David Invest

What happens when a monarchy's wealth vanishes and the gold turns to dust?

• David (Viacheslav) Davidenko

Share episode

That gleaming crown might not be solid gold after all. Behind the fairy tale image of royal wealth lies a fascinating and often overlooked reality: monarchies throughout history have faced financial collapse, forcing dramatic transformations from sovereign rulers to creative entrepreneurs just trying to keep the lights on in their ancestral palaces.

Our journey travels from the excesses of pre-revolutionary France, where Versailles symbolized the unchecked spending that helped spark revolution, to the sprawling Romanov empire with its 60+ palaces scattered across Russia before the dramatic 1917 overthrow. We explore how Italy's House of Savoy lost power through a democratic referendum, transforming castles into tourist attractions and wedding venues. The Greek royal family's legal battles to reclaim properties—only to auction them off—reveals changing priorities when the crown disappears. Perhaps most dramatic is the Shah of Iran's story, where unimaginable opulence vanished virtually overnight in 1979.

What emerges is a pattern revealing the vulnerability behind royal fortunes. Growing up sheltered from financial realities leaves many royal heirs unprepared to manage assets without state backing. Historic properties that once symbolized power become crushing financial burdens without special privileges. The successful adaptors establish foundations, make strategic marriages, or embrace tourism—transforming from wielding political power to leveraging cultural capital. Even today's royal families quietly sell assets to stay afloat, balancing tradition with financial reality. It's a powerful reminder that even the most dazzling wealth remains temporary, vulnerable to the shifting sands of power, politics, and public opinion. Subscribe now to hear more deep dives that challenge your assumptions about wealth, power, and what we think we know about history's most famous figures.

📰 Read more about this topic in our latest article:  https://sunrisecapitalgroup.com/when-royalty-goes-broke-the-rise-and-fall-of-regal-fortunes/

🔗 Check out our website for more information and valuable resources: https://linkin.bio/davidinvest

📸 Follow us on Instagram for updates and behind-the-scenes content: https://www.instagram.com/davidinvestai/

🔗 Network with me on LinkedIn for professional connections and advice: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vdavidenko/

📧 Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive investment tips and insights: https://sunrisecapitalgroup.com/subscribe/

📚 Check out my course on Udemy - https://www.udemy.com/course/passive-real-estate-investing/

Disclaimer: The content provided on this channel is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial, or tax advice. We strongly recommend that you consult with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions. Past performance of investments is not indicative of future results. The information presented here is not a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or investments. Our firm may have conflicts of interest, and we do not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of the content provided. Investing involves risks, and you should carefully consid...

Speaker 1:

Okay. So when you think about royalty, we all kind of picture the same thing, don't we? You know limitless riches, golden thrones, these enormous mansions, jewels everywhere.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. It's almost synonymous with just well unbelievable wealth.

Speaker 1:

But what happens when that sort of runs dry, when the gold isn't quite so shiny anymore and those huge estates start looking a bit shaky?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. What happens then? That's really the fascinating question we're digging into today in this deep dive.

Speaker 1:

Right, it's a perception, that's. I mean, it's baked into how we see power, isn't it For centuries? Yeah, royalty and wealth seem completely linked.

Speaker 2:

Inextricably linked, you might say. But history shows us pretty vividly actually that connection is maybe more fragile than we think.

Speaker 1:

So we're going to look at some historical examples right Cases where royal families really hit hard times financially.

Speaker 2:

Exactly and see how they reacted, how they adapted and or maybe didn't adapt so well.

Speaker 1:

And this isn't just us guessing. We've looked into, you know, historical records, analyses, trying to get a real picture of what happens when the royal bank account is empty.

Speaker 2:

Our goal here is really to peek behind that sort of fairy tale curtain of monarchy, understand the vulnerabilities, even for people who seemed all powerful.

Speaker 1:

And see how these families managed when suddenly wearing the crown maybe felt less about tradition and more about just paying the bills.

Speaker 2:

OK, where should we start? Maybe the French royal family, the Bourbons?

Speaker 1:

Oh, definitely. That feels like the classic example, doesn't it? Royal excess just leading straight into financial ruin and, well, revolution.

Speaker 2:

It really is, and Versailles.

Speaker 1:

Ah, versailles, it's more than a palace right, it's like the symbol of that level of spending, the scale, the sheer luxury.

