Germany's ex-royals want their riches back

[Frajland]

Perhaps a nice compromise could be that any property that they received post 1918 would be theirs, if they paid for it (and excluding stuff bought like last week lol) and give the profit to a Holocaust Survivor group or something.

[Frajland]

This thread is getting brigaded by the Kaiserboos, actually that seems to happen everywhere on the internet when the German Empire is criticized

No, everyone who defends the German Empire isn't a Kaiserboo. Everyone with an opinion is not immediately bad.

[Nakena]

The question is if House Hohenzollern or their members around this time had a substantially impact on the rise and establishment of, and support for Nazi-Germany. Which is... doubtful. At least as far as the "significant" part is concerned.

The framing of the law is less that the ex-royals played a major part in supporting the Nazis and moreso whether or not they 'supported' the Nazis beyond the line which the conditions of the time would have required you to as a regular citizen. ie lots of people did not openly denounce Nazism or wore swastika armbands or etc at the time because doing so would have gotten you persecuted. But becoming an active member of the party, for example, or hosting Nazi officials as part of a campaign for your restoration, would be beyond that line.

The bar might be set somewhat higher than that what is considered substantial. Theres as of now, no less than four historical assessments about the case, some saying they did substantially support Hitler, others saying they didn. So... it depends with which assessment the court will side in the end. If it ends up there, which it likely will at this point. All four can be read here. In german.

[The Blaatschapen]

Give it back, but levy immediate back taxes not paid since ages. With interest. Both property and inheritance tax.


More seriously, no, let them work for their riches, just like the rest of us common people.

B-but how am I going to live without my ten castles?!

Like the rest of us, in a regular house.

[Senkaku]

Why? They acquired it as part of their old family business, the legitimacy of which rested on their divine right to rule and politically dominate Germany. That right and their political domination have been dispensed with as a consequence of their own errors, why shouldn't the German people take custody of the property now that the monarchy is gone?

Because then the democratic elected German Government would be no different than Monarchies who accumulated that wealth.

How so?

Plus, there is a difference between a Monarch's State Property, and a Monarch's Personal Property.

Is there? In an absolute monarchy, the monarch is the state personified. How can their personal and state property be distinguished? The family business isn't just running the state, it's being the state.

Under the German repatriation scheme, they promised all citizens would receive their property back as long as they did not support the Nazi Regime.
One member of the whole party supported them, but that does not mean the whole family is at fault.

On the contrary: the whole family ruled the country and ran it into the ground, paving the way for Hitler's rise to power. The whole family is at fault; they provided vital support to the Nazi regime by creating the political conditions for its rise. You can't just magically absolve them for their culpability, they were the monarchs.

Should we treat people differently simply because their ancestors did something a long time ago? Or should we treat them like every other private citizen under the law?

If their ancestors ran the country as a personalist dictatorship, and they're attempting to reclaim the wealth their ancestors stole from the people during that period, then yes, we should treat them differently.

[Celritannia]

But that's nothing to do with the law. The only reason a person can not get their property back is if they "substantially supported the Nazis".

Firstly, there seems to be plenty of evidence of their substantial support for the Nazis as private citizens during the period, but even if we disregard that-- their mistakes when they ran the country, and the consequent loss of WW1, collapse of the dynasty, and political turmoil which overtook Germany, all seem to constitute extremely substantial (indeed, vital and indispensable) support for the Nazis. If they hadn't made such catastrophic errors, Germany might still be a monarchy and Nazism would never have risen.

They should receive nothing.

The only error made was Kaiser Wilhelm II removing Bismarck as Chancellor.
Although Wilhelm's parents disowning him because of his damaged arms did not help either.
Up until that point, Germany was, somewhat, well organised under Bismarck.

Either way, we should not judge the actions of the family in the past.

