NationStates

Herzpunkt wrote:Socialists and communists in nsg: man Fuck the monarchs LOLZ they lost it!!!

I agree, fuck the native american claims to land, they failed to secure and hold onto their possessions and because they were not competant they have no right to anything.

I see the difference between a monarch's own people overthrowing them and invaders taking land is lost on you.

Nakena wrote:I believe the whole matter should be dealt with a few millions in cash as compensation in return for them renouncing their claims. That would be an elegant settlement to get the matter dealt with.

I don't even know why they should be granted that or why modern Germany would be concerned enough about their claim to think that's worthwhile. Treat them like the nutballs who declare their houses to be sovereign nations or whatever.

Celritannia wrote:Which all stemmed from Bismarck being kicked out of power.

He died almost 20 years before the war even started, so the Kaiser would've had plenty of time to make bad decisions even if he'd kept him, and even if you want to continue making this absurdly ahistorical Great Man History argument that keeping him in for a little longer would've changed everything... it was the Kaiser's decision to not keep him. Hence this still would all flow from bad decisions the Kaiser made.

Anyway, all these individual responses can be summed up as a bad take on history.

Well, I guess that settles it! Glad we have a real expert in the thread to tell us what's what.

A Thousand Islands wrote:

Senkaku wrote:And, you know, getting into World War One and then losing it so badly that the dynasty was toppled.

Hey, see, maybe the whole family is culpable! They did a bad job raising him and helped contribute to him eventually going on to make bad decisions that cost the family the crown and set the stage for Nazism and the next war in which they lost everything. That's the risk you run when your family controls the politics of an entire nation, I suppose.

Their previous track record as monarchs is irrelevant to the mistakes they went on to make.


Why on earth not? They ruled the country.

Technically, only the monarch rules; everybody else in the family would have privilege, but not actual power or authority. You can't really penalize an entire family for the flaws of a few of their members.

Monarchy is a family business. The rest of the family raises the future monarch, helps find them a spouse, helps run the state administration and the military. The hereditary principle of such personalist regimes mean the entire family is complicit in the enterprise.

Cetacea wrote:

Atheris wrote:I don't see the issue. They're normal citizens now, not the Emperors, Princes, and Princesses of Germany, so they should by right get their riches back. Only one Hohenzollern out of many supported the Nazis; he's probably not even alive anymore. Give them their money back. Germany promised it.

But taking them as normal citizens does raise the question - does the wealth of Prussia belong to the Prince or to the State? Assuming the title has been extinguished Who is the legitimate heir?

Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia (West Germany claimed the area taken by the Oder-Neisse line and East Prussia until 1970. It does not claim this land anymore). Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

Nilokeras wrote:

Herzpunkt wrote:Socialists and communists in nsg: man Fuck the monarchs LOLZ they lost it!!!

I agree, fuck the native american claims to land, they failed to secure and hold onto their possessions and because they were not competant they have no right to anything.

I see the difference between a monarch's own people overthrowing them and invaders taking land is lost on you.

Dosnt matter they were incapable of securing their possessions

Right of conquest, which is literally what the leftists are saying in this thread, some even glorifying the red armys treatment of royal possessions

Atheris wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
But taking them as normal citizens does raise the question - does the wealth of Prussia belong to the Prince or to the State? Assuming the title has been extinguished Who is the legitimate heir?

Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia. Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

Exactly

Herzpunkt wrote:Socialists and communists in nsg: man Fuck the monarchs LOLZ they lost it!!!

I agree, fuck the native american claims to land, they failed to secure and hold onto their possessions and because they were not competant they have no right to anything.

Apples to oranges-- if the German nation had been just vibing by itself on its own continent before suddenly being overtaken by genocidal invaders spreading virulent diseases, who had forcibly deposed the Hohenzollerns and appropriated their property against the will of the German people and despite all of their best efforts and their making the best possible decisions in such difficult circumstances, this would be a different conversation.

Also, this assumes that indigenous people's claims to their ancestral lands are the same as a royal family's claims to property, which seems like a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding of both issues.

New Rogernomics wrote:

Risottia wrote:And this is why killing off the Capets and the Romanovs wasn't such a bad move after all.