Speaker 2:

It became a real flashpoint for anger in France.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

And you mentioned Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Their spending habits, fairly or unfairly, certainly didn't help the situation.

Speaker 1:

Was there nobody saying ah, your majesty, maybe we should cut back a bit? Were there really no controls?

Speaker 2:

Well, that's what's so interesting. There really weren't effective checks. The French monarchy over centuries had gathered immense power. They often operated kind of outside normal money rules, so just spending whatever they wanted Pretty much, especially on things like Versailles, symbols of their glory, and all this, just you know, fueled anger among ordinary people who were struggling.

Speaker 1:

Right. So when the French Revolution kicked off, it wasn't just about politics.

Speaker 2:

No, not at all. It was deeply tied to this feeling that the country's wealth was being frankly squandered by the elite.

Speaker 1:

And the result they lost everything Power, property, all gone.

Speaker 2:

Total loss. And Versailles and all those other royal castles, the chateaus, just taken by the new government, the republic. Confiscated. Imagine all that art. The furniture just scattered, sold off, used for totally different things.

Speaker 1:

It's kind of mind boggling. So what happened to places like Versailles in the long run?

Speaker 2:

Well, connecting this to the bigger picture. It's the transformation that's striking these incredibly private, powerful places. Versailles is now, you know, a huge tourist spot.

Speaker 1:

Right People pay to go in.

Speaker 2:

Exactly, parts are even a hotel and it's a state museum. Yeah, think about that irony for a second.

Speaker 1:

Tourists snapping photos in the king's bedroom.

Speaker 2:

Places that were once totally off limits. It shows how society's values and needs can completely reshape even these massive symbols of power.

Speaker 1:

A real full circle moment. Did any of the family ever try to get these places back later on?

Speaker 2:

There were some efforts over time, but largely unsuccessful. The properties remained symbols of the nation, not the former dynasty.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so from France let's shift focus, maybe head east to Russia, the Romanovs.

Speaker 2:

Ah yes, another powerful dynasty ruling for centuries, and their story is another really compelling case of how revolution can just well wipe out seemingly endless wealth.

Speaker 1:

And their properties were. I mean, the scale was incredible. Right, you said over 60 palaces.

Speaker 2:

Over 60. The Winter Palace in St Petersburg is famous, of course, but they had these vast estates all across the empire. It's hard to even grasp that level of land ownership.

Speaker 1:

Were these places just for show, or did they actually contribute anything economically?

Speaker 2:

Some did generate income, sure, through farming or forestry, but many were primarily symbols of imperial might, status symbols really, and they cost a fortune to maintain.

Speaker 1:

And then came 1917, the Russian Revolution.

Speaker 2:

A sudden brutal end, the Tsar and his family executed. The whole empire dissolved.

Speaker 1:

And the 60-plus palaces.

Speaker 2:

Gone, seized outright, just like in France, looted, I imagine, undoubtedly, and then mostly turned into government buildings for the new Soviet state. The symbols of the old regime becoming functional buildings for the new Soviet state. The symbols of the old regime becoming functional buildings for the new one.

Speaker 1:

It's a pattern, isn't it? What about now? What's happened to those Romanov palaces today?

Speaker 2:

It's really varied. Some are museums now, teaching people about that imperial past. Others are well kind of hauntingly empties, deserted, Wow. But recently there's been this trend of fixing some of them up. It seems linked to a kind of nationalist revival, a renewed interest in Russia's imperial history.

Speaker 1:

Interesting. Is that just cultural interest or something more? That's a good question.

Speaker 2:

It's likely complex, reflecting how Russia sees its own past today.

Speaker 1:

Which leads to a kind of strange irony, doesn't it, when you look at modern Russia.

Speaker 2:

You mean the super rich?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, this new class of oligarchs living in, I mean unbelievable luxury Mega yachts, palaces that seem to rival the czars.

Speaker 2:

It's a stark contrast and if you connect it back, the Romanov story really feels like a cautionary tale, doesn't it? Not just about power being temporary, but maybe about history having echoes?

Speaker 1:

That extreme wealth doesn't guarantee security forever.

Speaker 2:

Not when the political ground shifts underneath you.

Speaker 1:

No guarantee at all Okay, let's move south. Italy, the House of Savoy. Their exit was a bit different, wasn't it?

