Talk:Otto von Habsburg

Anti-semitic remarks

There was a comment (sourced to a German language article) in which Habsburg comments that the banking industry was run by Jews. Why has this been removed? It was a valid point. Perhaps one of Otto's fans thought it detracted from his noble life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.22.76 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was it antisemitic statement? It wasn't a secret that Austro-Hungarian British French banking-system were run by Jews. Jews are/were the best and most successful businessmen since the disappear of ancient assirians. Those are the antisemites wo deny the Jewish genius in sciences and business! I don't forget that Austria-Hungary was more tolerant for Jews, and it gave more rights for Jews than any other continental European states in the 19th century. (a proud Jew) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.89.167 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Born

"Born in Reichenau an der Rax, Lower Austria, it was on the death of his granduncle Francis Joseph I in November 1916 that Otto's father ascended the throne".

Who was born in Reichenau an der Rax?

S.

Dear S, this part of the biography got a bit messy after all those revisions by 210.49.196.232. I think the current version is clearer again. KF 23:26 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

The article states that he died today. Is that really true? I read that he fell off the stairs today, but is he really dead? So either someone knows more than the media or someone's just being "funny" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.29.202 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Feel free to revert as soon as you see such claims anywhere on Wikipedia, unless they are sourced of course. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Graduation

In 1935 he graduated from the University of Löwen

Löwen is the German name for Louvain (Flemish Leuven) in Belgium. It is hardly justified to call a Belgian city by its German name in an English article.

Sebastjan

Indeed, but it may be more likely that Otto had been to Löwen rather than Louvain ;-)

-- User:Docu

I would add that the Republic of Hungary existed only in 1918/19 (in 1919 there was also a Hungarian Soviet Republic for some months) and between the two WW-s Hungary was a Kingdom with no king. (The head of state was a regent - not from the Habsburg family.)

I'm not sure it's proper to say that he was only formerly known as "Archduke Otto." Even since his renunciation, he has been known as "HIRH Archduke Otto of Austria" among royalists and to other royal families, and all that, even if he uses "Otto von Habsburg" or "Otto Habsburg-Lothringen" for everyday/official use. john k 07:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, he is sometimes called an "archduke" by royalists. --Hokanomono 09:18, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly right, either, is it? I mean, some royalists might call him Emperor/King Otto (although i'm not sure they do). Archduke is a title to which he is actually entitled...I'm not sure how to deal with it. The Archduke part should certainly be bolded, though, however it is phrased. john k 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just for your information: They do - even in Austria. Recently someone addressed him as royal highness in public. (Newspapers reported about it, politicians criticised it.) --Hokanomono 21:46, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

does anyone know what the Otto's grandchildren are named? In particular, the children of Karl (Charles) Habsburg and Baroness Francesca of Thyssen-Bornemisza?

Hello, I'm not sure that it is correct to call him even as a "nominal king" of Hungary. All the parliament's decisions, declaratory statutes in Hungary were born in the 1920s so that antant countries would accept the Hungarian parliament, it's government and governor: Horthy. And actually they did. That means: if the law was born by the parliament in 1921 about dethronement of Habsburg clan, it became accepted internationally as well. Otto von Habsburg could have been the king by right according to Pragmatica Santio, but it falled into abeyance after 1921. sorry if my English is not advanced enough to say everything right :) What do you guys think about the case? Laci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lac.horvath (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I'm not sure about him having "Otto von Habsburg" as official name in Germany. Former royals still have their titles as part of the name in their passports.so he would be rather "Otto Erzherzog von Habsburg-Lothringen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.193.64 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See the Regnal Chronolgies website for a full list of Otto's titles.

not sure where this would be squeezed in, but in this radio interview

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4608619 it is clear that he is proudest of being King of Hungary as it is the oldest of his titles. the Emperor title was just something they threw "his" way to keep it out of Napolean's hands.

That can't be Otto in the photo with Franz Josef -- er, yes it can

Franz Josef died in November 1916, the same month that Otto was born, according to the article. The kid in the picture with the old emperor is much more than a month old. Who is it? --Jfruh 14:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I misread the article -- Otto was born in 1912, I see now. --Jfruh 17:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That photo looks like a little girl wearing a dress. I doubt it's Otto.Wikidudeman 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Archduke Otto, and your comment does not contribute anything. It is a fine illustration of lack of intelligence. How on earth, may I ask, does it look like a little girl. To me it looks like the heir to the Imperial throne of Austro-Hungary, the son of the Bl. Emperor Charles.--Couter-revolutionary 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Any need for that personal attack, Couter-Revolutionary? That's the second time on this talk page alone you've lambasted someone making an innocent comment with an insult to their intelligence. --SandyDancer 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the said comment is, or was intended to be innocent. I believed it to be an immature attempt to undermine HI&RH. Please do forgive me if I am wrong, perhaps that is better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Couter-revolutionary (talk • contribs)

A clear violation of WP:AGF. I happen to be aware that during the period, infant boys were often dressed in a clothing which would, today, seem more suitable for a girl (indeed I have a photo of my own paternal grandfather in such a "dress"). Wikidudeman clearly didn't know this and was asking a genuine question, and you chose to insult him, in much the same way you insulted someone else below. Very rude, particularly from someone who criticises the manners of others so often. --SandyDancer 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I am an American and I could not care less about Austrian politics for my country has it's own political problems to deal with. Secondly, I don't know much of anything about this mans politics nor do I care much frankly. I am simply pointing out the fact that I doubt it is a photograph of a male due to the fact that person is wearing a skirt.Wikidudeman 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you never seen pictures of small (boy) children from that period? They often wore dresses and long hair until they were about five or so. john k 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Until early in the 20th century young children of both sexes wore similar clothing: at about 5-6 boys were given their first trousers in a process known as "breeching." Jackiespeel (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is he listed as a Pretender?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender

Good question. I think, at least we know that he is not a pretender for Austria now. Otherwise he would not be allowed to travel to Austria. -- Hokanomono 06:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

well, i dont think its really his choice. Monarchists will see him as such wether he sees himself as one or not. I know I do.

