Leopold IV (Lippe)

Leopold IV. Zur Lippe in the uniform of the infantry regiment "Graf Bülow von Dennewitz" (6th Westphalian) No. 55

Leopold IV Julius Bernhard Adalbert Otto Karl Fritz Georg Gustav zur Lippe (born May 30, 1871 in Oberkassel near Bonn , † December 30, 1949 in Detmold ) was the last ruling Prince of Lippe .

Life

He was the son of Ernst zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Caroline Countess von Wartensleben (1844–1905).

He received his training at the school of scholars in Roßleben , at the grammar school in Frankfurt ad Oder and at the Royal Pedagogy in Putbus , where he graduated from high school in 1891 . Until 1894 he was an officer in the German army. In 1894/1895 he studied political science at the universities of Bonn and Berlin . In Bonn he became a member of the Corps Borussia . In 1895 he returned home because his father's paralysis and the dispute over the succession made his presence necessary. The final decision was transferred to the arbitration rulings of the members of the IV and VII civil senates of the Reichsgericht . Until then, Leopold remained regent. By the decision of the Reichsgericht, presided over by the President of the Reichsgericht Rudolf von Seckendorff , on October 25, 1905, the right of succession of the Biesterfeld family was finally recognized. Leopold took over the government as Prince Leopold IV, since Prince Alexander had died on January 13, 1905. As a result of this imperial court decision, Kaiser Wilhelm II had to give up his hope of an accession to the throne of his brother-in-law and major general à la suite, Prince Adolf zu Schaumburg-Lippe . He was so upset about this that he demonstratively stayed away from the festivities for the enthronement of Prince Leopold IV in Detmold.

Prince Leopold IV to the Lippe

His government was characterized by economic and cultural advancement, he was open to technology and industry. In order to offer the residents opportunities to earn a living, he had the state workshops set up and a large number of important building projects carried out. The magnificent buildings of the government and state parliament building, the savings banks and banks, the grammar school, the teachers' college, the Christ Church with the princely crypt on Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz, the Protestant pastor's office, the barracks, the expansion of the castle , etc. served this purpose. In Bad Salzuflen he supported the drilling of the Leopold Spring with grants from his own budget. His most important creation is the Fürst Leopold Academy for Administrative Sciences: a technical college in which war-disabled officers were retrained to become municipal officials.

His great love was hunting and the theater , so he had the burned down court theater rebuilt in the middle of the First World War . He also devoted himself to popular education. The State School Act of 1914 created the state high school authority and eliminated the church's school supervision. The academy put the teachers on a par with the Prussian teachers . The new tax laws brought a fair distribution of the burdens and a substantial increase in tax revenue. The development of the country by road and rail promoted trade and traffic. Industrialization in particular made great strides. In the course of the November Revolution, Leopold IV was urged to renounce the throne on November 12, 1918 by the Lippe People's and Soldiers' Council.

Prince Leopold's reign and lifetime fell in historically very turbulent and difficult times. If you consider how much humiliation and conflict determined his life (the struggle for equality and succession to the throne , World War I, renunciation of the throne, inflation , property disputes in the Weimar Republic over domain and family ownership that dragged on for almost two decades, National Socialism and World War II ), then it is not surprising that the judgment of contemporaries about the introverted prince fluctuates. However, he is recognized as honest and saved the family property through economical and solid management. He died in Detmold in 1949, after he passed on his children from his first marriage and thus also his eldest son Ernst Leopold , who together with his siblings had joined the National Socialists at an early age, in his will and appointed his youngest son Armin as the future head of the house would have.

progeny

Princess Bertha of Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld

Prince Leopold IV was married twice: first marriage on August 16, 1901 with Princess Bertha von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (born October 25, 1874 in Burgsteinfurt , † February 19, 1919 in Detmold); second marriage April 26, 1922 with Anna Princess zu Ysenburg-Büdingen , widowed Princess zur Lippe-Weißenfeld (* February 10, 1886 in Büdingen , † February 8, 1980 in Detmold).

