“A castle doesn’t bring in money, it drains it” – government disregards request of historical noble families

Despite having approached Minister of Construction and Transport János Lázár last year regarding the so-called castle law, representatives of Hungary’s historical families have yet to receive a reassuring response to their concerns. As soon as it became clear that some of the country’s castles – expropriated by the state during the socialist era – would be handed over to private ownership free of charge under the terms defined by the law, representatives of the descendants of these families wrote a letter to Lázár in the spring of 2023, urging the government to consider the perspectives and requests of the families concerned when preparing the castle law.

“We sadly observe that the castle law does not even mention the families who built these monuments and acted as their careful custodians for centuries” – said Pál Zichy, one of the descendants who appealed to the government. Zichy is also president of the Association of Hungarian Historical Families. “These families have not disappeared. Their descendants still live, some abroad, some here, and if given the opportunity, they would act for the sake these historical monuments” – he added.

The families asked the government to at least create the possibility, in principle, for castles to be returned to the descendants who were once dispossessed. They also urged regulation regarding the use of family crests and names associated with these castles, as well as the establishment of the necessary institutional frameworks – Zichy recalled, adding that while Lázár personally received the families’ representatives at the ministry last summer, the text of the law does not reflect their requests and suggestions in any way.

Pál Zichy pointed out that while restitution has largely taken place in neighbouring countries like Romania and the Czech Republic, Hungarian decision-makers did not even attempt such a thing following the regime change. This, in his view, also contributed to the fact that some castles were left to decay, and the state does not really know what to do with them.

We are aware of the economic realities: a castle doesn’t bring in money, it drains it

– said Zichy, emphasising that it is an illusion to think a castle could provide its owner with a living in any way. “Most of these descendants are not in the financial position to renovate and maintain a castle on their own. However, in cooperation with a financially well-endowed enterprise, a model could be created where ownership, historical legitimacy, and sustainable operation are all respected.”

He didn’t go into details regarding what this would mean in practice, but he hinted that the descendants would like to participate personally in the management of the castles intended for privatisation, perhaps through family foundations.

An example for this model is the Károlyi Castle in Fehérvárcsurgó, where György Károlyi embarked on renovating the castle partly from his own funds and partly with state support. In addition to part of the castle serving as a family home, a museum and an event space are also operated there. For its renovation, 1.5 billion forints of EU funding and nearly 400 million forints of state support were used under the National Castle and Fortress Program as part of a tourism development project. The main beneficiaries of this support were NÖF National Heritage Protection and Development Non-profit Ltd., managing most Hungarian castles, and the Károlyi Foundation. This castle is also on the list of 48 castles awaiting privatisation under Lázár’s law.

In Transylvania, under the Romanian restitution law, historical Hungarian noble families were able to reclaim their castles via lawsuits, which, in many cases, were saved with family cooperation using their own money – or with some support from the Hungarian state – and are still operated with an ownership mindset today, open to the public as cultural spaces. Pál Zichy noted that these are excellent examples, which makes it all the more disappointing that, in contrast to the Transylvanian solution, the new Hungarian castle law remains silent about the heirs.

It is important to emphasise that this is not a rebellion; we simply want to achieve a result that is also reassuring for the families who were once the owners. Our goal is to preserve our national and family heritage, which we care very deeply about, in a dignified and authentic way for future generations

– he concluded.

Before socialist nationalisation, various branches of the Zichy family owned numerous castles across Hungary. As Pál Zichy puts it, “most are waiting for their fate to turn brighter, unjustly neglected and in a state of disrepair.” The neoclassical Zichy Castle in Soponya, now standing empty and in a dilapidated state, is located just 25 kilometres south of Székesfehérvár – and also appears on the list of 48 castles set for privatisation under János Lázár’s castle law. Counted among the country’s larger former noble residences, this castle was the home of the Zichy family’s Nagyláng branch until nationalisation, after which it was converted into a foster home.

The castle has been standing abandoned since 1996. For the last two years, the premises have not even been guarded – claims Pál Zichy. He states that they were not contacted when the state decided to include their former family property on the list of castles to be privatised, although he believes they had every right to expect information about the future of the building.

At the end of August, it was revealed that the first round of the free transfer of state-owned castles, mansions, manor houses, parks, gardens, and their associated movable assets would begin with the auction of eight castles. The 48 properties listed in the annex of the castle law

vary widely in their condition and status.

Many buildings have fallen into complete disrepair, while others have already received billions of forints in EU and state funding through the National Castle and Fortress Program. Some of these properties now operate as hotels, inns, conference centres, or university campuses.

One peculiar example among the castles set for privatisation is the Csáky-Bolza Castle in Szarvas. Nationalized in 1949, the property currently functions as an ecotourism facility, but the Ministry of Construction and Transport (ÉKM) plans to privatise it nonetheless. In our previous article, it was noted that the Körös-Maros National Park has spent over one billion forints on the castle over the past decade. The national park has a close relationship with the Csáky family, who are completely satisfied with the current use of the castle. The Ministry of Agriculture also opposes its privatisation.

The call for bids was published on ÉKM’s website in the end of August. Bidders – including private individuals from Hungary, foreign citizens of EEA countries and   legal entities – have 60 days to apply. The application fee per castle is 10 million forints, except for local municipalities, minority governments, or churches: in their case, the fee is 1 forint.

We inquired at the Ministry regarding the criteria for selecting properties for privatisation. Regarding castles designated for the first round, they responded:

In the case of the eight selected properties, significant state-funded developments have taken place in recent years, but the extensive renovations did not result in comprehensive, sustainable investments in any of the cases.

Another argument in favour of these properties, according to the ministry, is that for these castles, the already completed plans and expert materials have already ensured the prerequisites necessary for long-term development.

When asked what frameworks they envision for addressing the requests of heirs dispossessed during the socialist era, who have not been meaningfully compensated since the regime change, the ministry did not provide a response.