St Petersburg palaces to be privatised

[Namarolf]

I very much agree with Lisa and Melissa. However, I wonder if the conditions in Russia and the Baltic republics are the same. In most Eastern European countries, properties were stolen once -in the 1940's. In the USSR things were different. As far as I know, in the early revolutionary days, the Bolsheviks enacted (not because of their kindness or ideology, but for political circumstances) a land reform who seized huge estates and divided them among the peasants who worked there and other people. At least, that was what happened in the Ukraine. In the 1930's, the victims of Stalin's policies were those new land owners, labeled as "kulaks" -not the original ones, who were already dead, exiled, or trying to survive in a hostile "brave new world". So -who would be the "rightful" owners? May be the palaces were not distributed among retainers -but what about all the other properties -estates, dachas, buildings, houses?

About what could be considered Nikolai II's personal property, I would like to know if that deals in anyway with who should be the "rightful" heir of the non-existant throne. If we are talking about "personal" property here, I guess it should go back to those persons who have a more direct family link with him -his sisters' grandchildren, for instance. That was the case with the Berlin bank deposits in 1938 which started the "Anastasia" legal claims. As far as I remember, no one linked the claim (in legal terms) with the rights to the throne.

[LisaDavidson]

I indicated that the process would not necessarily be easy or simple. But, so far, no attempts have been made that I know of. For example, Ai Todor was privately owned by Sandro and Xenia. They have many descendants. It would make sense to me if ownership could be transfered to a family trust so that at least ownership could be restored.

As to the large estates that were broken up, if the lands have been cared for, it would not be fair in my opinion to take them away from those who have been able stewards.

Everyone has residual heirs. In the case of the Romanovs, this is still true. For example, property stolen from Grand Duchess Elizabeth belongs to the heirs of Grand Duke Dmitri and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. Nicholas II's residual heirs would likely be the heirs of his two sisters.

[Jorgesaenz]

Thanks Lisa! I do remember there were some properties in Finland or Poland which were claimed by Romanovs in the 1920's.  Does somebody knows if their claims were successful?

Anyway, just in terms of wishful thinking, I think you may have opened the road for a new subject, if someone is interested: Who may be the present rightful claimants to the private property owned in 1918 by the now deceased Romanovs -murdered or exiled? How many Romanovs made wills and testaments before 1918, or after?

For instance, about GD Elizabeth residual heirs - I know about her relationship with GD Marie and GD Dmitry, but I wonder if her siblings' children or grandchildren in Britain or Germany would have a better claim, being direct relatives. And anyway, I wonder if she kept any personal property after entering the convent.

The questions could be endless... and probably we would get different answers according to different legal systems. For instance,  one of Nicholas II's heirs in the Berlin case in 1938 was to be her sister-in-law Pss. Brassova -who had a daughter from her first marriage. I frankly don't know what was the final word by the German justice in the Anastasia's trial about that, but it sounds possible that Brassova's daughter was entitled to receive the small amount of money coming from her mother's share. So, getting back to the palaces -would her issue be entitled to get a share of Livadia's palace, along with Xenia and Olga's issue? Not having a drop of Romanov blood, it doesn't sound too reasonable (and I guess Alexandra would have been shocked to think about that), but law sometimes is far from reasonable...

[Namarolf]

The Tsar's deposit at the Mendelssohn Bank in Berlin were actually paid out to N & A's relatives in 1938. In the 1950's, Mrs. Anderson's lawyers chose to accuse only one, Duchess Barbara of Mecklenburg (grandaughter of Princess Irene), because they wanted to confine the case to the boundaries of West Germany. So the final veredict didn't deal with Natasha Brassova or her issue, nor with any other heir, because it had been concentrated in Duchess Barbara, who was allowed to keep her share of the micro-inheritance.

If there was such a long trial for a very small amount of money (even if the real question was AA's identity), I can't think of what could be a case dealing with real stuff. I guess thats why the Russian government has chosen not to open the gates... yet.

[Charles]

All this discussion of returning palaces or land to "rightful owners" is senseless dreams.  If my great-grandfather owned a factory or great-great uncle owned an oil field, do you think that the present owners would be willing to either hand over those assets or compensate me for what is rightfully mine?  Absolutely not.  So, why should the Russian (or Ukrainian) government return those palaces in Piter or the Crimea that are presently museums or ruined shelters when they can perhaps sell them off and use that money for the good of the people (or for the good of their own pockets, which is more likely)?  

The Revolution occurred almost 90 years ago.  Where does the government begin and end in returning lost or stolen assets?  It will never end and thus should never begin.  It may be the right and legal thing to do, but it is an impossibility that can never happen.  The only hope is to preserve the architecture as a memory of the past.  If one thinks otherwise, then one does not understand Russia today.  