If the Romanov's hadn't been killed off, the most likely thing would have been a constitutional monarchy, and eventually parliamentary democracy instead of totalitarian communism. The communists killed the Romanov's off in desperation - as the Romanov's weren't liked by anyone but were a symbol of the Russian state. With their deaths a lot of the opposition struggled to hold together, giving the red Russians an easy victory. The wrong side won the Russian civil war, which forced Russians to live under a police state with enforced terror to an even greater extent than they ever suffered under the Tzars till the 1980s, when the Soviet Union finally began to start loosening their grip. Frankly, I think most Russians would have been more than happy to exchange some riches to living dynasty of Romanov's for a liberal parliamentary democracy. They never got the chance though.

Let me stop you right there. The main reason the Romanovs were deposed was entirely because Nicky refused to accept a constitutional monarch's role up to the end. This is why before the October revolution there was an actually bigger (of democratic/civic and socialist factions) one that we get most of the imagery from. As such, Romanovs would fall regardless because Nicholas II was besides a brutal despot, also an uncompromising idiot. The fact that they were killed was more or less a side-effect irrelevant to if they would fall or not, as they had fallen already and were treated as basically a glory prize for the factions of the Russian civil war.

Irrelevant, but I had to mention that.

Herzpunkt wrote:Dosnt matter they were incapable of securing their possessions

It's a good thing that 'finders keepers' isn't typically enshrined in much property law. Outside of like, old timey right of salvage stuff maybe.

Herzpunkt wrote:Right of conquest, which is literally what the leftists are saying in this thread, some even glorifying the red armys treatment of royal possessions

They hold to a conception of sovereignty that emanates from the people. Not right of conquest.

Senkaku wrote:

Herzpunkt wrote:Socialists and communists in nsg: man Fuck the monarchs LOLZ they lost it!!!

I agree, fuck the native american claims to land, they failed to secure and hold onto their possessions and because they were not competant they have no right to anything.

Apples to oranges-- if the German nation had been just vibing by itself on its own continent before suddenly being overtaken by genocidal invaders spreading virulent diseases, who had forcibly deposed the Hohenzollerns and appropriated their property against the will of the German people and despite all of their best efforts and their making the best possible decisions in such difficult circumstances, this would be a different conversation.

Also, this assumes that indigenous people's claims to their ancestral lands are the same as a royal family's claims to property, which seems like a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding of both issues.

Pretty sure the german people didnt want to live under the iron curtain either, yet here we have people fawning over brutal soviet occupation

And since this is about the GDR....

Atheris wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
But taking them as normal citizens does raise the question - does the wealth of Prussia belong to the Prince or to the State? Assuming the title has been extinguished Who is the legitimate heir?

Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia. Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

You're wrong there. It's a civil case afaik.

International law doesnt comes into it.

Senkaku wrote:I don't even know why they should be granted that or why modern Germany would be concerned enough about their claim to think that's worthwhile. Treat them like the nutballs who declare their houses to be sovereign nations or whatever.

Yeah sending SWAT teams after them is a bit heavy imo. Just cut water and electricity and they'd come sooner than later out of their caves. lol

Senkaku wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Which all stemmed from Bismarck being kicked out of power.

He died almost 20 years before the war even started, so the Kaiser would've had plenty of time to make bad decisions even if he'd kept him, and even if you want to continue making this absurdly ahistorical Great Man History argument that keeping him in for a little longer would've changed everything... it was the Kaiser's decision to not keep him. Hence this still would all flow from bad decisions the Kaiser made.

Anyway, all these individual responses can be summed up as a bad take on history.

Well, I guess that settles it! Glad we have a real expert in the thread to tell us what's what.

Again, when Kaiser Wilhelm removed Bismarck, it set the stage for Germany to militarise quicker, without the calm head of the Iron Chancellor at the helm.

The history of Germany prior to world war one was a major part of my History BA course, and I would gladly go into more detail, but this isn't the thread for that.

