The direct descendant of the last German emperor has proven to be a legal tyrant by intimidating historians, journalists, and others through numerous Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The prospect of long and expensive legal disputes has pressured the German state into an agreement that grants the royal heir significant control over the property he claimed to be the rightful heir of. This agreement suggests that the wannabe-prince’s SLAPPing history has created an effective threat, even to the German state.
The End of a Dynasty
The German monarchy was abolished in 1918 as a result of the November Revolution. Thus, the newly founded Republic had to divide the former monarchical property between the state and the Hohenzollern, the family of the former monarch. In contrast to Austria, where the Habsburg family was largely expropriated, the young Weimar Republic opted for a legal approach (Schlotheuber, 2021). Compared to the political expropriation approach in Austria, the legal approach in Germany was based on the right to property. This legal approach benefited the Hohenzollern family, who retained ownership over large amounts of property.
It was only after the Second World War that the Hohenzollern family lost a significant part of their property. The soviet military administration of Eastern Germany had expropriated them, just like many others. .
Compensation Claim
In 1994, the Compensation Act [Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz] was legislated. The act entitled the victims of the expropriations by the soviet military administration to financial compensation. A relevant condition for the entitlement is that the expropriated person has not significantly contributed to national socialism or communism.
The Hohenzollern family, then applied for compensation for the property expropriated in Brandenburg. Consequentially, Mr. Prinz von Preußen has an economic interest to prevent historical assessments that find that his grandfather has significantly contributed to national socialism. Historian Christopher Clark was hired and he wrote an analysis rejecting that Georg Friedrich’s grandfather had significantly contributed to national socialism.
However, in the face of new historical findings by Stephan Malinowski, Clark refrained from his previous assessment. Today, both historians agree that Crown Prince Wilhelm, Georg Friedrich’s grandfather and owner of the relevant property during the Third Reich, sought collaboration with the national socialists in order to defeat the left (SOURCE).
The administration came to the same conclusion that that G.F. Prinz von Preußen’s grandfather, Crown Prince Wilhelm, had significantly contributed to national socialism. Consequently, Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s application for compensation was rejected. Eventually, he appealed this decision before the administrative court in Potsdam. While simultaneously negotiating with the German state, Mr. Prinz von Preußen prolonged the legal proceedings.
A Prince to Fear!
Since 2012, Mr. Prinz von Preußen has filed 120 lawsuits and warnings against those who dare to publish on the Hohenzollern involvement in national socialism and other issues. The motivation seems clear: Research and traction on the significance of the family’s contribution to national socialism threatens his claim for compensation. This motivation is particularly apparent as both the lawsuit and the negotiations with the German state were ongoing.
The nature of his legal interventions is remarkable as they often aim to intimidate the target by threatening with expansive legal measures, usually based on defamation claims. Solmecke has therefore described Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s legal measures as SLAPPs. Considering the huge number of SLAPPs filed by Mr. Prinz von Preußen, he can be considered a legal tyrant.
What Is a SLAPP?
Recorded Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in the European Union (EU) have increased significantly during the past decade, as a report by the coalition against SLAPPs (CASE) shows (p. 9). First coined by Georg W. Pring and Penelope Canen in 1988, the term ‘SLAPP’ describes an abuse of the law to silence criticism or dissent by civil society actors. Crucial to the strategy of intimidation is that the SLAPPing party has significantly higher (financial) capacity to sustain prolonged lawsuits, utilizing their power position. Consequently, the typical SLAPP is posed by a corporate or rich actor against financially weaker civil actors, like journalists or researchers (p. 18). The lawsuits are most often based on defamation claims, but the identification of a SLAPP as such is still difficult because the improper intention behind the claim is usually difficult to prove (p. 9). Furthermore, the extent of intimidation is often difficult to qualify, and the threat of litigation can have a similar effect as actually initiated proceedings.