[Senkaku]

The framing of the law is less that the ex-royals played a major part in supporting the Nazis and moreso whether or not they 'supported' the Nazis beyond the line which the conditions of the time would have required you to as a regular citizen. ie lots of people did not openly denounce Nazism or wore swastika armbands or etc at the time because doing so would have gotten you persecuted. But becoming an active member of the party, for example, or hosting Nazi officials as part of a campaign for your restoration, would be beyond that line.

The bar might be set somewhat higher than that what is considered substantial. Theres as of now, no less than four historical assessments about the case, some saying they did substantially support Hitler, others saying they didn. So... it depends with which assessment the court will side in the end. If it ends up there, which it likely will at this point. All four can be read here. In german.

I don't think their political leanings during the actual Nazi period should matter, frankly. They set the stage for it to occur at all, they are ultimately culpable (specifically, the Kaiser, in his role as both head of the family and supreme leader of Germany).

[Frajland]

Firstly, there seems to be plenty of evidence of their substantial support for the Nazis as private citizens during the period, but even if we disregard that-- their mistakes when they ran the country, and the consequent loss of WW1, collapse of the dynasty, and political turmoil which overtook Germany, all seem to constitute extremely substantial (indeed, vital and indispensable) support for the Nazis. If they hadn't made such catastrophic errors, Germany might still be a monarchy and Nazism would never have risen.

They should receive nothing.

The only error made was Kaiser Wilhelm II removing Bismarck as Chancellor.
Although Wilhelm's parents disowning him because of his damaged arms did not help either.
Up until that point, Germany was, somewhat, well organised under Bismarck.

Either way, we should not judge the actions of the family in the past.

Maybe not all but yeah he did fuck up quite a bit.

[Washington Resistance Army]

An interesting article. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, is locked in a legal battle for more than 10,000 family artifacts seized or lost after World War II.

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

Supporting the murder of children to own the right!

[A Thousand Islands]

Give it back, but levy immediate back taxes not paid since ages. With interest. Both property and inheritance tax.


More seriously, no, let them work for their riches, just like the rest of us common people.

There are plenty of non-royals who just inherit vast fortunes and never have to work for anything.

[Celritannia]

Because then the democratic elected German Government would be no different than Monarchies who accumulated that wealth.

How so?

Plus, there is a difference between a Monarch's State Property, and a Monarch's Personal Property.

Is there? In an absolute monarchy, the monarch is the state personified. How can their personal and state property be distinguished? The family business isn't just running the state, it's being the state.

Under the German repatriation scheme, they promised all citizens would receive their property back as long as they did not support the Nazi Regime.
One member of the whole party supported them, but that does not mean the whole family is at fault.

On the contrary: the whole family ruled the country and ran it into the ground, paving the way for Hitler's rise to power. The whole family is at fault; they provided vital support to the Nazi regime by creating the political conditions for its rise. You can't just magically absolve them for their culpability, they were the monarchs.

Should we treat people differently simply because their ancestors did something a long time ago? Or should we treat them like every other private citizen under the law?

If their ancestors ran the country as a personalist dictatorship, and they're attempting to reclaim the wealth their ancestors stole from the people during that period, then yes, we should treat them differently.
How so?

1. Because then the democratic elected German Government would be no different than Monarchies who accumulated that wealth.

2. Keeping stolen property for their own benefit.

3. Yes, there is. Germany wasn't an absolute monarchy, it was semi-constitutional. But that does not entitle them to be denied their stolen property.

4. That's a really bad take on history. It's not even accurate.

5. No, they didn't.

[Senkaku]

Firstly, there seems to be plenty of evidence of their substantial support for the Nazis as private citizens during the period, but even if we disregard that-- their mistakes when they ran the country, and the consequent loss of WW1, collapse of the dynasty, and political turmoil which overtook Germany, all seem to constitute extremely substantial (indeed, vital and indispensable) support for the Nazis. If they hadn't made such catastrophic errors, Germany might still be a monarchy and Nazism would never have risen.

They should receive nothing.

The only error made was Kaiser Wilhelm II removing Bismarck as Chancellor.

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

Although Wilhelm's parents disowning him because of his damaged arms did not help either.

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.