Perhaps there should be a better term for "person who would be monarch/ruler if the present political climate in country x changed" (which would include eg the various equivalents for Italy - in the news recently - Bulgaria - the ex-PM - etc) as distinct from alternative claimants to the throne. Otto von H is probably the oldest person with a claim to any throne. Jackiespeel 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. "Pretender" is not a legal term. It means what it says: One who "pretends" to possess a right to exercise monarchical power, but is prevented, de facto, from doing so by a revolution, usurper, exile, failure to be recognized by the realm's "subjects", or whatever. There are three problems with the term "pretender":

1. It has never excluded those who claim a throne (or royal heirship), but whose claim is not grounded in law. Most would argue that False Dmitriy I, Kaspar Hauser, Alexis Brimeyer, Michael Lafosse, Anna Anderson, Terence Francis MacCarthy, and even Rudolf Rassendyll, were all false pretenders, i.e. impostors, pretending to be persons who had legally-based (even if disputed) claims to dynasticity. But some of these impostors, even when not accepted as whom they claimed to be, were nonetheless referred to as "pretenders" -- and the word does not seem historically precise enough to insist that they were mislabeled. Moreover, the notion of a "false pretender" implies the existence of a "genuine pretender" which, if meaningful in the semi-surrealism of royalists and genealogists, is an oxymoron elsewhere. Most citizens of the republic of France, for instance, could not and would not distinguish between a "rightful" and a "fake" pretender: neither has a lawful claim to reign in France today -- howsoever much Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists would protest au contraire! in unison before drawing swords upon one another.
2. If a private person discovers a land (or planet) not otherwise claimed to be part of any nation, and declares himself its monarch, what is he? Paddy Roy Bates is a pirate of sorts, but not an impostor. So is he the Prince of Sealand? Or a pretender?
3. The term "claimant" is more commonly used in monarchist circles to refer to someone who has or could have, under some interpretation of past or present law, a valid claim to reign. But claimant also suffers from the fact that it is used by both those who actively assert their legal right to reign (or to stand as candidate par excellence for the crown in the event monarchy is restored) e.g. Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, King Michael I of Romania, and Leka of Albania, yet "claimant" also refers to those who do not assert any current claim, but who would have the undisputed right to reign if the monarchy were revived with its old laws intact, e.g. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Nicholas of Montenegro, Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, and Otto von Habsburg. These latter ex-dynasts often claim to represent (some of) the traditions associated with the old monarchy, rather than claiming that their family's old realm should or could be restored. But even among "genuine" claimants there are (increasingly!) dynastic disputes, in which case the supporters of Claimant A regard his/her cousin, Claimant B, to be a "false pretender" (Brazil, France, Italy, Russia, Saxony, Two Sicilies, etc).

Finally, there are complications, as in the Habsburg case where, although Otto formally renounced his dynastic claim to reign, yet he remains the Habsburg claimant because no other member of his dynasty has stepped up to assume that role. All the family members treat Otto's renunciation as extorted and therefore invalid. Otto explicitly claims to represent the Habsburg "tradition", while repudiating any claim to reign by hereditary right. So is he a pretender? Or a claimant? Lethiere 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Has issue"?

Article:

• Andrea (1953). Married Hereditary Count Karl Eugen of Neipperg, a descendant of Empress Marie Louise, second wife of Napoleon Bonaparte. Has issue.
• Monika (1954). Married Luis Gonzaga de Casanova-Cárdenas y Barón, Duke of Santangelo, Marquess of Elche, Count of Lodosa and Grandée of Spain. Has issue.
• Michaela (1954). Monika's twin sister. Married firstly Eric Teran d'Antin, and secondly Count Hubertus of Kageneck. Has issue from her first marriage. Divorced twice.
• Gabriela (1956). Married Christian Meister in 1978, divorced in 1997. Has issue.
• Walburga (1958). Married Count Archibald Douglas, from the Swedish nobility, and has issue.
• Karl (born January 11, 1961), who is to be the future head of the Habsburg family, married Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (daughter of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza) in 1993. They have three children and currently live in Salzburg, Austria.
• Georg 1964). Married Duchess Eilika of Oldenburg and has issue.

What does the part about "has issue" mean? o_O Jobjörn 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a not too common (outdated?) way to say that the person has children. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Has issue" is a more formal or academic term, most commonly used in genealogy but occasionally found in colloquial usage. It is not exactly synonymous with "Has children": for instance, if Otto von Habsburg outlives his children (unlikely, of course) but has grandchildren living, it would still be correct to state that he "has issue", although he no longer has children. Lethiere 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Along with Count Ernst of Lippe-Biesterfeld's offspring, one of the few pairs of royal twins. Jackiespeel 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Only the first name?

