensation.

The title is just ownership of that specific corporation (or subsidiary depending on the rank). It's exactly where the "title" to your car comes from.

[Thekri]

I think it's better to think of them as single owner corporations that had to take over governance, replete with subsidiaries. Just because other people slowly bought shares of their corporation (buying titles) or took over a subsidiary (often through marriage and normal hereditary inheritance), doesn't mean the royals (as shareholders) don't own the shares that are still theirs when the other owners of the now majority shares decide to exercise their voting rights. Even shareholders in hostile takeovers get paid for their shares. Even in the US, when the government uses or expropriates people's property, they're entitled to fair compensation.

The title is just ownership of that specific corporation (or subsidiary depending on the rank). It's exactly where the "title" to your car comes from.

Hmm, interesting take. I don't really see them as that though. My analogy would be more the equipment I "owned" when I was in the military. I had at various times up to about a quarter billion dollars worth of federal equipment I "owned". I refered to it as owning, everyone did, and all the stuff really was my stuff. I was responsible for its maintenance, serviceability, cleanliness and use, and if it was broken or damaged out of negiligence I had to pay for it out of my own pockets, as in, they would dock my pay for that amount (For really large amounts, like several million dollars, they cap it at typically one full month pay).

So I did "own" the stuff, but only as long as I held the job title that went with that equipment. When I turned that job over to someone else, we did an exhaustive inventory, documented everything, and then it was all the property of the next Officer. The whole time the property was owned by the state, paid for by tax dollars, and used for official government purposes.

Because royal property is purchased by the state, maintained by state funds, and used for the purpose of the state, I view it as a closer analogue to military equipment than corporate property. The fact of government ownership is why I feel it is fundamentally different than corporation in property rights. While a corporation does have a claim to be compensated when its property is seized, a government does not. Once it ceases to provide a service to its people, it ceases to have rights in that land. The US never recognized any claims to Royal Property in America after its revolution, as the British Royal Family suddenly ceased to be a part of the American government.

However, the Royal Family does own land in America as private property. The queen owns a horse range in Kentucky, and probably some real estate in New York. This is however not Crown property, it is personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. She does have normal property rights to that, and if she ceases to be a monarch, the government of the UK has no claim on it. That is why I think it is fair to seperate their government property from their personal property. The land that the Hohenzollerns are claiming seems to be very clearly federal property. The primary palaces of the Monarch are most definitely part of the state property.

[Lynarii]

You have the order of things wrong though Thekri. The state, as it was originally, was the extent of the land the ruler could lay claim to. They made the state, the state didn't make them. In a very real sense, the land DID belong to them, except what they gave/sold to others.

[Thekri]

You have the order of things wrong though Thekri. The state, as it was originally, was the extent of the land the ruler could lay claim to. They made the state, the state didn't make them. In a very real sense, the land DID belong to them, except what they gave/sold to others.

Well this is true, and that is kind of the crux of my argument here. The Royal families were the state, the two were inseparable. When the government stops being a monarch, and thus royalty is no longer the government in any way, royal land defaults to state property, not personal property of the previous monarch.

This is particularly glaring in this example, where 100 years and 4 other governments have already past (Wiemar, Third Reich, Post-War Schism, Modern Germany). There have been a lot of governments since the Hohenzollerns, who were not a particularly good government in the first place. Their property has been established as state property for a century, and is now a Museum for all Germans. I don't see why Germany should feel obligated to give a single euro to the descendants of a long gone royal family. Yes, this is very American of me, in that I don't see how your ancestry should entitle you to a damn thing unless it was specifically willed to you. Your grandparents may have been the German government, but that doesn't mean you are currently the German government, and it doesn't mean you deserve to get made fabulously rich by taking things that were originally purchased with taxpayer dollars for the personal use of your ancestors (Who again, were the government, and thus entitled to do so).

[Easo]

They should count themselves lucky their family did not get the Romanov treatment when the German monarchy was abolished.

They don't deserve to be granted anything, especially not with their family's documented support of the Nazis in the years after the monarchy ending.

Well, Romanov treatment was a heinous crime, but what can one expect from commies?

As for the properties, hmmm, no one has removed English crown. In fact, they still have huge posessions, which are leased to the state and are actually bringing in a surplus of cash for the Britain.
Should we remove it? Seems stupid thing to do, current arangement works out pretty well. So why not do the same with these guys? "Sins of the fathers" has not ever been an argument, but purely an excuse.