[Forum Admin]

Actually, the laws of inheritance are very cut and dried, and Lisa is quite right, EVERYONE, almost always, has residual heirs under law. If the deceased in question has no living issue, you look first to their spouse (if the spouse survived them for any length of time even minutes), and the spouses heirs.  If not, then the deceased's brothers/sisters and then trace their issue.  If none remaining, you go to the deceased person in question's parents brothers/sisters issue remaining. Relatives by marriage (wives or husbands) who remarry can inherit if alive, but the unrelated issue usually excluded (differs by country).  If no one here left alive, then usually goes to the State where the property is located ("escheat"). No test later students...

[Reed]

At least in my mind (not being a lawyer) there is a precedence even in the US dealing with the restitution of property.  There has been some compensation to the Native American populations.  It has not been that long ago that American Japanese were awarded settlements as a result of the relocation of these citizens during WWII.  Now in Europe there is a major push to return art works and property stolen from Jewish families.  I can't imagine it all being returned to the Russian families, but some sort of effort to justify past wrongs would be wonderful.

[Belochka]

I agree with Charles completely. It is is a ridiculous dream to pre-suppose that estates or city buildings should be returned to the Pre- revolutionary owners.

My family owned property in SPb ... but as a descendant I do not feel that I have any legal rights to stake my claim now or in the future.  When I saw the property recently it was all subdivided into appartments. People moved into the city to seek work after the revolution and subsequent world war. Much has been destroyed through neglect or other means.

Let the privatizers re-construct these buildings with their much needed funds. Then we can all enjoy the beautiful buildings inside and not just their facades. We can visit these palaces and museums and indirectly our addmission fees will all help maintain these glorious architectural masterpieces.

Some us have enjoyed wandering through the Winter Palace, Petrodvoretz and others. We admired the architectural qualities, the furniture and the Artworks. Why not allow us the general public to enjoy a few more?

The SPb local government sought and received foreign funds before the Tercentenary Celebrations to enable a massive reconstruction programme to go ahead. This recent news is simply an extension of that concept. It is not new.

With the downfall of communism, SPb is gaining a new identity and pride. It is not just a "Window to the West" it is part of the West ....

[Belochka]

It is important to appreciate that preservation of buildings and other structures are not exclusive to palaces and other significantly historic structures.

Many humble homes such as the previous thread has illustrated, must also be preserved with the same amount of care and enthusiasm.

Humble connections are the very essence of the Old Russian heartland.

~ ~

[Robert_Hall]

I agree with Charles as well. It is senseless dreaming to think those properties could be returned to any heirs, residual or otherwise. As long as the exteriors are preserved, let privatization go ahead.
As an aside, in Serbia & Romania, property has been returned to the former royal families and they are now fighting amongst themselves, quite bitterly as to who get what.

[Belochka]

Too much has happened since the Fall of the Imperial Russian Empire. All Noble families who were able to flee Russia or were lucky enough to be abroad at the time have scattered all over the world. Some have married ordinary citizens and blended into their chosen adopted countries. Should all subsequent 3 - 4 generations then qualify?

After 90 years how many persons can reasonably lay any legitimate claim? I doubt I could. It is unrealistic to consider that title must be returned to the various families.

Another point to consider is that if the Noble families "could" lay claim then why not any previous citizen who was born in Russia and owned property and through no legitimate fault of their own, were forced to also abandon all they owned and emigrate to safety because of Revolution, War or other political scenarios.

Where does it all stop?

Time to move on I say. I am so grateful that a handful of my family survived beyond 1917, so that I could write these words today.  

[Belochka]

Roger ...

The final reward for those murderers and robbers and their progeny as so eloquently described ... was the fall of Communism and their ultimate loss of power!

Who would you accuse first ... the German Government who financed Lenin and his cohorts?

[Belochka]

Here is the latest information concerning the privatization of various palaces and structures around SPb.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/25/044.html

Of particular interest is the following para:

... "foreigners will be allowed to participate in tenders for the privatization of historic buildings. Descendants of families who owned the buildings before the Bolsheviks nationalized them will also be able to take part in the tenders, but will be treated no differently from other bidders ... "

This article also highlights the legal issues as alluded to previously on this thread.

It is pleasing to see that matters are progressing.

[Forum Admin]

Ummm, Rod, just as Devil's advocate on this:
The US government forced the Indian tribes off their ancestral land during the 19th and early 20th centuries and "nationalized" it.  Should we today be paying them all back for the land taken or perhaps just hand it all back over to their decendants? The Southwest belonged to the Navajo and Mesa Verde tribes as I recall....so your home goes back too under your theory. No?

[Forum Admin]

I disagree Rod, "Communist" individuals didn't own the land. The State owned the land and buildings, not private individuals.  You can't start mixing in differing definitions of property ownership. Different cultures use different notions of property ownership....