Germany's ex-royals want their riches back

[Kubra]

ok fellas calm your jets, this is a bit of a dangerous digression from the topic.

and i truly believe that the Hohenzollerns should get their property back from the thieves who stole it from them under dubious pretenses.

And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.

[Loben III]

and i truly believe that the Hohenzollerns should get their property back from the thieves who stole it from them under dubious pretenses.

And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.

while thats well and good for you, what about actual tangible facts.

the Hohenzollerns had possessions confiscated by the USSR and their lackeys, which was then put into the GDRs rather unfortunate Custody. now some 30 years after the GDRs dissolvement, the head of the family wants some of the possessions back the modern German govt is being as stubborn as it can legally be due to a rather dubious claim that the Crown prince has given "substantial" Support to the Nazi Regime.

[Thepeopl]

I think the ex royals can have their property back, if they pay all maintenance costs the state has done on the property from 1918.

Seems fair to me.

[Zentralafrika Union]

I personally belief that, since royalties attain their property during their tenure as state officials and even sometime as the state itself (especially things like castles, which clearly done to serve state interest) their properties should belong to the state after they abdicated. I mean, presidents don't own the roads they give funding during their tenure, why do kings get castles they give funding to?

[Kubra]

And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.

while thats well and good for you, what about actual tangible facts.

the Hohenzollerns had possessions confiscated by the USSR and their lackeys, which was then put into the GDRs rather unfortunate Custody. now some 30 years after the GDRs dissolvement, the head of the family wants some of the possessions back the modern German govt is being as stubborn as it can legally be due to a rather dubious claim that the Crown prince has given "substantial" Support to the Nazi Regime.

As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.

[Loben III]

while thats well and good for you, what about actual tangible facts.

the Hohenzollerns had possessions confiscated by the USSR and their lackeys, which was then put into the GDRs rather unfortunate Custody. now some 30 years after the GDRs dissolvement, the head of the family wants some of the possessions back the modern German govt is being as stubborn as it can legally be due to a rather dubious claim that the Crown prince has given "substantial" Support to the Nazi Regime.

As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.

yes and we all know the German administration always makes the right call.......

[Punished UMN]

The problem with this applied to politics though is that, without an intimate knowledge of a political figure, it's difficult to ascertain what is selfish, malicious, or just incompetence or neglect. And then you have to take into account social conditioning and how that can affect people's character.

would you say that the Tsar was merely incompetent?

Not necessarily, but I would say he was largely controlled by his advisors.

[Kubra]

As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.

yes and we all know the German administration always makes the right call.......

I'd say it doesn't because it doesn't abolish property in general, ya'll say it doesn't because it won't restore the monarchy. Tomato, tomato.
As I said, the least important person in the Dreyfus affair was Alfred Dreyfus.

[Loben III]

would you say that the Tsar was merely incompetent?

Not necessarily, but I would say he was largely controlled by his advisors.

interesting.

[UniversalCommons]

Most monarchies are controlled by some sort of constitutional agreement between the monarchy and the state. Monarchy is after all a state function. To say you want the property without the state responsibilities is a free lunch. Monarchies usually represent something. This time, the monarchs should be some kind of symbol, usually moral of the state. This lessens the requirement of the state to focus on morality, and creates a figurehead for the public for "exemplary" behavior. This allows greater real politic in the government and less moralizing because the monarchs have become the symbols of right living.

[Nilokeras]

would you say that the Tsar was merely incompetent?

Not necessarily, but I would say he was largely controlled by his advisors.

Like Louis XVI, Nicholas II always struck me as someone who wasn't incompetent per se but just someone who wasn't up for the challenges they happened to live through. Quiet, decent-hearted people who grew up enormously sheltered and not particularly well prepared for ruling which manifested in different ways - Louis through deference to courtiers and ministers, Nicholas through micromanagement and myopia. It's one of the pitfalls of absolute monarchism that it's these moments of inattention and inertia, rather than the truly horrible monarchs, that produces the worst results in many cases.

[Punished UMN]

Not necessarily, but I would say he was largely controlled by his advisors.

Like Louis XVI, Nicholas II always struck me as someone who wasn't incompetent per se but just someone who wasn't up for the challenges they happened to live through. Quiet, decent-hearted people who grew up enormously sheltered and not particularly well prepared for ruling which manifested in different ways - Louis through deference to courtiers and ministers, Nicholas through micromanagement and myopia. It's one of the pitfalls of absolute monarchism that it's these moments of inattention and inertia, rather than the truly horrible monarchs, that produces the worst results in many cases.

Certainly Nicholas' upbringing greatly contributed to his downfall, the assassination of his reformer grandfather when he was a child, and his mentor's efforts to impress upon him that this assassination was caused by attempts to reform the administration, led Nicholas to oppose many reforms that could have transformed administration into something that would better suit him and the Russian people. Nicholas was a bad ruler, but I think a lot of people mistakenly assume that he was malicious, which wasn't really the case.