Quote: Otto spent most of the war years in Washington, D.C.[...]

Is there a good reason why this article speaks of Otto Habsburg-Lothringen as "Otto" throughout the biography? This is not common practice in wikipedia articles, e.g. compare Edmund Stoiber which uses "Stoiber". -- Hokanomono ✉ 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayhaps it is because his name is Otto? -Alex, 12.203.169.186 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

Royalty is different. john k 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They are people, and can be called by thier first name. Besides, he's not royalty anymore. We can call whatever the hell we want. -Alex, 74.133.188.197 04:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

You, Sir, have no grasp on reality and are clearly lacking in basic intelligence. Royalty cannot be taken away it is a natural right to those who bear it, even if Otto himself says that he is not Royal (which he does not) it would be meaningless. And, on another point, the first line of this article should refer to him as the Crown Prince of Austro-Hungary, this is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines! (Couter-revolutionary 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

He is not a reigning monarch (and never has been), and is a citizen of a republic. He should be called by his surname except when refering to the period before 1918. Adam 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

His name at death was Otto Habsburg-Lothringen. So, I see that it is easier to just call him Otto, rather than Mr. Habsburg-Lothringen, which is all that one my call him apart form using his academic title (Dr.). It is ok to title the article as it is, in reference to the defunct Habsburg monarchy and its issue, but any reference to Otto Habsburg-Lothringen after Apr.3, 1919 should omit "von" from his name. Two constitutional Austrian laws, of the first and second (present) Austrian Republic: The Adelsaufhebungsgesetz April 3, 1919 and the Habsburgergesetz forbade him the priviledges of aristocracy, as well as banning his title and "aristocractic" name. This made it against the law for him to go by Otto von Habsburg. This constitutional law was further maintained by the Second Austrian Republic, when the orginal constitution of the Fist Republic(as of 1933) was absorbed into the constitution of the Present Austian Republic. Just because the Germans don't have such a law does not mean that he can use "von" in Austria or on official Austrian documents. This German priviledge does not transfer to Austria. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-12/cp100125de.pdf (German) He was issued an Austrian passport, June 1, 1966 (in the name Dr. Otto Habsburg) after he swore his oath of alliegence to the Republic of Austria (just like any other civilian granted citizenship by the Republic of Austria) http://www.austria-lexikon.at/af/Wissenssammlungen/Biographien/Habsburg,_Otto (German) Having writen all of this: There are still people who do not respect Austrian laws, like people who supported Jörg Haider, late of the FPÖ/BZÖ, and his racist defiance of his Country's established bi-lingual town sign law, on the border areas of Carinthia along Slovenia. The people who openly insist on calling Dr. Otto Habsburg "Otto von Habsburg" are looked on by Austrians with about as much affection as supporters of the afore mentioned politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.42.191 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugly

Can we get rid of the horrible white space at the top? Adam 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't know squat about programming. The problem, I'm guessing, has to do with the use of the two sidebars on the right-hand side, but I'm not sure how one tells the system to work around them. Hopefully, someone knowledgeable will come along soon.Lawikitejana 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What a tragedy for Austria and Europe that this great gentleman has been unable to play a wider role. Even as a constitutional monarch with few powers he could have done much. Can we really say that Austria , Hungary, or Croatia have benefited from excluding him, or from the succession of nonentities and crooks that have largely served instead as their heads of state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsh071 (talk • contribs)

Deletion of a picture

According to the opinion of User:Polarlys of Wikimedia Commons the old photograph of "Francis Joseph & Archduke Otto" may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.--213.47.172.153 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regnal name

Why does "Francis Joseph II" appear as a regnal name? Has anyone ever suggested that he would have been called this way? Also, it neglects the fact the numerals would be different for Austria (I) and Hungary (II). Therefore, I will change this bit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing info:

As head of the Hapsburg family, Otto is also technically the Holy Roman Emperor, and heir to Charlemagne. Why is this not mentioned in the article? 151.151.21.99 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because the position of Holy Roman Emperor was not hereditary, but elected? john k 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe becasue the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved by Holy Roman Emperor Francis in 1806, when he abdicated. Actually, I think the whole wording "as well as titular heir to the defunct Kingdom of Germany, with its historical electibility to the Holy Roman Empire or I Reich" is highly misleading for the same reason and should be deleted. --194.213.41.2 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles

Why is King of Bohemia listed with his important titles instead of with the lesser titles (like King of Croatia)? King of Bohemia was a lessor title like the others. Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary were the only really important ones. Emperor001 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter the situation, the Hapsburgs are in fact the true heirs of Rome, The original royal family of europe, such as is Rome is the royal family. I hate Otto cause of his views towards the Pope, and Catholism. But regardless they are the heirs untill another Octavian takes over.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 09:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The King of Bohemia (unlike other "lesser" titles) was one of the electors in the Holy Roman Empire and the principal non-eclesiastical one (see the Golden Bull of 1356), which meant that the King of Bohemia was probably the most important title in the Empire after the Emperor himself. Which was, by the way, one of the reasons Hapsburgs were so keen to keep Bohemia in their blody grasp. On the other hand, this should not have any realition to Otto von Hapsburg, as he could not be a Holy Roman Emperor in any case, even if restored to the throne of Austria-Hungary (the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806). But it tradition anyway. --194.213.41.2 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I simply wish to agree with those who say it's incorrect to call Otto head of the Holy Roman Empire in any way; several families, the Hapsburgs notably among them, controlled the ELECTION of the Emperor for many, many years, but as has been pointed out, it was an elective monarchy; this argues that someone else could have paid more to sway other Electors, or might have had a bigger army... it happened often enough through HRE's long history. As of this morning, July 10, there is still reference to an interview (footnote 6) and a sentence in the article itself that seems to infer he would eventually have been Holy Roman Emperor if WW1 had not sent the European monarchies into chaos. That's simply not so, and I would respectfully suggest the references be removed. Something parenthetical that suggests he might have had a better chance of being elected had things not so radically changed, now that would be all right. But a casual reader could very likely become confused otherwise. Thanks for listening. JastaElf (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)JastaElf

Oldest royals

Including reigning royals, close family and direct claimants, is OvH one of the oldest? Jackiespeel 17:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, his father was the Emperor of Austro-Hungary after all! There's a photograph of His Imperial & Royal Majesty sitting on the knee of the Emperor Franz-Josef too. He's still very capable for his age. --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How many other royals/rulers have reached 90+? Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, Pope Leo XIII and one of the Pharaohs? Probably too much of "a miscellaneous list" to become an article in its own right. Jackiespeel 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say more than that too. I'd doubt it could make an article, perhaps a category is the best you could hope for. --Counter-revolutionary 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wilder's age

Wilder describes how he attended the funeral of Franz Joseph I as an eight-year-old FJ died in 1916, when Wilder was nine or ten, not eight, as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.4.46 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Head of Habsburg family

I tried to edit this, but my changes were undone...

Otto von Habsburg ceased to be head of the Habsburg family on January 1st 2007 - he transferred his authority to his son Karl on that day, the following letter was sent to every family member.

Pöcking, December, 2006

Dear Family,

Some weeks ago I celebrated my 94 th birthday. During a long life I have made a lot of experiences, good ones and also bad ones, and I am thankful to God for every single one of them. I had the chance to learn from them and so I can look back on a fulfilled life. Especially because Regina and me are blessed with seven children and twentytwo grandchildren.

Already some time ago I have decided to give a part of my tasks in younger hands. So I decided to leave the European Parliament in the year 1999, in the year 2000 I passed my function as souvereign of the decoration of the golden Vlies to my son Karl, and last year I abandoned my presidency at the Paneuropa Union.

I have decided from 1st January, 2007 on to autorise my eldest son Karl with the task of the chief of the house and clan as well.

During the last years he had already leaded a part of my agendas. With him I know the future of our family, of whome we never have to forget that it is a family with a political task, with the continuity that I wish, in good hands. Last but not least his successful activity concerning the golden Vlies has affected me to this step. Surely I will support him, as far as God gives me the strengh. I wish and I demand that all of you accord him the same support as well!

Without giving up the aims, which I was concerned with over a long time, one can, when having reached the 95 th year of age, look at actual incidents from a greater distance und does not have to be concerned with every detail anymore.

I wish you with all my heart a blessed year 2007.

Otto

_______________________

This letter is authentic, the fact that Otto has indeed made Karl the head of the house was confirmed by his son Georg and his former secretary Lacy Milkovics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.178.230 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In order for this information to be included in the article it has to be verifiable in a PUBLISHED source. Quoting or citing from an unpublished letter is original research. Noel S McFerran 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Otto has transferred his rights, if you go to the website http://otto.twschwarzer.de/ and click on biographie about three quarters of the way down the page it says "Otto übergibt seine Funktion als Chef des Hauses Habsburg an seinen ältesten Sohn Karl am 1. Januar 2007." - dwc lr 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This short sentence seems that Otto transfered his head position to Karl. If it is so, it means that Otto renounced his rights to the Austrian throne? Motsu 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Crown Prince has made his son the acting head of the house while he remains the actual head of the house. Seemingly the same as the situation with the Sovereign Prince and Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein. Charles 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the original German version available to be posted here? I ask for two reasons: first, it may be possible to search for the original both online and offline to determine if it appears in a medium that allows it to be quoted or cited in the article; second, because there appear to be a few minor errors in the English translation. Lethiere 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot give you the original German version - here is the link to the forum where the letter was first posted: http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=55ced2d978abee2bc441d6ebbf7794a8&topic=5399.msg248461#msg248461. It is curious that this information took so long to become publicly known, but according to his son Georg von Habsburg he tried not to make a great thing out of it. The information about his abdication was sent to one news paper only, it is called ABC and published in Spain. Concerning his rights to the throne of Austria: Otto renounced them officialy in 1961, but since only a small part of the former Austrian empire, the Republic of Austria, urged him to do so, this renouncement remains meaningless to most monarchists. His actual abdication on the other hand concerns only his function as head of the Habsburg family. I am a member of an Austrian monarchist movement (sga.monarchisten.org) - at first we too thought that Karl was only "chief executive", but meanwhile it was confirmed by Georg that Otto has completely retired from the position of head of family.