Herzpunkt wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Apples to oranges-- if the German nation had been just vibing by itself on its own continent before suddenly being overtaken by genocidal invaders spreading virulent diseases, who had forcibly deposed the Hohenzollerns and appropriated their property against the will of the German people and despite all of their best efforts and their making the best possible decisions in such difficult circumstances, this would be a different conversation.

Also, this assumes that indigenous people's claims to their ancestral lands are the same as a royal family's claims to property, which seems like a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding of both issues.

Pretty sure the german people didnt want to live under the iron curtain either, yet here we have people fawning over brutal soviet occupation

This has nothing to do with anything I said. The issue with the Hohenzollerns is that they set into motion all the events which led to the expropriation of their property by being shitty political leaders. That they don't like the consequences of said shitty leadership does not matter, that's the risk all royal families run.

Senkaku wrote:

Herzpunkt wrote:
Pretty sure the german people didnt want to live under the iron curtain either, yet here we have people fawning over brutal soviet occupation

This has nothing to do with anything I said. The issue with the Hohenzollerns is that they set into motion all the events which led to the expropriation of their property by being shitty political leaders. That they don't like the consequences of said shitty leadership does not matter, that's the risk all royal families run.

It is relavent though

These are possessions taking during the reign by the soviet installed GDR which is a foreign occupation, unless your going to seriously argue that the GDR was something the eastern getmans chose.

Nakena wrote:

Atheris wrote:Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia. Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

You're wrong there. It's a civil case afaik.

International law doesnt comes into it.

I'm aware of that, but Cetacea asked if it belongs to Prussia. There's no Prussian successor state, so whether it belongs to Prussia shouldn't even be a question.

Senkaku wrote:

Nakena wrote:I believe the whole matter should be dealt with a few millions in cash as compensation in return for them renouncing their claims. That would be an elegant settlement to get the matter dealt with.

I don't even know why they should be granted that or why modern Germany would be concerned enough about their claim to think that's worthwhile. Treat them like the nutballs who declare their houses to be sovereign nations or whatever.

Celritannia wrote:Which all stemmed from Bismarck being kicked out of power.

He died almost 20 years before the war even started, so the Kaiser would've had plenty of time to make bad decisions even if he'd kept him, and even if you want to continue making this absurdly ahistorical Great Man History argument that keeping him in for a little longer would've changed everything... it was the Kaiser's decision to not keep him. Hence this still would all flow from bad decisions the Kaiser made.

Anyway, all these individual responses can be summed up as a bad take on history.

Well, I guess that settles it! Glad we have a real expert in the thread to tell us what's what.

A Thousand Islands wrote:Technically, only the monarch rules; everybody else in the family would have privilege, but not actual power or authority. You can't really penalize an entire family for the flaws of a few of their members.

Monarchy is a family business. The rest of the family raises the future monarch, helps find them a spouse, helps run the state administration and the military. The hereditary principle of such personalist regimes mean the entire family is complicit in the enterprise.

A future monarch would be raised by their parents and perhaps some older relatives, but not the entire family, nor would every member of the family be assisting in the rulership. Besides that, the Hohenzollerns have been deposed for years and therefore would not hold in positions of power now, which means, as I said before, you're basically punishing their descendants for the failures of their ancestors, which is not fair.

Nakena wrote:

Senkaku wrote:I don't even know why they should be granted that or why modern Germany would be concerned enough about their claim to think that's worthwhile. Treat them like the nutballs who declare their houses to be sovereign nations or whatever.

Yeah sending SWAT teams after them is a bit heavy imo. Just cut water and electricity and they'd come sooner than later out of their caves. lol

In the US, I think generally they're left alone to prance about making fools of themselves, unless they try to start committing crimes on the basis of their sovereignty or whatever. I know there's at least one in Nevada or something who basically just issues his silly little passports and gives little tours and LARPs in a silly little uniform, and I've yet to hear about the government giving him any grief. Unless he's started laundering bitcoins for a cartel or tried to legalize child porn or something and I just didn't hear about it.

Anyways, I'm gonna go do something else besides argue with Kaiserboos and royalists now. Have fun!

Cordel One wrote:Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! These parasites have no right to that which their ancestors pillaged!

It's their family possessions.