Up until that point, Germany was, somewhat, well organised under Bismarck.

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

Either way, we should not judge the actions of the family in the past.

Why on earth not? They ruled the country.

[Nakena]

The bar might be set somewhat higher than that what is considered substantial. Theres as of now, no less than four historical assessments about the case, some saying they did substantially support Hitler, others saying they didn. So... it depends with which assessment the court will side in the end. If it ends up there, which it likely will at this point. All four can be read here. In german.

I don't think their political leanings during the actual Nazi period should matter, frankly. They set the stage for it to occur at all, they are ultimately culpable (specifically, the Kaiser, in his role as both head of the family and supreme leader of Germany).

Like I said I get your point but thats not what the legal drama is about at all.

It is specifically about confiscations done in the eastern zone by Soviet Military Administration post WW2. This has been relevant in other, similar civil cases as well. Same circumstances.

[The Blaatschapen]

Give it back, but levy immediate back taxes not paid since ages. With interest. Both property and inheritance tax.


More seriously, no, let them work for their riches, just like the rest of us common people.

There are plenty of non-royals who just inherit vast fortunes and never have to work for anything.

Tax them more too.

[Senkaku]

I don't think their political leanings during the actual Nazi period should matter, frankly. They set the stage for it to occur at all, they are ultimately culpable (specifically, the Kaiser, in his role as both head of the family and supreme leader of Germany).

Like I said I get your point but thats not what the legal drama is about at all.

It is specifically about confiscations done in the eastern zone by Soviet Military Administration post WW2. This has been relevant in other, similar civil cases as well. Same circumstances.

And I'm saying that the German state should make special considerations in this specific case, because of the family's history. What's not clicking for you? Why do you seem to always interpret my posts, in every thread we engage each other in, saying I think things should be a certain way, as me asserting that they are in fact that way? Is this like an ESL situation and you don't understand the distinction between the two concepts, or what?

[Nakena]

Like I said I get your point but thats not what the legal drama is about at all.

It is specifically about confiscations done in the eastern zone by Soviet Military Administration post WW2. This has been relevant in other, similar civil cases as well. Same circumstances.

And I'm saying that the German state should make special considerations in this specific case, because of the family's history. What's not clicking for you? Why do you seem to always interpret my posts, in every thread, saying I think things should be a certain way, as me asserting that they are in fact that way?

Maybe you make them sounding like that? I dont know. But if we get into the terretory about what should be then we moving into highly speculative realms. 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.

[A Thousand Islands]

The only error made was Kaiser Wilhelm II removing Bismarck as Chancellor.

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

Although Wilhelm's parents disowning him because of his damaged arms did not help either.

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.

Up until that point, Germany was, somewhat, well organised under Bismarck.

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

Either way, we should not judge the actions of the family in the past.

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.

[Celritannia]

The only error made was Kaiser Wilhelm II removing Bismarck as Chancellor.

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.

Up until that point, Germany was, somewhat, well organised under Bismarck.

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

Either way, we should not judge the actions of the family in the past.

Why on earth not? They ruled the country.

Which all stemmed from Bismarck being kicked out of power.

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

[New Rogernomics]

An interesting article. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, is locked in a legal battle for more than 10,000 family artifacts seized or lost after World War II.

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.

[Major-Tom]

I don't really care either way. If there is a legal basis for them to get their money back, they can have it. Trust fund families gonna trust fund, that's all this is. *shrugs*

[Cetacea]

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?

[Herzpunkt]

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.

[No State Here]

This thread is getting brigaded by the Kaiserboos, actually that seems to happen everywhere on the internet when the German Empire is criticized

No, everyone who defends the German Empire isn't a Kaiserboo. Everyone with an opinion is not immediately bad.

I’m more talking about the "restore the monarchy" people, I myself support returning the property but because they are private citizens

[Genivaria]

What does that have to do with anything?

Well it just seemed that comment was filled with rage.

Then you shouldn't assume mood through text.

[The Blaatschapen]

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?

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.