Talk:Austria-Este

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In page Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, someone had added following, which however is an apparent application of wishful thinking: "Whenever the Austria-Este line dies out, the person in line to the Austro-Hungarian throne after the current heir and all his immediate heirs becomes the Archduke of Austria-Este (the "-Este" in honor of the status as Dukes of Modena, formerly ruled by the Este family), a process of inheritance called "secundogeniture." Normally, Franz Ferdinand would have become the Duke of Modena at this time, but the duchy had been unified with the rest of Italy in 1860."

Reasons against most of that crap written above:

The reason why Franz Ferdinand began to use the NAME of Austria-Este, was the will of Francis V of Modena, where he set certain conditions to the inheritor of his personal property. The testament named Franz Ferdinand personally. It was not a clear abstract testament to "second".

Duke Francis was not constitutionally and otherwise able to stipulate anything about the succession of Duchy of Modena, which follows its own laws and original Este customs.

Secundogeniture is a more strict concept. It means an appanage to the second brother of a ruler. It is personal, not inherited by heir of the "second brother". After his death, it lapses to crown, or even before his death, it may go to the next ruler's second brother. Thus, the wording above is somewhat a bad joke.

It is said that Austria-Este is some sort of "secundogeniture" title in Austrian imperial family, however since it has continued to direct heirs of the originator of the branch, not reverting to the crown at the death of the carrier nor going to the next secundogeniture heir of the immediate imperial family, it does not fulfill the definitions of secundogeniture.

As explained, the first "adoptee" was Archduke Francis Ferdinand, b 1863 (not descended from Mary Beatrice d'Este), who took the name Austria-Este, and also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo. Since his own children were born in morganatic marriage (Hohenberg), the Habsburgs designated his soon-to-be born great-nephew Robert, b 8 Feb 1915, second son of the future emperor Charles, as the next "adopted Austria-Este". Through his mother Zita of Parma (a great-granddaughter of Teresa of Savoy, Duchess of Lucca and Parma, who was daughter of Teresa of Modena, Queen of Sardinia, who was daughter of Mary Beatrice d'Este and Ferdinand of Austria, Duchess and Duke of Breisgau and Modena), archduke Robert happened to be a descendant of Ercole d'Este III and thus the blood of last Este dukes joined with the name Austria-Este.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (1863-1914) subsequently used the title Archduke of Austria-Este. He also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered before succeeding as Emperor. He had married morganatically countess Sophie Chotek, and their children were not members of Austrian Imperial House (having been born in morganatic marriage), but a separate surname and title, Hohenberg, was created for them.

When Franz Ferdinand died in June 1914, Robert was not even born. Thus, no abstarct testament to the "second" was executable in his favor. If the succession would have been to the "second", there was another Auistrian archduke alive at that moment in 1914, who would have been the correct heir.

Robert's "succession" to the name was only a internal agreement of Habsburgs, to put someone to carry that name.

This page needs to be totally re-written by somebody who knows something about the inheritance of the Austria-Este name. Hardly any of the most important documents are mentioned:

1. the 1753 convention between Modena and the Empress Maria Teresa

2. the 1763 convention

3. the 1771 imperial investiture

4. the 1814 Congress of Vienna recognising Austrian inheritance rights

5. the 1907 will of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

6. the 1914 inheritance of the name by Archduke Carl Franz Josef (later Emperor)

At the moment the page is totally misleading. Noel S McFerran 17:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Este

Can anyone provide any source for the statement that Archduke Robert "took also the title Duke of Este"? Robert and his son Lorenz are referred to by others as "Duke of Modena", but they themselves only use the title "Archduke of Austria-Este". The title "Duke of Este" is not used by them, or used for them by others (except in this Wikipedia article). Noel S McFerran 13:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Succession law in Modena

What was the actual succession law in the Duchy of Modena at the time of its abolition? My understanding, based on some of the late 1859/early 1860 discussions between the Austrians and French about reorganizing Italy, was that Francis V's niece Maria Theresa was the heiress presumptive. if so, this should be made clear. Modena was not, so far as I'm aware, a Habsburg secundigeniture. Francis IV was the heir by blood of the last Este duke, through his mother, unlike Tuscany, where (I believe) the future Charles III of Spain or his mother would have been the proper heirs to the Medicis, and where the Habsburgs were explicitly granted the Grand Duchy by treaty as a secundigeniture. Assuming that Maria Theresa was not only Francis V's heiress general, but his actual legal successor under the old Modenese constitution, that should be mentioned. john k 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not the Austrian view; they definitely believed that Modena was a secundigeniture. The Congress of Vienna recognised Francis IV as duke of Modena and said that "The rights of succession and reversion established among the branches of the archdukes of Austria relative to the duchy of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola, as well as the principalities of Massa and Carrara, are preserved." There's a lot to be said in favour of the Austrian position if one looks at the way the Habsburgs first got Modena (for several of the most important documents see: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/modena.htm). Of course, there's always another side. For example, there clearly was no right of reversion regarding Massa and Carrara (even though the Congress of Vienna suggests that there was). Noel S McFerran 11:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm relying largely on some material I read about late 1859, where the French and Austrians were discussing possible ways to salvage the situation in Italy. (My dissertation is on Franco-Austrian relations in Italy in this period, so I've read a fair bit on the subject). One of the plans proposed involved marrying Archduchess Maria Theresa to the Duke of Parma and having the two of them inherit Modena together, with Parma being annexed by Piedmont. The implication was certainly that Maria Theresa was heiress to Modena, and this seems to have been accepted by Austrians as well as French (although I'm not certain of this).

Looking at M. Velde's always useful materials, it would seem that the 1753 treaty pretty clearly indicates that the Duchy is to remain in the male line of the house of Austria. The 1771 investiture, however, seems to indicate that the Duchy will go to Archduke Ferdinand's heirs, with no mention of heirs in the male line only, and only after the extinction of Archduke Ferdinand's heirs does it go to the collateral line. Arguably, at least, the "right of reversion" mentioned in the Congress of Vienna was one that came into effect only with the failure of all heirs of Archduke Ferdinand, either male or female.

In the latter case, the prospects of reversion are rather slim, but still theoretically present. john k 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)