Celritannia wrote:

Senkaku wrote:He died almost 20 years before the war even started, so the Kaiser would've had plenty of time to make bad decisions even if he'd kept him, and even if you want to continue making this absurdly ahistorical Great Man History argument that keeping him in for a little longer would've changed everything... it was the Kaiser's decision to not keep him. Hence this still would all flow from bad decisions the Kaiser made.


Well, I guess that settles it! Glad we have a real expert in the thread to tell us what's what.

Again, when Kaiser Wilhelm removed Bismarck, it set the stage for Germany to militarise quicker, without the calm head of the Iron Chancellor at the helm.

The history of Germany prior to world war one was a major part of my History BA course, and I would gladly go into more detail, but this isn't the thread for that.

"Europe is a powderkeg, and its leaders are men smoking in the arsenal. I do not know when the great fire will come, but I know this - some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off."
- von Bismarck, 1888.

"The crash will come 20 years after my departure if things go on like this."
- von Bismarck, 1898, the year he died. WW2 ended 20 years later.

von Bismarck was truly a genius, at least from my eyes. He's probably the greatest leader of the 19th century.

Let them take it. It belonged to their ancestors, it belongs to them now. Plus, if I had to guess it was owned by the German government before WW1 ended, and as such goes to them as representatives of that now defunct government(besides the fact they still want the throne back).

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
But taking them as normal citizens does raise the question - does the wealth of Prussia belong to the Prince or to the State? Assuming the title has been extinguished Who is the legitimate heir?

I am, based on balance. The last German emperor died in Netherlands, to balance it out, a Dutch commoner living in Germany should get it all.

That's me.

So, wealth redistribution?

A Thousand Islands wrote:

Senkaku wrote:I don't even know why they should be granted that or why modern Germany would be concerned enough about their claim to think that's worthwhile. Treat them like the nutballs who declare their houses to be sovereign nations or whatever.


He died almost 20 years before the war even started, so the Kaiser would've had plenty of time to make bad decisions even if he'd kept him, and even if you want to continue making this absurdly ahistorical Great Man History argument that keeping him in for a little longer would've changed everything... it was the Kaiser's decision to not keep him. Hence this still would all flow from bad decisions the Kaiser made.


Well, I guess that settles it! Glad we have a real expert in the thread to tell us what's what.


Monarchy is a family business. The rest of the family raises the future monarch, helps find them a spouse, helps run the state administration and the military. The hereditary principle of such personalist regimes mean the entire family is complicit in the enterprise.

A future monarch would be raised by their parents and perhaps some older relatives, but not the entire family, nor would every member of the family be assisting in the rulership. Besides that, the Hohenzollerns have been deposed for years and therefore would not hold in positions of power now, which means, as I said before, you're basically punishing their descendants for the failures of their ancestors, which is not fair.

If my father loses the house because his business goes bankrupt, can I still inherit it?

The punishment happened on the ancestors. They lost the goods. The descendents try to reclaim.

Atheris wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
But taking them as normal citizens does raise the question - does the wealth of Prussia belong to the Prince or to the State? Assuming the title has been extinguished Who is the legitimate heir?

Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia. Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

By what claim though? As a citizen he is legally named Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen and legally his title no longer exists except as pretense.
Why should he have any greater claim to the property than any other citizen of form Prussian territory?

Cordel One wrote:

Intaglio wrote:Pillaged? They're asking for the return of things like properties, jewels, artwork and treasures like that. Most of those things would hve built or commissioned by the family themselves, so it's hardly "pillaging" and regardless of whether it was pillaged, that has no legal bearing on their ownership of it.

They were gained through exploitation of the working class and imperialism. These things belong in a museum.

Your device was made in a Chinese sweatshop.

Cetacea wrote:

Atheris wrote:Prussia was dissolved in 1945. There is no legitimate successor to the Prussian state - the German Empire dissolved in 1919 and Nazi Germany was dissolved in 1945, and neither the FRG nor the GDR claimed legitimacy over Prussia. Therefore, it belongs to Prince George Friedrich.

By what claim though? As a citizen he is legally named Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen and legally his title no longer exists except as pretense.
Why should he have any greater claim to the property than any other citizen of form Prussian territory?

Because the riches belonged to his family.