I think some middle path can be found. Also, the Germany as we know it was made/united by a Hohenzollern, it has a weight.

[Ripster42]

Hmm, interesting take. I don't really see them as that though. My analogy would be more the equipment I "owned" when I was in the military. I had at various times up to about a quarter billion dollars worth of federal equipment I "owned". I refered to it as owning, everyone did, and all the stuff really was my stuff. I was responsible for its maintenance, serviceability, cleanliness and use, and if it was broken or damaged out of negiligence I had to pay for it out of my own pockets, as in, they would dock my pay for that amount (For really large amounts, like several million dollars, they cap it at typically one full month pay).

So I did "own" the stuff, but only as long as I held the job title that went with that equipment. When I turned that job over to someone else, we did an exhaustive inventory, documented everything, and then it was all the property of the next Officer. The whole time the property was owned by the state, paid for by tax dollars, and used for official government purposes.

Because royal property is purchased by the state, maintained by state funds, and used for the purpose of the state, I view it as a closer analogue to military equipment than corporate property. The fact of government ownership is why I feel it is fundamentally different than corporation in property rights. While a corporation does have a claim to be comensated when its property is seized, a government does not. Once it ceases to provide a service to its people, it ceases to have rights in that land. The US never recognized any claims to Royal Property in America after its revolution, as the British Royal Family suddenly ceased to be a part of the American government.

However, the Royal Family does own land in America as private property. The queen owns a horse range in Kentucky, and probably some real estate in New York. This is however not Crown property, it is personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. She does have normal property rights to that, and if she ceases to be a monarch, the government of the UK has no claim on it. That is why I think it is fair to seperate their government property from their personal property. The land that the Hohenzollerns are claiming seems to be very clearly federal property. The primary palaces of the Monarch are most definitely part of the state property.

I definitely wouldn't relate this to your military experience. In this corp/military/feudal gov't analogy, you're an employee of "USA inc."/subject of the crown. You're the security guard who was the 9th cousin twice removed of the CEO. You're not the CEO, and your opinion (as a singular vote) is as impactful to our voting process as the 9th cousin twice removed's was to the king's decisions. That $1/4b of equipment is the vice president of security giving you a pike and a fancy shirt (these anachronisms are part of the reason I really like the "feudal govt/dynasty as corporation" analogy).

"The state" is not something the corporation really cares about in and of itself, and only does care as far as the corp's interests are served by setting up "the state." Its real interests are in gaining more property/power, just like any modern corporation. The fact that no other entity existed that provided the functions of a state is why these corporations took over governance in the first place.

Regarding the hohenzollerns, reiterating from my first post, they supported the nazis. In this analogy, they were the PR rep (they're currently arguing for lands they didn't de facto hold while they held the PR position) for the corp that tried to murder 1/2 the world, while fully supporting that murder. The corporation they worked for was disbanded for gross criminality and the PR rep was fined their de jure claims as restitution.

[draynay]

Good luck proving they didn't support the Nazis, since that is a necessary component to having their seized property restored; their arguments that Wilhelm II was too "marginal" and his efforts to aid the Nazis were "unsuccessful" don't pass muster for me and I doubt any Germans in authority will feel differently.

[Ripster42]

Should we remove it? Seems stupid thing to do, current arangement works out pretty well. So why not do the same with these guys? "Sins of the fathers" has not ever been an argument, but purely an excuse.

The "sins of the fathers" means those "fathers" gave up their claims. Offspring can't inherit anything their parents don't own anymore.

[Puupi]

I don't really see how them supporting Nazis has anything to do with this today anyhow.

Quite a lot of people supported the Nazis - have all their property been seized? No.

[Thekri]

Well, Romanov treatment was a heinous crime, but what can one expect from commies?

As for the properties, hmmm, no one has removed English crown. In fact, they still have huge posessions, which are leased to the state and are actually bringing in a surplus of cash for the Britain.
Should we remove it? Seems stupid thing to do, current arangement works out pretty well. So why not do the same with these guys? "Sins of the fathers" has not ever been an argument, but purely an excuse.

I think some middle path can be found. Also, the Germany as we know it was made/united by a Hohenzollern, it has a weight.

Well, "Sins of the Father" applies to legal culpability, not property ownership. If my father goes out and shoots someone, and I have nothing to do with it, I can't be charged with anything or punished. But if my father goes out and bets all his money on the wrong horse at a racetrack, I have no entitlement to the inheritance that he lost.