I am sorry that I cannot give you any written sources for this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.181 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - my entries were reverted for the second time now... Believe it or not, Charles, Otto has retired, so please undo your latest revert.213.162.66.177 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I shall not, at least not until it has been properly sourced and verified as even I had question about the German passage given. Charles 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there once again! I just wanted to add that in the meantime the Austrian press, writing about Archduke Otto's 95th birthday, has also stated his retirement in January 2007 - can my changes now be restored, please?213.162.66.196 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It needs to be announced/determined if this is an regency sort of situation (like in Liechtenstein, where the Hereditary Prince exercises the powers of his father to an extent) or an abdication. The wording of the announcement seems to indicate the former. Charles 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the point? He's monarch of a republic, a position which is an oxymoron. He might as well be Emperor Norton. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. He is not a monarch nor would be be the monarch of a republic. He is the pretender to the former empire of Austria and kingdom of Hungary. There is a difference. Charles 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "pretender" is used in two completely different senses - (a) an alternative claimant - whether "alternative line of descent" or invented and (b) the heir to a throne presently in abeyance (including kingdoms etc absorbed)15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Otto had no "rights" to the Austrian throne. He also had no right to use "von" in his name or on offical documents within Austria. His name as a German citizen has no bearing in Austrian Constitutional Law. That is also why he never claimed to be an heir to the Austrian throne. It is against the law and reveals nothing of the character of the man. If he had publicly said that he had a right to the throne, he most likely would have been expatriated...AGAIN... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.42.191 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lothringen?

Just wondering why Austrian authorities refer to him as "Otto Habsburg-Lothringen"? Where did they get the Lothringen part from? --Canuckguy (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Otto, in the direct male-line, is a descendant of Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor who belonged to the House of Lorraine and was the Duke of Lorraine as Francis III Stephen. The House of Lorraine itself was the House of Vaudémont, but "Lorraine" supplanted that in use. He married Maria Theresa of Austria, the heiress of the House of Habsburg, and their children were the first of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, although just calling them "Habsburg" is more common. "Lothringen" is the German form of "Lorraine". Currently, all other lines of the House of Lorraine other than the House of Habsburg-Lorraine are extinct. Hope this helps. Charles 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The House of Maria Theresia is called the House of Habsburg from an early possession, or better, the House of Austria from its major German possession (being Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Vienna of today). The House of Francis III was the House of Lorraine, though he himself abdicated and became grandduke of Tuscany. The inheritants of both were, however, called Austria again, since this was also their major hereditive possession (while they did not possess Lorraine and not counting the kingdoms as they had a somewhat special status). In 1804 the Emperor Francis II proclaimed that he took an additional title of Emperor of Austria "being the name of his family" to equalize his inherited lands to Russia and France. So, the state of Austria got its name from the family (and the family itself from Upper and Lower Austria), and Otto of Austria is actually the correct name. A name however that the Austrian republican authorities disliked (whereas, just to mention, Francis of Bavaria has not a single problem to use a passport that styles him just this way, even though his family takes their name from the state unlike, as I mentioned, the Austrian), so they made a mixture of Lorraine and the genealogically incorrect, though, even hundreds of years after the actual end of the dynasty, still popular name of Habsburg, and calls him Habsburg-Lothringen. His name as German citizen is "von Habsburg", since he is known that way and the Germans have no problems with the nobility marker "von". --84.154.52.60 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But it is not rational to say that because the Germans have no problem with allowing a title to become part of the name that it is alright to use it in Austria. The Austrians don't just dislike the name. It is written into Constitional Law that it MAY NOT be used. Otto swore an oath of loyalty to the Austrian Republic in the 1960s, just like any other citizen, and was awarded and Austrian passport as Dr. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.42.191 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd infobox choices

The infobox has some kind of bizarre wording: above the pic it says "Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia" and below it says "Emperor of Austria-Hungary". At first glance (and what is the infobox for if not to give you information at first glance?) you would assume these are actual royal titles from those countries, when in fact none of those countries currently have royalty (and several no longer exist, or no longer exist under those names).

Presumably this is endlessly hashed out on royal pretender/head of royal house pages all over Wikipedia, but: isn't there some way to make it clearer that he does not hold any of the above titles in anything but the minds of monarchists? Otto himself doesn't even claim them, having renounced all his royal titles.

And for what it's worth, even when Austria-Hungary still existed, its ruler never billed himself as "Emperor of Austria-Hungary." It was always "Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary" and so forth. --Jfruh (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Otto and John Paul II

Technically, had Austria-Hungary persisted John Paul II would have been Otto's subject - and see Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko.

Nominal King of Hungary from 1922 to 1946?