Speaker 2:

Yes, quite different. No violent revolution there. Instead it was a vote, a referendum in 1946.

Speaker 1:

Right after the war.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. The public voted to abolish the monarchy and the royal family was banished. Why did the public turn against them?

Speaker 1:

Well, their connection with Mussolini and the fascist regime during World War II really damaged their reputation.

Speaker 2:

Ah, okay, so the referendum was a way to make a clean break.

Speaker 1:

Precisely and like elsewhere. Like elsewhere, their properties castles like Riconigi, stupinigi were transferred to the state, became property of the Italian people.

Speaker 2:

And what's become of those Italian royal castles since?

Speaker 1:

It seems like a mixed bag again.

Speaker 2:

Many are open to the public museums, heritage sites, but apparently some just sit empty, kind of forgotten, and some have been quietly sold off or leased out over the years.

Speaker 1:

Yes, which raises the question how did the descendants actually live without state funding?

Speaker 2:

They've had to get creative, find new ways to earn a living, and some of those ways are well pretty modern.

Speaker 1:

Like turning the ancestral castle into an Airbnb or a wedding venue.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. It's a huge shift, isn't it, from living off royal funds to basically running a hospitality business in your historic home.

Speaker 1:

Imagine booking your wedding there. Knowing your fee helps keep the place standing. Is that seen as a step down or just adapting?

Speaker 2:

Well, the irony is definitely there. They're relying on tourism, on people paying for the experience of their history, rather than the old system of taxes and privilege.

Speaker 1:

And the reminders of their past power are just old photos on the wall.

Speaker 2:

Often, yeah, more like decoration than a symbol of real authority anymore. It's quite a change.

Speaker 1:

Okay, let's hop over to Greece, another monarchy gone, abolished in 1973. They lost a lot of property too, didn't they? Including Tatoy Palace.

Speaker 2:

Yes, Tatoy Palace was a big one. The Greek monarchy faced abolition after a period of political turmoil and clashes over the king's role in government.

Speaker 1:

So public opinion turned against them too.

Speaker 2:

It did and yes, they lost a significant chunk of their royal assets. But interestingly there was a long legal fight afterward.

Speaker 1:

To get some of it back.

Speaker 2:

Right, and what's really telling is what happened next. The heirs won back some property and then promptly auctioned it off.

Speaker 1:

Wow so, cash over castles.

Speaker 2:

Seems like it. It really makes you think about the practical value versus the symbolic value of these places once the power is gone.

Speaker 1:

It highlights that shift in priorities Absolutely From keeping up appearances to just needing the money.

Speaker 2:

And like other royals who lost their thrones, the Greek royals scattered, didn't they? London, Dubai, places like that.

Speaker 1:

Definitely not living in Greek palaces anymore. How do they manage financially and socially?

Speaker 2:

Well, it seems to involve selling off heirlooms, relying on whatever private wealth remained, maybe starting businesses.

Speaker 1:

And they still pop up in society magazines sometimes.

Speaker 2:

Occasionally, yeah, but it feels more like a nostalgic nod to the past, doesn't it Not like they hold any real royal authority? It shows the high price of keeping up that legacy when the power is gone.

Speaker 1:

Okay, one more major example the Shah of Iran. Now his story is almost like peak opulence before the fall.

Speaker 2:

Oh, absolutely Palaces dripping with gold, marble, priceless art flown in from everywhere. It sounds almost mythical.

Speaker 1:

Was that level of wealth widely known in Iran? What did people think?

Speaker 2:

It was very well known and it became a huge source of resentment, especially when contrasted with how many ordinary Iranians were living.

Speaker 1:

And then 1979, the revolution.

Speaker 2:

The swift, decisive end to his rule and his incredible wealth. The second he went into exile. Those properties were seized instantly.

Speaker 1:

By the new Islamic Republic. It shows how fast things can change with political upheaval.

Speaker 2:

Dramatically fast. And the fate of those palaces afterwards.

Speaker 1:

It sounds pretty grim. Many turned into museums, almost like exhibits showing the excesses of the old regime.

Speaker 2:

Right, a deliberate message there, yeah, but others were just Left to rot.

Speaker 1:

Sadly, yes, neglected Decaying. And what about all his personal stuff? The cars, the collections?

