Percentage-wise, how many of those ancient European castles are privately occupied by a family (or just a single person)? How many are occupied by the same family that built them x hundred years ago?
I once visited all the known castles of two areas, armed with a phonebook-sized list.
First, you’d be surprised how many of those there are. They’re everywhere. Second, and most importantly, “magnificent” generally doesn’t apply. A lot of them are just ruins, and sometimes only a pile of stones (although I had the pleasure to discover extensive ruins in good shape lost in the forest, this one was a great surprise). Many of those “castles” that aren’t ruined are in fact only a tower, or a fortified farm, or have been modified to such an extent over the centuries that you wouldn’t know they’re medieval. Maybe you’re going to say that they shouldn’t count as “castles” but it’s difficult to draw a line.
Now, regarding your question. The wide majority of minor buildings are privately owned, and it’s not uncommon to find them inhabited. Owners come in all stripes : well off people for whom it’s a prestige secondary residence, farmers, people living on welfare in a camper outside their crumbling castle, urban types who have decided to buy and restore a castle, and yes, also nobility living in their family castle.
Note that in the latter case, the castle has almost always been bought by the family way more recently than when it was built. Out of my head, I can think of only one example of a privately owned castle belonging to the same family since the middle ages : the castle of Josselin, in Britanny, property of the duke of Rohan.I’m not even sure they’re the original builders, but it’s the closest I can think of.
Important buildings are much more frequently public property (state, municipality, etc…), although some quite impressive castles are privately owned. Even the latter are generally open to the public.
Note that a castle, magnificent or not, doesn’t cost as much as you would think. The castellan on welfare I mentioned above would sell hers for a song, for instance. It’s even rather nice if you don’t mind risking your life each time you pass the door. The main issue is maintenance. The upkeep of those things is awfully costly. It’s not rare for the building to be abandoned for the most part, the owner using only some rooms, and roofing is likely to cost more than the castle itself. Also, many of them are registered monuments, and you must use specific techniques and materials to repair them.
That’s for France. I strongly suspect that the situation in the UK in particular is very different.
They were, interestingly enough. Very technically speaking they aren’t the same dynasty, as the male-descent line petered out in the 17th century. But they still trace back directly via female-line descent. Pretty impressive really, even if it is mostly luck of the draw that they’ve managed to cling to their possession ( with numerous vissicitudes ) for over 1,000 years now.
I’m sure the specifics are very different, but the end is fairly similar. Lots and lots of very old castles, manors, and such in the UK get sold off because they’re so damn expensive to keep up, and I have heard that many that are still privately owned are rented out for weddings, as hotels, and that sort of thing because it is the only conceivable way to pay for the upkeep.
But if they’re properly ruins, surely you can just neglect them. I mean, what’s going to happen - they’ll be ruined more?
I always liked looking at the real estate listings at the back of French magazines like Paris Match looking for surprisingly cheap castles for sale. A quick search leads me to think that the situation might be unique to France. See for instance sites like this one. You can buy a (small) medieval castle for less than 500,000 euros. Of course, as clairobscur says, you’ll be spending a lot more money if you intend to live in it.
Not everything that gets called chateau in French would ordinarily be called a “castle” in English; the very first listing in the linked page is for a four-bedroom nineteenth-century house, definitely unfortified. Conversely a lot of buildings that get called “castle” in English might, in Italian, be called “villa” or “palazzo” rather than “castello”.
Even in English, a house that gets called “castle” in one Anglophone country might not get called “castle” in another. And even in the one country, a building might get called “castle” because it is built on the sight of an earlier (undoubted) castle, while the exact same building, in another location, would not be classed as a castle.
In other words, “castle” is a terribly imprecise word, and a question like “what percentage of castles are still occupied by the family that built them” is not really possible to answer without a close interrogation of what is meant by “castle”
Of course, some of those listings are just biggish 19th century houses, but I think the second one on the page would count as a “castle,” and there are properties like this one that are quintessential medieval castles – by any definition of the term.
Now, I haven’t looked very hard, but it seems to me that there are much more of these kinds of properties for sale in France than elsewhere in Europe.
The aftermath of the War of the Roses, and then the consolidation of power by the Tudors, led to the destruction of most castles owned by non-royals. It was a pre-emptive measure to remove fortifications that rebellious barons might make use of. Hence a lot of British castles are ruins, or government property. Two Prince Charlies precipitated the same treatment to Scotland.
Eileen Donan castle for example, was blown up in the 1700’s and rebuilt in the early 1900s.
Some castles (that of the Thane of Cawdor comes to mind) were saved because the lord had tried to turn it into a chateau or stately home, chopping large holes in the outer walls for windows. Since it was no longer “fortified” it was spared.