The article mentions that Otto was nominally King of Hungary from 1922 to 1946. It would have to argue that he was a pretender during this time but not a nominal ruler. After all, Horthy ruled the country as regent but never accepted Otto as the "legitimate" ruler. If in fact we says he was the nominal ruler of Hungary if he was a pretender, aren't we saying that he would also be the nominal ruler of Austria and, for that matter, any lands formerly under the Habsburg scepter?--71.245.116.133 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First sentences

The last 'couple of words' seem to have been lopped off - 'heir to the (what?). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

The article needs a section on the views of OvH on foreign policy, particularly his views on the United States and the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.120 (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This article says in the lede that he is the head of the House of Habsburg. The info box gives Archduke Karl that title, while stating Otto von Habsburg was head until 2007. Later in the article it states that Otto von Habsburg transferred the title to his son in 2007. Here on the talk page it states that von Habsburg remains the official head of the House, despite the de facto transfer. The article for Archduke Karl also lists him as the head of the House of Habsburg. It would be nice if someone with definitive knoweledge of this situation could clear this up. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a twofold problem here: The first problem is that there are distinctions within the House of Austria of rights to its tripartite legacy, specifically to the Pretendership to the Austro-Hungarian throne, to the Headship of the Imperial House of Habsburg, and to the Grand Mastership of the dynastic orders. In order to have the right to repatriate to his native land, Austrian law required him (and all males of the deposed Imperial dynasty) to renounce their hereditary claim to the defunct throne and to accept abolition of the right to use hereditary titles in Austria. Otto took the first step in 1961, renouncing the throne and discontinuing use of any title but "Dr. Otto (von) Habsburg". This has been treated by monarchists as pro forma, since it is viewed as a coerced act. Otto himself, however, being an elected official, has been careful to comply with Austrian law, and has not claimed any throne or title since the renunciation (some members of the family refused to renounce, and have since obtained repatriation by lawsuit). Nonetheless, no member of the Habsburg family challenges Otto's right to the throne while he remains alive, so either he is the monarchical "claimant" to Austria-Hungary or there is none. In 2000 Otto also passed headship of the Habsburg Order of the Golden Fleece to his elder son Archduke Karl of Austria, since this involves ceremonial appearances that grew onerous for his advanced years. In January 2007 Otto also renounced actual headship of the dynasty in favor of his son, which would mean that it is the latter rather than the former who speaks for the dynasty and authorizes the marriages of its members (issue of authorized marriages are, by tradition, archdukes, whereas issue of unauthorized marriages are merely counts). While it is clear that Karl now exercises most functions for his father (Otto is said to have also handed over the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary to Karl in 2008), it is not clear whether he actually outranks Otto as Head of the Dynasty, as Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg outranks his abdicated father Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. Problem 2 is that these changes are well-known and much-discussed in monarchist and genealogical circles, but I know of no one summary that constitutes an up-to-date reliable source for purposes of clarifying the matter in Wikipedia articles. FactStraight (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that very informative response. With the understanding that there may be no perfect solution here, do you perhaps have a suggestion as to how we can reconcile the conflicting statements in the lede and the info box? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Otto didn't reign as Head of his house. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretender

I have removed the contentious claim that Otto Habsburg-Lothringen is still a "pretender" to the Austrian throne. We cannot simply claim without very good sources (and there are no sources at all for this claim) that his declaration in which he renounced it was done in bad faith. It's amazing how long this claim has survived here, as anyone seeing it and understanding the problem was obliged to remove it immediately. (See WP:GRAPEVINE.) Of course the German article does not contain this claim that he is committing treason against the Republic of Austria after having formally avowed himself to be a faithful citizen of the republic. Hans Adler 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, someone need not be a claimant to the throne to be considered a pretender. Von Habsburg himself has long renounced his own claim to the throne, but Austrian monarchists still consider him their king. (See Schwarz Gelbe Allianz). Joefromrandb (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what our article pretender says. Moreover, surely his renouncement of the claim is analogous to an abdication. I don't believe for a moment that an abdicated monarch can be called a pretender. Doing it in this case appears to push a claim that he somehow crossed his fingers when he renounced the claim. We can't do this without very good sources. Hans Adler 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used to cite Wikipedia. All I'm suggesting is that we could make clear that von Habsburg himself has fully renounced his pretendership to the throne, while Austrian monarchists still consider him to be pretender. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not propose to cite Wikipedia as a reference, and surely you were aware of that. I do not appreciate the cheap rhetorics. I have no problem with what you say in the rest of your comment. I only have problems with claims that he is objectively a pretender. Hans Adler 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the term 'pretender' is used to cover both 'persons with pretensions and claims' and 'reversionary-heirs to decommissioned monarchies and component-states' - Otto, and now Karl, fall into the latter category.

Otto was the longest-serving reversionary-royal claimant, and would have been the longest serving monarch had he succeeded his father, who died 89 years ago. Charles Prince of Wales would have to wait over 30 years to exceed the claim (the nearest parallel). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Update feb 2011?

I removed the "update" tag. It was dated with Feb 2011, with a link "see talk page". But I cannot find any discussion here in February 2011. --Austrian (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

9/11 quote

What is the significance of the quote "The catastrophe of 11 September 2001 struck the United States more profoundly than any of us,..." that is mentioned in the article? In his long career as a politician, Otto Habsburg expressed his views on many things. But his main interest was European (or "pan-European") politics. Why is this statement singled out? It appears in the article without any context. Was there a controversy surrounding this statement? --Austrian (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

my recent revision

I recently deleted a cited statement owing to its lack of any correspondence with the source the cite gave. I hope this is acceptable to you all.74.131.99.14 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He's Dead

Surely a few major changes are in order, begining with removing the "Bio of Living Persons" thing at the top and adding a death date 70.78.12.203 (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claims rv

"A fervent Austrian patriot, Otto opposed the Nazi Anschluss in Austria in 1938. The Nazis codenamed their plan for a military invasion of Austria "Otto" because they planned to invade immediately if he was restored to the throne. Having been sentenced to death by Hitler, Otto chose to leave Europe altogether.