Speaker 2:

Mostly auctioned off or just lost in the chaos. His story is just this stark reminder of how quickly that kind of extreme luxury can just evaporate when the political situation changes completely.

Speaker 1:

So we've looked at France, russia, italy, greece, iran quite a tour. Looking across these different stories. Are there common reasons why these families who started with so much hit financial problems?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, there are definitely some common threads. One big one, I think, is that just inheriting wealth, even vast wealth, doesn't mean you automatically know how to manage it.

Speaker 1:

Financial literacy isn't hereditary.

Speaker 2:

Exactly, and many royals grew up very sheltered, you know, protected from the day-to-day realities of budgets and bills. They just weren't prepared for a world where the state wasn't picking up the tab.

Speaker 1:

That makes sense Living in a bubble, almost and then there's the cost of the properties themselves.

Speaker 2:

Oh, absolutely the sheer expense of just maintaining these enormous historic buildings. The upkeeps, the taxes. It's astronomical.

Speaker 1:

How did those costs change over time, especially when politics shifted?

Speaker 2:

They often became unsustainable. Without constant state funding and the special privileges that came with being royal, those maintenance costs become a huge weight.

Speaker 1:

What was once a symbol of power becomes a massive financial drain.

Speaker 2:

Precisely A liability really.

Speaker 1:

But it wasn't all doom and gloom, was it? Some royal lines did manage to adapt, didn't they?

Speaker 2:

Yes, some did, and it's interesting to see how they did it. Different strategies worked for different families.

Speaker 1:

Like what. What were the successful approaches?

Speaker 2:

Well, some set up private foundations to manage what assets they had left. Others made strategic marriages, marrying into wealthy families.

Speaker 1:

Marrying for money, basically.

Speaker 2:

Essentially yes and, as we've seen, many turned to tourism, opening up their homes, leveraging their history for income. It's a shift from using power to using cultural capital.

Speaker 1:

Which is a big contrast to those who just couldn't make it work right.

Speaker 2:

Ending up selling everything off at auction because of bad management Right and the pitfalls there seem to be things like just not being willing to change with the times, continuing old spending habits or failing to find new ways to actually make money.

Speaker 1:

And the role itself changed too Hugely.

Speaker 2:

Many modern royals, even those still connected to thrones, function less like rulers and more like brand ambassadors, using their name and history in a world that values being relevant and engaging with the public.

Speaker 1:

And this isn't just ancient history, is it? These kinds of financial pressures are still happening now.

Speaker 2:

Oh, definitely not just history. Even today you hear reports about current royal families or semi-royal families UK, spain, jordan places like that quietly selling off assets.

Speaker 1:

Properties, heirlooms, land.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, as a way to deal with rising costs and just manage their family finances in the modern world. It really makes you wonder about the future of the traditional royal wealth model in the 21st century.

Speaker 1:

So those grand castles we picture might end up as fancy hotels or wedding spots.

Speaker 2:

Or vineyards getting sold off to investors. It seems like, while having a title still carries social weight, it's definitely not a guarantee of financial security anymore.

Speaker 1:

It really isn't. Today's royals seem to be doing this constant balancing act.

Speaker 2:

A very delicate financial tightrope, yeah, trying to balance tradition and expectations with the simple need to well stay afloat financially in a world that's changing fast.

Speaker 1:

So, wrapping this up, this deep dive really shows that common idea of royalty being forever rich. It's often just not true, is it?

Speaker 2:

Not at all. It's more of a myth. In many cases, we've seen that crowns can definitely break, fortunes can disappear and even the grandest palaces can end up well crumbling.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it's been quite a journey seeing that transformation from these super powerful monarchs to just individuals trying to figure out a new reality.

Speaker 2:

Often by reinventing themselves. Right Palaces become museums, royals become sort of historical influencers in a weird way.

Speaker 1:

That image we started with the gold throne versus the empty coffers. It leads to a pretty potent final thought, doesn't it?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, the idea of a broken crown sitting on top of a crumbling palace. It's a powerful metaphor.

Speaker 1:

It reminds you that even what looks like the most permanent dazzling wealth is actually temporary, vulnerable to changes in power in society.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely, and it kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it, what other things that seem totally solid and unshakable today might actually face.

People on this episode

Head Shot

David (Viacheslav) Davidenko

Host