In this case, the Hohenzollern's rather clearly bet on the wrong horse repeatedly. They lost their titles and lands to the Wiemar Republic, because they failed at governing Germany, and were thus ejected from power in order to end the war. Then, to get back at the Wiemar Republic, they backed the Nazis, who also lost their own war, and thus the remaining properties of the Hohenzollern's was seized by the allied powers, and later German governments. They bet on the wrong horse, they lost everything, and I don't see why their descendants should be able to inherit something their ancestors lost.

I certainly don't think the modern Hohenzollerns should be punished for their ancestors failures and crimes. But likewise there is no reason to give them money their ancestors lost.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really see how them supporting Nazis has anything to do with this today anyhow.

Quite a lot of people supported the Nazis - have all their property been seized? No.

Just a specific law the Germans passed. I haven't really focused on it because it feels arbitrary to me as well. To me they shouldn't get royal lands because they are not Royals. They are just normal people whose ancestors used to be Royals.

[ranzino]

The "sins of the fathers" means those "fathers" gave up their claims. Offspring can't inherit anything their parents don't own anymore.

it may depend on prussian articles of abdication back in 1918-ish. if Wilhelm 2 just surrendered the crown and title of "King of Prussia ect and Emperor", it is nothing more than "surrender of the office". all the other ruling princes and dukes and whatnot surrendered their office 100 years ago, but the family kept the belongings usually.

[Ripster42]

it may depend on prussian articles of abdication back in 1918-ish. if Wilhelm 2 just surrendered the crown and title of "King of Prussia ect and Emperor", it is nothing more than "surrender of the office". all the other ruling princes and dukes and whatnot surrendered their office 100 years ago, but the family kept the belongings usually.

From the linked article:

A law passed in 1994 allowed for restitution or compensation claims, though only on condition that the claimants or their ancestors had not “given substantial support” to the National Socialist or East German Communist regimes.

They were effectively fined of their claims to their properties for their support of either the nazis or soviets.

[Lynarii]

Well this is true, and that is kind of the crux of my argument here. The Royal families were the state, the two were inseparable. When the government stops being a monarch, and thus royalty is no longer the government in any way, royal land defaults to state property, not personal property of the previous monarch.

This is particularly glaring in this example, where 100 years and 4 other governments have already past (Wiemar, Third Reich, Post-War Schism, Modern Germany). There have been a lot of governments since the Hohenzollerns, who were not a particularly good government in the first place. Their property has been established as state property for a century, and is now a Museum for all Germans. I don't see why Germany should feel obligated to give a single euro to the descendants of a long gone royal family. Yes, this is very American of me, in that I don't see how your ancestry should entitle you to a damn thing unless it was specifically willed to you. Your grandparents may have been the German government, but that doesn't mean you are currently the German government, and it doesn't mean you deserve to get made fabulously rich by taking things that were originally purchased with taxpayer dollars for the personal use of your ancestors (Who again, were the government, and thus entitled to do so).

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'.

[ranzino]

....

They were effectively fined of their claims to their properties for their support of either the nazis or soviets.

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

[Thekri]

it may depend on prussian articles of abdication back in 1918-ish. if Wilhelm 2 just surrendered the crown and title of "King of Prussia ect and Emperor", it is nothing more than "surrender of the office". all the other ruling princes and dukes and whatnot surrendered their office 100 years ago, but the family kept the belongings usually.

True in a legal sense, but the key point here is that they lost it, and now want it back. If the family had retained the properties in the meantime, I agree they should retain them, just as a lot of the other Aristocracy did. But they haven't owned this land in a Century, 4 German governments have owned it since then.

The main focus of this claim is Charlottenberg Palace, which was the smaller, second palace of the dynasty in Berlin. The largest one was also seized, but those damn Americans (or possibly British) bombed it, and the East German communists eventually tore the badly damaged palace down, because there were already quite a lot of opulent palaces in East Germany for party officials to vacation in, and it wasn't worth repairing this one. That leaves Charlottenberg, which is pristine, and recently reconstructed (Using taxpayer funds, of course) as the most impressive of the properties that Kaiser Wilhelm lost in 1918. The family is claiming they rightfully own the palace, the land, and the extensive art and furniture collection that was in it in 1918. Which seems really dumb to me, you can't inherit something your father lost. This sounds suspiciously like they are claiming dynastic royal privilege, not property rights, and dynastic privilege is not part of the modern German legal system.