This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
A lot of this seems dubious. Bonn and the electorate's other left bank territories, along with the cathedral in Cologne itself (the city was not part of the archbishopric, but a free city) were certainly occupied by the French from 1794 or 1795 onwards. But so what? The archbishopric had considerable territories on the right bank, particularly the Duchy of Westphalia. Didn't Anton rule over these right bank territories just like his predecessors, until the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss? And on what basis is it said that the French occupied Münster? I've never heard such a thing before. northern Germany had been neutralized by the Treaty of Basel, and France had been at peace with the Empire since the Treaty of Lunéville in early 1801. Why would the French be occupying Münster? The German wikipedia contains none of these dubious claims - it says Anton was elected prince-bishop of Münster and archbishop-elector of Cologne, but that Cologne's Rhenish territories had already been lost, leaving him with only the Duchy of Westphalia, and that the imminent reorganization of the Empire meant that his reign was insecure. It then notes that even before the Reichsdeputationschluss was finished, the Prussians initiated a fait accompli by marching into Münster, and that the Hessians followed suit by taking the Duchy of Westphalia. Nothing about French occupation of Münster or him not being considered the last elector, which he clearly was. (The German Wikipedia even says he was the last elector.) The current text is nonsense, and I have replaced it with a new paragraph based on the German Wikipedia's entry. john k (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)