NOTE: some of the deleted text restored from the original disputed section. However, the above is unsourced; his alleged anti-Nazism appears to be either considerably or entirely exaggerated based on his complete lack of any action whatever during the Holocaust (unlike, say Rainier of Monaco or Prince Jean of Luxembourg), which he spent in Washington, D.C. Most German-speaking Austrians supported the "Anschluss", by the way. Where is any evidence he was "sentenced to death" by Hitler. This cannot be restored until it is validly sourced. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I read an Austrian newspaper today which had several pages about him and also mentioned that he had a very bad opinion of Hitler, but nothing that would support this claim. This raises a red flag for me. The claim about some relatives being sent to a concentration may be technically true, but then it is probably extremely misleading to the point of being offensive. Hans Adler 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To call his anti-Nazism, sourced or not, "Propaganda" is hardly an appropriate way to address your concerns. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is formatted as a response to me, but I neither said not meant anything to this effect. As far as I can see, Rms has also not used the word propaganda, so I wonder what's going on here. Hans Adler 18:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RMS125 reverted large parts of the WWII section with an edit summary "unsourced propaganda rv" [1] HerkusMonte (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Niceties aside, if you cannot source his "anit-Nazism" despite heavy news coverage throughout his extremely long life, then the "anti-Nazism" did not exist. People are judged by their actions, not their words. As a seasoned Wikipedian, I cannot allow unsourced assertions and POV cruft to stand unchallenged. Provide some proof. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We use WP:Reliable Sources, Deutsche Welle is a reliable source and they clearly describe him as an anti-Nazi. Not sure what kind of POV you are trying to push by removing (now) sourced content. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The obituary of the British Telegraph also clearly describes him as an anti-Nazi and someone who was high on the Gestapo’s wanted list. See: [2]. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pannonhalma Benedictine College

Was he an alumnus of the Pannonhalma Benedictine College, as claimed in that page?193.224.79.8 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Exile

Can we get more information about the exile? Had his family done something or were they considered a threat? MartinezMD (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is now the oldest living royal - Prince Philip is 90, and King Michael of Romania a few months younger: anyone else?

It is doubtful that Otto's period as 'claimant to a throne' will be exceeded in the foreseeable future. 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Name - surname versus Christian name

Virtually all biographical articles refer to their subjects by their surname or family name. See WP:SURNAME. For example, Elvis Presley refers to "Presley" instead of "Elvis". Is there a clear reason why this subject should be treated differently?   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Royal people are generally referred to by their given name, see Charles, Prince of Wales for a similar example. The practice should be consistent throughout the article (he used a large number of names and titles at different times in his life), using just Otto throughout the article is the most simple solution, and in accordance with the naming conventions for royalty. He did not really have a "last name" in its traditional sense, at least not until late in life when he became a citizen of Germany in the late 70s and other countries in the 90s. For decades he was stateless, and often used the name Otto of Austria (for example during his exile in the US). Mocctur (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The subject was not royal for much of his life. Austria abolished the nobility by 1919, so he probably had no legal titles after that. If the subject did not use a surname we would not title the article "Otto von Habsburg", we'd call it "Otto of Austria" or something similar. If we want to refer to him as "Otto" during the period he claimed the throne then that might be logical, but not for the period after he renounced it. Likewise, we refer to "Cassius Clay" until the boxer changed his name, after which he's referred to as "Ali".   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He never renounced the claim to the throne of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, and many other lands. He is also widely known as Archduke Otto of Austria. He also never renounced the title of Archduke of Austria, only his claim to the throne (=Emperor of Austria). It would be improper to refer to him using a last name for the period when he didn't have or use one. Yes, Austria abolished titles in 1919, but he did not live in Austria after 1918 nor did he accept/recognize the name they used when referring to him, and Austria deprived him of his citizenship in 1941 making him stateless. He settled in the US as "Otto of Austria". In the 1930s, Otto's many supporters in Austria were commonly known as "Ottonen" (i.e., "supporters of Otto"), not "von Habsburgers". It would only make sense to refer to him as Habsburg for the period he was a politician for the CSU and onwards, but for the sake of consistency, using Otto throughout the article is a better solution. He is the former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, just like Charles is the Prince of Wales and referred to as Charles throughout his article, not as Wales. Mocctur (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, for most of his life he lived in the Federal Republic of Germany, where his legal surname was, apparently, "von Habsburg". (His surname in Austria was "Habsburg-Lothringen", but it is/was rarely used for him.) He is more widely known as "von Habsburg" than under any abolished title – reflecting the fact that Royalist inclinations are fringe in today's Central Europe. Hans Adler 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, "Otto" is the only correct name for the period he was the Crown Prince, and he seems to have used Otto of Austria until after WWII, being stateless since 1941 and not living in Austria since 1918. I'm under the impression that he used, and was referred to, by different names depending on context in the postwar era. Mocctur (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He became a citizen of Germany only shortly before elected to the European Parliament in 1979. Until that time, he lived in Germany with a Spanish diplomatic passport and a passport of the Order of Malta, passports he was given exceptionally because he was an exiled royal. It seems likely that his name on these passports, and hence his official name in Germany, was whatever he preferred. Mocctur (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Other articles on exiled royals also refer to them throughout the articles using their given name. For example Constantine II of Greece and countless other articles. He was known as an exiled royal for most of his life, and became the CSU politician Otto von Habsburg only late in life. Mocctur (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Constantine is an exiled king. Otto was the son of an exiled king. That's a crucial difference. Hans Adler 09:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Otto was the Crown Prince, and held a constitutional position in his own right as a member of the royal family in Austria-Hungary. Similarly to Prince Charles today. Articles on exiled royals who were not kings, but princes and princesses, also refer to them using their given names (check out the articles on Constantine's family). Mocctur (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a questionable practice to me if followed too slavishly. In this case it makes no sense. He was a child, so it's not as if he did anything other than be raised to become a king some day. People change names etc. This happens all the time and we deal with it by changing the way we refer to them. We even do the same when people change their gender. If he had done that, we would have had no problem with referring to him as "he" up to one point and then as "she" further on. Surely the amputation of a crown isn't a more incisive event than a gender-change operation. More like adopting your wife's name when you marry.