Children from first marriage:

Ernst Leopold Chlodwig Julius Alexis Wilhelm Heinrich Prinz zur Lippe (born June 12, 1902 in Detmold, † May 24, 1987 in Detmold)
Leopold Bernhard Wilhelm Friedrich Heinrich Alexis Otto Prinz zur Lippe (born May 19, 1904 in Detmold, † July 5, 1965 in Detmold)
Karoline Auguste Adelheid Mathilde Marie Luise Pauline Princess zur Lippe (born August 4, 1905 in Detmold, † October 12, 2001 in Bad Eilsen)
Chlodwig Luitpold Friedrich August Georg Rudolf Christian Maximilian Prinz zur Lippe (born September 27, 1909 in Detmold, † February 13, 2000 in Starnberg)
Sieglinde Bertha Elisabeth Adelheid Juliane Calma Bathildis Marie Anna Princess zur Lippe (born March 4, 1915 in Detmold, † August 8, 2008)

Second marriage child:

Armin Leopold Ernst Bruno Heinrich Willa August Prinz zur Lippe (* August 18, 1924 in Detmold, † August 20, 2015 in Detmold)

literature

Prince Leopold IV. Zur Lippe , in: Internationales Biographisches Archiv 35/1951 from August 20, 1951, in the Munzinger Archive ( beginning of article freely available)

Web links

Commons : Leopold IV. - Collection of pictures, videos and audio files

References and comments

↑ Kösener corps lists 1910, 19/678.
↑ Arbitration ruling in the legal dispute over the succession to the throne in the Principality of Lippe on October 25, 1905 (LLB Detmold)
↑
The decision of the Reichsgericht was published in the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 1906, Sp. 61–63 . The following reasons were decisive for the affirmation of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line after this decision:
- The equality of the marriage entered into in 1803 between Count Wilhelm Ernst and Modeste von Unruh, from which the Biesterfeld line derives.
- Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line by a law of the state of Lippe of October 17, 1896
- Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line through an arbitration award dated June 22, 1897 . The arbitral tribunal consisted of seven members: King Albert of Saxony and six members of the Imperial Court.
- The equality of the marriage on September 16, 1869 between the deceased Count Ernst zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Karoline Countess von Wartensleben, the parents of Prince Leopold IV.
The lines Lippe-Biesterfeld, Lippe-Weißenfeld and Lippe-Alverdissen fought for the throne of the Principality of Lippe. The latter had acquired the Schaumburg line and accepted the dignity of prince in 1807. All three lines went to Count Simon VI, who died in 1613. back to the lip.
↑ On July 17, 1919, the state parliament of the state of Lippe decided that with the renunciation of the throne of Prince Leopold IV, the princely domain assets would be state property. He thus confirmed an order of the Lippe People's and Soldiers' Council. On the basis of this law, the state of Lippe concluded a dominal contract with the dethroned Prince Leopold IV on October 31, 1919. According to § 2 of the treaty, the land of Lippe should be the owner of the princely domain assets, with the exception of the elements mentioned under § 3. Detmold Castle, the Lopshorn Hunting Lodge and the Berlebeck Forest District were given to the Princely House of Lippe, cf. the ruling of the Reichsgericht dated May 27, 1932 in the litigation of Prince Leopold IV against the Land of Lippe, printed in the official rulings of the Reichsgericht (see RGZ 136, pages 211-223) and Hartmut Platte, Das Haus Lippe, 2 Börde Verlag, Werl, 2003, page 15. In February 1928, Prince Leopold IV brought an action against the Land of Lippe and criticized the validity of the Dominal Treaty. The legal dispute went through all instances: Detmold Regional Court, then Celle Higher Regional Court (appeal body) and finally the Reich Court (appeal body). In the judgment of the Imperial Court of May 27, 1932 already quoted, it says, among other things, that the prince's complaints are irrelevant if he was no longer entitled to the domain property when the contract was concluded. According to German private princely law, there are two sets of property: namely the prince's private property and the prince's domain property, which he is entitled to for the duration of the reign. After the reign ceased to exist, the domain property fell to the state, unless otherwise regulated by law. The lower court did not examine this, so that the legal dispute had to be referred back to this court. In the judgment of the Reich Court of May 27, 1932, another judgment of the Reich Court of November 18, 1921 is cited, which also dealt with property disputes in the Lippe house. According to this ruling, members of the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line had sued the state of Lippe and Prince Leopold IV as joint debtors because of a payment claim. The basis of the request was an on 22./24. May 1762 signed contract, which should settle disputes in the house Lippe. According to this contract, a pension was to be paid to the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line. The Reichsgericht rejected the lawsuit against Prince Leopold IV on November 18, 1921 on the grounds that the latter had lost his position as owner of the princely domain property to the Land of Lippe at the latest with the Dominal contract of October 31, 1919. The Reichsgericht left open whether this loss had already occurred when he renounced the throne on November 12, 1918. On the other hand, the Reichsgericht upheld the lawsuit against the Land of Lippe, since the exclusion of the plaintiffs' contractual payment claims by the laws of the Land of Lippe violated the property guarantee of Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution. Among other things, the legal recourse guarantee that is mandatory under this provision is not given. The judgment of the Reichsgericht dated November 18, 1921 was also published in the official rulings of the Reichsgericht, cf. RGZ 103, pages 200-202; see. also RGZ 136, pages 211, 213. In another legal dispute, Prince Leopold IV was sued for payment by other members of the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line. This lawsuit was also on the 22./24. May 1762 signed contract supported. Like the other two processes, this legal dispute went through all instances: Detmold Regional Court, Celle Regional Court and Reichsgericht. The Reichsgericht dismissed the action on November 18, 1921. The reason given was that the father of the two plaintiffs, who had since passed away, had partially waived his contractual claims. Such a partial waiver, on which the two plaintiffs have relied, is, however, ineffective. It is incompatible with German private princely law, since this would only provide for a complete waiver in order to avoid a fragmentation of the domain assets. The death of the father of the two plaintiffs does not change that. This judgment of the Reichsgericht was also published in the official collection of decisions of the Reichsgericht, cf. RGZ 103, pages 202–206. However, the statements of the Reichsgericht regarding the irrelevance of the death of the father of the two plaintiffs for the outcome of the legal dispute are not printed there.

