Tag: art restitution
As readers of my blogs likely know by now, I love learning about restitution. I was thus quite intrigued to read this recent CNN article regarding a claim by the Prince of Prussia.
Georg Friedrich (also known by his legal surname, the Prince of Prussia) (and also apparently 202nd in line to the British throne), has quite the lineage. His ancestors include Brandenburg electors from 1415, Prussian kings from 1701, German emperors, and importantly, Germany’s last Kaiser, Wilhelm II (also known as Crown Prince Wilhelm).
The Prince has inherited the awe-inspiring Hohenzollern Castle (please take a look at it) located in southern Germany. But that is not all. Based on a promise made to his grandfather, the Prince has continued to pursue a dispute against the German authorities to reclaim part of his family’s fortune that was confiscated after the fall of the Nazis. Apparently, in addition to the promise, the grandfather’s will states that he explicitly expects the Prince to follow his footsteps in pursuing this claim.
Since German law disqualifies those who ‘substantially supported’ the Nazis from any form of restitution or compensation for lost property, the key to the Prince’s argument will be to prove that his ancestors did not help the Nazis. In addition to other forms of evidence, both the German government and the Prince have commissioned historians to examine Crown Prince Wilhelm’s relationship with the Nazi party. This includes reviewing historical photos and statements made by the Crown Prince.
What makes the legal issue even more fascinating is that while the law excludes corporations, such as Volkswagen and BMW from making these claims, it is unclear if former royals are excluded as well. Nevertheless, it appears that some royals have secured restitution – Michael, Prince of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, dropped his 2003 restitution claim for artworks, manuscripts and the inventory of the Wartburg Castle near Eisenach, in return for €15.5 million.
Those interested in restitution, as well as old-world monarchy, castles, and beautiful works of art, should follow this story.
If you find this blog interesting, please consider these other related posts:
Cornelius Gurlitt passed away in May 2014, aged 81, and is well known amongst the art community for his vast collection of famous works of art ranging from Chagall to Picasso. A recent article in the Guardian highlights the storied controversy surrounding Gurlitt’s estate and the steps taken to comply with his Will.
Much of Gurlitt’s famed art collection was passed down to him by his parents and grandparents who allegedly obtained much of the artwork by Nazi theft during World War II. In 2012, during a tax investigation, German customs officials discovered over 1,000 pieces of art worth an estimated 1 billion euros.
According to the Wall Street Journal, while on his deathbed, Gurlitt apparently signed a Will bequeathing his estate (including the artwork) to a small museum in Bern, Switzerland, the Kunstmuseum Bern, on the condition that the museum take steps to determine which works had been stolen by the Nazis and to return those pieces of art to their rightful heirs. Apparently the choice of a foreign institution was made on the basis that Gurlitt felt the German government had treated him unjustly.
It appears that in the event the museum declined the collection, it would pass to Gurlitt’s distant relatives. Concern arose that in the event these relatives beneficially received the artwork, it would be difficult to ensure they complied with Gurlitt’s instructions for restitution. As such, pundits urged the museum to take on the task to ensure that the research into the artwork was done professionally and responsibly.
The museum has since accepted the artwork, with sorrow, and is showcasing Gurlitt’s pieces in conjunction with a second museum in Bonn, Germany, the Budeskunsthalle. Although the showcasing in Bonn seems contrary to Gurlitt’s request for a foreign museum, the museum is nonetheless following Gurlitt’s most prominent wish to ensure stolen artwork is returned.
Proceedings were commenced by the distant relatives to challenge the Last Will on the basis that Gurlitt was not of sound mind when drafting the Will. A successful Will challenge would result in the artwork passing to them. The proceeding was dismissed by a German Judge, while an appeal remains pending.
I find Estates intertwined with famed art to be an enjoyable topic to research and read, as per my prior blog about the 2015 movie, Woman in Gold. Perhaps though, it’s just an excuse to admire such beautiful artwork, with Gurlitt’s collection being one of the best.
The 2015 movie, Woman in Gold, brought to the mainstream the Nazi appropriation of art throughout Europe and Russia, and the various art Restitution Board proceedings to repatriate art to their proper owner or heir. For devotees of art, history, and estates, restitution of art continues to appear in the mainstream media providing emotional stories behind beautiful pieces of art, and the steps taken by estate representatives to recover property.
In 2008, the heirs of Saemy Rosenbaum and Isaak Rosenberg (the “Estate“) submitted a request for the return of the 1526 Hans Wertinger painting titled Bildnis Pfalzgraf Johann III (Portrait of ElectorPalantine Johan III).
Apparently, the Nazi Government required the owners, who were art dealers in Frankfurt, to sell the painting in 1936, and place the proceeds of sale into a Nazi Government bank account. The painting ended up in the hands of an art collector in 1948, who bequeathed it to a museum in Stuttgart, Germany.
The claim for restitution appears to be based on the premise that, although the painting was sold, the owners were not free to make arms-lengths transactions, nor to use the proceeds freely. An interesting read in the Economist, discusses the process of claiming looted artwork, alleging that it is often opaque, ad-hoc, expensive, and uncertain, given the fact that ownership records may be patchy.
Nonetheless, researchers at the museum have now been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Portrait of ElectorPalantine Johan III was in fact stolen from the original owners. Therefore, the museum has since returned the looted artwork to the Estate.