A study by Krüger et al. investigated the specific effects of the legal intimidation by Mr. Prinz von Preußen. Interviews with five targeted journalists and five targeted researchers revealed effects like self-censorship that successfully deterred victims from further participation in the public discourse. These consequences show the effectiveness of the strategy behind SLAPPs and must be described as a loss for the public because they limit the public debate.
The effect of the large number of lawsuits filed by Mr. Prinz von Preußen extends even beyond the individual intimidation that Krüger et al. demonstrated. Moreover, the wave of lawsuits has established the relevant credibility of Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s willingness and capacity to provoke prolonged legal disputes. This credible willingness and capacity pose a threat not only to civil actors with limited resources but even to the German state. Specifically, the recent agreement illustrates that effectiveness of the threat.
It’s a Deal!
After years of negotiation, the German state and Mr. Prinz von Preußen settled in the summer of 2025. The contract establishes that Mr. Prinz von Preußen agrees to refrain from further legal measures regarding compensation claims or the ownership of a long list of objects that he had compiled. In turn, Mr. Prinz von Preußen receives tobacco tins that might be worth millions, according to Andreas Fanizadeh. The heart of the agreement, however, is the establishment of the “Stiftung Hohenzollernscher Kunstbesitz” [Hohenzollern Art Collection Foundation]. Properties of which the ownership is disputed shall become property of the new foundation in order to prevent the emergence of new legal claims.
The Council is the heart of the foundation, as it decides over the finances and guidelines. It consists of nine members, six representing the public institutions. The seventh member is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen himself. The role he is granted in the contract stands out. Not only can he pick his successor in case of withdrawal, but he can even appoint two additional members of the Council for five-year terms. Consequently, the public sector holds a two-thirds majority in the Council, which has been presented as a large success by various politicians and the media.
While Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s influence on the property is therefore indeed limited as the state holds a two-thirds majority in the Council, the question remains why he was granted any power at all.
The Reasoning Is Questionable
It could be assumed that the state authorities saw a reasonable claim for ownership regarding a significant number of objects that are currently state-owned. A legal decision that would have transferred these objects into the private property Mr. Prinz von Preußen certainly had posed a risk that these objects disappear from the public display, e.g., in museums. This reasoning supposedly justifies the agreement and the establishment of the foundation.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that former state negotiators had terminated the negotiations to leave the decision to the court. The negotiations were resumed only after a new government came to power, but in the absence of new facts. The discrepancy regarding the former and the new governments’ assessment remains unexplained by the public authorities. This unnecessary lack of transparency in the reassessment allows to question the state’s rationale behind concluding an agreement. Especially since proof for a legitimate claim should not be difficult to provide, the lack of such proof undermines the reasoning.
Is the State Afraid?
After the agreement was announced, multiple negotiators published press statements that revealed another motivation for the German state to enter into the agreement. Manja Schüle, Minister of Culture of Brandenburg, praises that the consent decision prevents “brute force and endless legal proceedings”. Like Schüle, all state negotiators defend the agreement based on the prevention of prolonged legal proceedings.
This cannot be understood any differently than as a confession that the state was afraid of prolonged legal proceedings and believed Mr. Prinz von Preußen to be capable and willing to provoke these.
The role that Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s believable willingness to exploit the legal system must have played in the negotiations is expressed by negotiator Raphael Gross, President of the Stiftung Deutsches Historisches Museum: “Overall, the agreement means that in future, scientists will be able to take whatever historical perspective they choose without fear of legal disputes”. This statement is remarkable because it directly links the agreement to Mr. Prinz von Preußen’s SLAPP history.
Conclusion
Considering these statements, it becomes clear that the credibility of Mr. Prinz von Preußen as a legal tyrant has significantly benefited him in the negotiations. It can therefore be concluded that he may not have been able to reach an agreement, granting him significant control over the former monarchy’s property, without having SLAPPed like a real aristocrat in the years beforehand.
(Photo: Stefanie Jockschat)