predecessor	Office	successor
Alexander	Prince of Lippe 1905–1918	-
Ernst to Lippe-Biesterfeld	Regent of Lippe 1904–1905	-
Alexander	Head of the House of Lippe 1905–1949	Armin

personal data
SURNAME	Leopold IV.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES	Lippe-Biesterfeld, Leopold Julius Bernhard Adalbert Otto Karl Fritz Georg Gustav zur (full name)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION	last ruling prince of Lippe (1905–1918)
DATE OF BIRTH	May 30, 1871
PLACE OF BIRTH	Oberkassel near Bonn
DATE OF DEATH	December 30, 1949
Place of death	Detmold

[1] Kösener corps lists 1910, 19/678.

[2] Arbitration ruling in the legal dispute over the succession to the throne in the Principality of Lippe on October 25, 1905 (LLB Detmold)

[3] The decision of the Reichsgericht was published in the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 1906, Sp. 61–63 . The following reasons were decisive for the affirmation of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line after this decision:

The equality of the marriage entered into in 1803 between Count Wilhelm Ernst and Modeste von Unruh, from which the Biesterfeld line derives.

Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line by a law of the state of Lippe of October 17, 1896

Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line through an arbitration award dated June 22, 1897 . The arbitral tribunal consisted of seven members: King Albert of Saxony and six members of the Imperial Court.

The equality of the marriage on September 16, 1869 between the deceased Count Ernst zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Karoline Countess von Wartensleben, the parents of Prince Leopold IV.

The lines Lippe-Biesterfeld, Lippe-Weißenfeld and Lippe-Alverdissen fought for the throne of the Principality of Lippe. The latter had acquired the Schaumburg line and accepted the dignity of prince in 1807. All three lines went to Count Simon VI, who died in 1613. back to the lip.

[4] The equality of the marriage entered into in 1803 between Count Wilhelm Ernst and Modeste von Unruh, from which the Biesterfeld line derives.

