A new £600 million theme park in Oxfordshire aims to bring to life 1,000 years of British history. It uses reenactments, themed villages, and grand architectural displays. But just as the Puy du Fou family company readies itself for British history storytelling, fresh details have emerged. They involve its long and complex tangle with Russian connections. Particularly with Konstantin Malofeyev, a media figure embroiled in controversy. He is alleged to have supported Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
A Palace in Crimea, a Partnership in Peril
The Puy du Fou family is known for managing an expansive historical theme park empire. Malofeyev is the Orthodox oligarch closely linked to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. They signed a term sheet for a park to be called Tsargrad. The venture was intended to become a major cultural project. It was meant to celebrate Russian history and identity.
A meeting in Crimea
The initial meeting between the Puy du Fours and Malofeyev had taken place weeks before the sanctions. It was at the iconic Livadia Palace in Crimea. The same site where leaders like Roosevelt and Stalin once discussed the future of the world. The de Villiers family, led by Philippe de Villiers and his son Nicolas, dined with President Vladimir Putin. During the talks, they outlined ambitious plans to construct theme parks in both Russia and Crimea. Malofeyev was to be a strategic partner. The goal was not just entertainment. It was also a deep dive into 'Russia’s soul,' as they described it.
Despite the clear political risks, the partnership continued well into 2015. Documents reviewed by the Guardian show that at least by August of that year, the French company was still making payments to a close associate of Malofeyev. These financial links, combined with internal discussions about possible violations of EU sanctions, highlight the legal uncertainty and moral implications of the venture.
Puy du Fou has consistently claimed the Malofeyev partnership ended the moment sanctions were imposed. But recent evidence indicates otherwise. The company continued to work with Malofeyev’s network for many months, raising questions about whether it fully adhered to EU regulations. It appears the relationship remained active until late 2015, with executives carefully weighing the potential legal and political consequences of their continued collaboration.
Villiers' admiration for Putin
Philippe de Villiers, then 65 years old, had been vocal in his admiration for Putin. In a 2014 interview with French radio station RTL, he went so far as to say he would 'gladly swap [French leaders François] Hollande and [Nicolas] Sarkozy for Putin.' He criticized European leaders as 'irresponsible.' His son, Nicolas, then 34, expressed similar sentiments. He described the Russian president as having 'sweet words and sweet eyes.'
Despite these expressions of admiration, and despite knowing EU sanctions against Malofeyev were just weeks away, Nicolas de Villiers had already signed the term sheet for the Tsargrad venture. The timing was questionable at best. After the Russian deal failed to materialize, Puy du Fou began exploring other international partnerships, including one with the Chinese government, which would have seen the Communist Party vet the content of a Shanghai-based park.
The Oxfordshire project and new revelations
The Oxfordshire park is now the main focus of the company, a flagship project meant to showcase British history in an immersive and engaging way. But as the Puy du Fours prepare to launch their new British-themed attractions, the fresh evidence surrounding their past Russian dealings is forcing a closer look at their historical narrative. If the family firm is to truly dramatise the past, the questions around its recent history may demand equal attention.
Puy du Fou now states that it 'withdrew from all our potential projects and partners there' over the course of more than a year, an 'orderly' process to sever ties. But the documents contradict this version. They suggest a continued, perhaps even cautious, engagement with Malofeyev and his associates long after the sanctions were first imposed, raising significant questions about the company’s transparency and the full extent of its international strategy.