Dispute over the proposed expropriation began in the months of revolution and continued in the following years in the form of negotiations or litigation between individual royal houses and the states (Länder) of the German Reich.

In addition the Council of the People's Deputies was concerned that any such seizures of property might encourage the victors to lay claim to the confiscated estates for reparations.

The negotiating parties often struggled with the question of what the former rulers were entitled to as private property, as opposed to those possessions which they held only in their capacity as sovereign.

In larger states like Prussia or Bavaria, however, the percentage of disputed land was of little significance, but the absolute sizes involved were equivalent to duchies elsewhere.

It struck down a law which the USPD-dominated State Convention of Saxe-Gotha had passed on 31 July 1919[5] for the purpose of the confiscation of all the demesne land of the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

[7] On 12 October 1925, the Prussian Ministry of Finance submitted a new draft agreement, which was heavily criticized by the public, however, because it provided for about three-quarters of the disputed real estate to be returned to the princely house.

The Communists realised that such a legislative initiative was attractive at a time of rising unemployment, mainly due to the sharp economic downturn since November 1925, as well as what was known as the "rationalisation crisis".

In line with the united front policy, the Communist Party initiative aimed at regaining lost voters and possibly also appealing to the middle classes, who were among the losers of inflation.

Discussions on the inclusion of social democrats in the national government finally broke down in January, so the SPD was then able to concentrate more on opposition politics.

[12] As late as 19 January, the SPD still rejected the Communist Party's proposal to join the Kuczynski Committee and, instead, asked the ADGB to mediate talks.

These talks were intended to present to the people, in a petition for a referendum, a bill for the expropriation of the former ruling houses that had the support of as many groups as possible.

[13] So far, the united front tactic of the Communists was successful only in the technical sense: the SPD and KPD had drawn up an agreement on the production and distribution of petition lists and posters.

Bavaria had the second lowest participation, after the tiny state of Waldeck,[20] The Bavarian People's Party (BVP) and the Catholic Church vigorously and successfully advised against taking part in the petition.

"The expropriation without compensation proposed by the petition means Germans being deprived of their rights and is contrary to the clear and unambiguous principles of the Gospel.

On that day, he informed Justice Minister Wilhelm Marx that the intended expropriations did not serve the public interest but represented nothing more than fraudulent conversion of assets for political reasons.

For this reason, a simple majority was not sufficient for the success of the referendum, and it needed support from 50 per cent of those eligible to vote, about 20 million voters.

The failure of all previous attempts at parliamentary compromise had lent support to those voices in the bourgeois parties that were also in favour of such a radical change.

[42] The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) exacerbated the populist dimension by demanding not the expropriation of the Princes' property but of Jewish immigrants' who had entered Germany since 1 August 1914.

Initially, the left wing of the NSDAP, centered on Gregor Strasser, favoured the Nazis supporting the expropriation campaign, but Adolf Hitler rejected this demand at the meeting of the party leadership in Bamberg on 14 February 1926.

[45] No lasting trend to the left was associated with this result despite fears by some opponents of the expropriation and hoped for by some sections of the SPD and the KPD.

On 22 June 1926, the Communist Party newspaper Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag) had claimed that the Social Democratic leaders had deliberately sabotaged the referendum campaign.

For two reasons, the SPD expected considerable opportunities for influencing a legislative solution at the national level, even if such a law needed a two-thirds majority.

However, after lengthy negotiations, the changes to the government bill for compensation of the princes were finally rejected: there was to be no strengthening of the lay element in the Reich special courts; the SPD suggestion that the judges of that court should be elected by the Reichstag was also rejected; there was also no provision for resumption of property disputes that had already been settled but on unfavourable terms for the states.

In many cases, collections, theatres, museums, libraries and archives were incorporated in newly established foundations and were thus made accessible to the public.

Generally, appanages and civil lists: the part of the budget once used for the head of state and his court, were scrapped in exchange for one-off compensation.

[55] During the time of the presidential governments, there were a number of attempts in the Reichstag, both from the KPD and the SPD, to revisit the issue of expropriation or reduction in the Princes' compensation.

On the whole, however, this instrument was more a preventive measure or threat, intended as a defence against any claims of the royal families against the state (there were a number in the early days of the Third Reich).

According to Jung, the popular legislative initiative of 1926 was a laudable attempt to complement the parliamentary system where it was not able to provide a solution: in the question of a clear and final separation of the assets of the state and the former Princes.

One of the results of the campaign, according to Jung, was that it brought to light technical defects in the referendum process, for instance because abstentions and "no" votes had exactly the same effect.

After 20 June 1926, the referendum increased the willingness to compromise in the conflict between Prussia and the House of Hohenzollern so that it proved possible to conclude an agreement as early as October.