Yes, most of the “chateaux” are stately homes, rather than castles; they were build when power was consolidated, control was established, and money could be spent on looks rather than fortifications.
One point I saw with, for example, Warwick castle - the place was essentially abandoned in the 1500’s because it was cheaper and simpler to build a magnificent home from scratch rather than retrofit a castle. It was only after a long while that it was restored and retrofitted because castles suddenly were cool in a nostalgic sense, rather than dank old piles.
If you’ve been in some of the castles, they are very cramped and dark. The roof spans are not wide since construction was rudimentary, compared to the big homes of the 1500’s and 1600’s (like Hampton Court). It’s no wonder the rich preferred to build newer magnificent houses like Blenheim Palace.
So a family that continued to live in their castle making minor modifications probably was not one of the wealthy families… and that would be the very people likely to sell for a small profit over the years.
Also don’t forget the impact of the French Revolution, Napoleon, and assorted wars and revolutions right up to the fall of communism.
Well, that’s partly why English Heritage and the National Trust were set up, to prevent them being ruined more. In fact they painstakingly try to maintain the ruins as charmingly ruined as possible!
If you fancy buying one you can live in: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/luxuryhomes/10377761/The-worlds-best-castles-for-sale.html?frame=2701758
In Spain there are many. A few that I know:
Puñoenrostro, Seseña (40.10588, -3.70737)
Casasola, (40.16305, -3.47867)
Chinchón (40.13628, -3.42426)
this article Nueve de cada diez castillos son privados y están mal conservados | Madrid | EL PAÍS says in Madrid 90% of castles are in private hands and are in bad state of repair.
There are a — small — number of aristocratic or noble families in Europe who are massively — Ford or Vanderbilt — rich, such as say, the Spanish Albas or the mitteleuropean Thurn und Taxis, or the British Grosvenors [ Westminster ] and Cavendishs [ Devonshire ], who were historically wealthier than the royal houses they purported to serve. Generally, these people can afford to keep up various castles or stately homes without breaking sweat.
Plus they get tax breaks.
Sure, you can. But it’s not going to do you much good, as my castle owner living in a camper could attest.
Plus I guess (never thought about it before) that there are liabilities. What if a bit of your castle fall on someone or someone’s property? How do you even take a home insurance on a crumbling medieval castle? What about property taxes?
In France there have been two periods during which castles have been destroyed in large numbers : the 17th century when many still standing fortresses were demolished on royal orders in order to prevent rebellions, and following the revolution, when many old castles were seized, auctionned off and dismantled to provide stones. Note that in fact most ruins are the result of people using castles as a quarry, rather than them collapsing naturally. Those things were sturdy.
Googled to answer my own question : there are specialized brokers. Couldn’t find a single example of the cost, though.
Yes, and ruined beyond repair. Take wooden beams, for instance. As long as the roof is well enough to keep them dry, the building will stand, in a fashion. But once beams get wet with rain, mould sets in, and once the beams become mouldy, the whole building becomes structurally unsound and will detoriate very quickly. Most owners and city councils will not try to let that happen, and as clairobcur wrote, even such minimal upkeep is hellishly expensive.
When you have a ruin that is only stones and mortar, with the wooden ceiling already gone, it can stand a little longer. But even then the counties ordinances will usually either demand the place is made structurally safe, and either fenced in really seriously, or that the grounds are maintained and ladscaped so the ruin isn’t an eyesore that attracts vandalism. Even such fencing and mowing the grass around it is expensive.
I work for my provincial governent, and I know of a lot of such castles in government hands being sold to developers for symbolic amounts. Usually one euro. On the condition that the new owner will make the castle grounds accessible to the public (as a park) and that he will start a business there that the county has use for. Say a restaurant or a convention center. A while back, there were so many of these castles sold to developers that counties started to complain that there really was no commercial space for yet another castle-turned-spa-wellness center.
OK- can we expand the question in the OP to not just include castles in the “military fortifications / homes” sense, but also to include “stately manor houses like the one in Downton Abbey”?
Also- that $8 million figure to run the Downton Abbey house-- is that just the cost of taxes, utility bills, etc.? Or does it include the cost of a fleet of employees to run the place, too? (Sorry, the huffpo article was TL;DR)
You also have to realize that the costs of upkeep to a castle are extra super duper expensive because you can’t just use standard materials and techniques.
You can’t build with reinforced concrete, steel beams and drywall like you would normally; you have to find and pay those extremely skilled and rare labourers who can cut stone to precision, mix old kinds of mortar, and dovetail wooden beams.
This one in Scotland belonged to my ancestors. It was for sale recently but I see it has been taken off the market. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38202098.html