Skip to main content

The Archduke Otto

Upon his first official visit to Hungary in the 1970s, the Archduke Franz Josef Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xavier Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius, heir to the Imperial throne of Austria and the Apostolic Royal Throne of Hungary, the Royal Thrones of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Croatia, Lodemeria and Illyria. Heir to the titular kingdom of Jerusalem, the grand Duchies of Tuscany and Krakow, the Duchies of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carniola and Bukovina, the Grand Principality of Transylvania, the Margravate of Moravia and many dozens of other titles, was greeted with a rapturous reception.

Indeed he was asked to extend his stay and attend an international football match. He was told it was Austria-Hungary. Without missing a beat he asked "who are we playing?". The -by then- civilian "Archduke Otto" was more usually referred to simply as Dr. von Habsburg, yet he still carried some of the mystique of the lost Imperial era as well as a puckish sense of humour. Though born to the imperial purple, his family were to lose every throne that they had held during the course of his long life. Yet after the early death of his father, the last Habsburg Emperor, Karl, it was Otto who was to carry the burden and expectations of his family and of many millions in his lost realms.

His dignity and determination in the face of Hitlerian contempt for Austrian independence won him many friends, and his friendship with President Roosevelt secured Austria's status as a victim, rather than as a co-aggressor in the Second World War. He was to become a passionate supporter of European Co-operation and was, perhaps, the most distinguished member of the European Parliament for many years.

In 1989 it was a picnic on the Austrian-Hungarian border organised by the church and by Dr. Habsburg's own pan-European movement that was to be the occasion of the fall of the iron curtain: so even in our own day the Pope and the Emperor could face down the heirs of Stalin.

Although it was inevitable that he would always face controversy, his mistakes were few and as the years passed, the historical reassessment of the the legacy of the Empire grew more positive. In 2004, Dr. Habsburg's father, the Emperor Karl, was beatified, which was not only a vindication of the last Emperor's personal qualities, but something of a condemnation of those who persecuted him. It was certainly an especially moving day for the the last Crown Prince.

The death of the Archduke Otto at the age of 98 is truly the end of a long era. He will be much missed.

Comments

Richard T said…
It is sad indeed that the Archduke Otto has died. It just leaves our own dear Crown Prince Charles left as the heir to a grand monarchy. Although he shows little of the intelligence and charm of Otto von Habsburg, he does have much of the Bourbons about him in his extravagance and his sense of his own prospective majesty. Truly a man who has leanrt nothing and forgotten nothing.
Vergil said…
u r g e n t

to her majesty - queen elisabeth II.

for the reasons that his imperial higness, the archduke of austria, otto von habsburg-lothringen, firstborn son from the last austrian emperor, died on 4. July 2011, i should like to point out that the funeral of him takes place on 16. july 2011, in vienna.

with all due respect allow me to say, that many peoples in austria and europe expects that you will be take an active part at his funeral - personally!

yours faithfully,

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...