[5] Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line by a law of the state of Lippe of October 17, 1896

[6] Recognition of the right of succession to the throne of the Lippe-Biesterfeld line through an arbitration award dated June 22, 1897 . The arbitral tribunal consisted of seven members: King Albert of Saxony and six members of the Imperial Court.

[7] The equality of the marriage on September 16, 1869 between the deceased Count Ernst zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Karoline Countess von Wartensleben, the parents of Prince Leopold IV.

[4] On July 17, 1919, the state parliament of the state of Lippe decided that with the renunciation of the throne of Prince Leopold IV, the princely domain assets would be state property. He thus confirmed an order of the Lippe People's and Soldiers' Council. On the basis of this law, the state of Lippe concluded a dominal contract with the dethroned Prince Leopold IV on October 31, 1919. According to § 2 of the treaty, the land of Lippe should be the owner of the princely domain assets, with the exception of the elements mentioned under § 3. Detmold Castle, the Lopshorn Hunting Lodge and the Berlebeck Forest District were given to the Princely House of Lippe, cf. the ruling of the Reichsgericht dated May 27, 1932 in the litigation of Prince Leopold IV against the Land of Lippe, printed in the official rulings of the Reichsgericht (see RGZ 136, pages 211-223) and Hartmut Platte, Das Haus Lippe, 2 Börde Verlag, Werl, 2003, page 15. In February 1928, Prince Leopold IV brought an action against the Land of Lippe and criticized the validity of the Dominal Treaty. The legal dispute went through all instances: Detmold Regional Court, then Celle Higher Regional Court (appeal body) and finally the Reich Court (appeal body). In the judgment of the Imperial Court of May 27, 1932 already quoted, it says, among other things, that the prince's complaints are irrelevant if he was no longer entitled to the domain property when the contract was concluded. According to German private princely law, there are two sets of property: namely the prince's private property and the prince's domain property, which he is entitled to for the duration of the reign. After the reign ceased to exist, the domain property fell to the state, unless otherwise regulated by law. The lower court did not examine this, so that the legal dispute had to be referred back to this court. In the judgment of the Reich Court of May 27, 1932, another judgment of the Reich Court of November 18, 1921 is cited, which also dealt with property disputes in the Lippe house. According to this ruling, members of the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line had sued the state of Lippe and Prince Leopold IV as joint debtors because of a payment claim. The basis of the request was an on 22./24. May 1762 signed contract, which should settle disputes in the house Lippe. According to this contract, a pension was to be paid to the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line. The Reichsgericht rejected the lawsuit against Prince Leopold IV on November 18, 1921 on the grounds that the latter had lost his position as owner of the princely domain property to the Land of Lippe at the latest with the Dominal contract of October 31, 1919. The Reichsgericht left open whether this loss had already occurred when he renounced the throne on November 12, 1918. On the other hand, the Reichsgericht upheld the lawsuit against the Land of Lippe, since the exclusion of the plaintiffs' contractual payment claims by the laws of the Land of Lippe violated the property guarantee of Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution. Among other things, the legal recourse guarantee that is mandatory under this provision is not given. The judgment of the Reichsgericht dated November 18, 1921 was also published in the official rulings of the Reichsgericht, cf. RGZ 103, pages 200-202; see. also RGZ 136, pages 211, 213. In another legal dispute, Prince Leopold IV was sued for payment by other members of the Lippe-Weißenfeld branch line. This lawsuit was also on the 22./24. May 1762 signed contract supported. Like the other two processes, this legal dispute went through all instances: Detmold Regional Court, Celle Regional Court and Reichsgericht. The Reichsgericht dismissed the action on November 18, 1921. The reason given was that the father of the two plaintiffs, who had since passed away, had partially waived his contractual claims. Such a partial waiver, on which the two plaintiffs have relied, is, however, ineffective. It is incompatible with German private princely law, since this would only provide for a complete waiver in order to avoid a fragmentation of the domain assets. The death of the father of the two plaintiffs does not change that. This judgment of the Reichsgericht was also published in the official collection of decisions of the Reichsgericht, cf. RGZ 103, pages 202–206. However, the statements of the Reichsgericht regarding the irrelevance of the death of the father of the two plaintiffs for the outcome of the legal dispute are not printed there.