By the way, if you were on a first-name basis with Mr von Habsburg, make sure that you read and understand WP:COI. Hans Adler 10:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He actively used the name Otto of Austria as an adult, and started using Otto von Habsburg as a public person sometime after WWII, while still also using his royal name on other occasions. As I said, referring to him as Habsburg from a certain point of time (sometime in the postwar era), especially as a CSU politician, could be justified, but using Otto throughout the article is also justified per relevant precedence (articles on exiled royals). For the sake of a consistent style, using just Otto is simpler. Otto is correct throughout the article, while Habsburg would be incorrect at least until the 1950s, possibly even later. We would need to investigate more to find out exactly when he became "Otto von Habsburg". Mocctur (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The obituaries in English-language newspapers I'm seeing seem to generally refer to him simply as "Habsburg"

• OBITUARIES; OTTO VON HABSBURG, 1912 - 2011; Heir to Austrian throne championed democratic Europe Anonymous. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jul 8, 2011. pg. AA.6
• Habsburg on Europe; Will Croatia join a 'continent of freedom' in 2013? Anonymous. Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.: Jul 7, 2011.
• Otto von Habsburg Anonymous. The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Jul 6, 2011. pg. 18
• Democracy's Holy Roman Emperor Seth Lipsky. Wall Street Journal. (Europe). Brussels: Jul 6, 2011. pg. 18
• Emperor's son was 'towering personality'; Obituaries Anonymous. Western Daily Press. Bristol (UK): Jul 6, 2011. pg. 34

Likewise for these online sources cited in the article: [3] This one calls him Dr von Habsburg,[4] but academic titles like that aren't used on Wikipedia. This one calls him "Mr. von Hapsburg".[5] How many sources refer to him just as "Otto"?   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen him referred to by hist first name. This seems to be just the usual royalty fan nonsense that pervades Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing this out. Using the first name is defensible in the second lead paragraph, which talks about his parents and siblings. But thereafter we should switch to von Habsburg. Similarly for the rest of the article. Hans Adler 07:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah there is a lot of those people on wikipedia...Just call him Otto for his early life to the day he adopt Hasburg as a surname, then call him either Habsburg or Von Habsburg from that day forward. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The "Totenwache" was organised for "Seine Kaiserliche und königliche Hoheit Erzherzog Otto von Österreich, Königlicher Prinz von Ungarn", indicating that he actively used these titles on the most formal occasions.[6] He was also referred to as such by European courts.
• The Pope's telegram of condolences stated: "In der Stunde der Trauer über diesen schmerzlichen Verlust verbinde ich mich mit Ihnen und der gesamten kaiserlichen Familie im Gebet für den Verstorbenen. In einem langen und erfüllten Leben ist Erzherzog Otto zum Zeugen der wechselvollen Geschichte Europas geworden"[7] Mocctur (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That string of titles is in quotation marks in the original source for a reason. And I am pretty sure that reason is because it's anachronistic and highly irregular. In fact, in Austria it would probably have been illegal. But the event happened in Germany and the reporting newspaper is Austrian.

The Pope himself holds a largely anachronistic office and is surrounded by such anachronisms. The fact that you have to resort to cherry-picking from such sources just proves that this ridiculous title isn't in normal use. Hans Adler 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The "kurier.at" interview with Karl Habsburg routinely refers to the subject as "Otto Habsburg", and only refers to him once as "Otto of Austria" and that in quotation marks. The Pope's telegram uses "Otto of Austria", but that's just one source and not definitive. For example, the message addresses "His Imperial Highness Archduke Charles of Austria". Since that title was abolished in 1919 its use is a more of a courtesy rather than a factual or legal title.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The links were just to demonstrate that he used these titles himself and was referred to by courtesy as such on formal occasions. Exiled royals are commonly referred to, by courtesy, using their royal titles and styles. Check out just about any article on an exiled royal. When Otto was referred to as Otto von Habsburg as a politician, it was because he chose it himself. But frequently he would also be referred to using a title and/or style, for example his political party (CSU) "mourns the death of His Imperial and Royal Highness Dr. Otto von Habsburg"[8]. His website (ottovonhabsburg.org) uses the name "S.k.k.H. (His Imperial and Royal Highness) Dr. Otto von Habsburg". Now, as you are saying, referring to him as "Dr." or similar in every sentence would be silly. I don't totally oppose using Habsburg for the period he evidently used that name, but there's nothing wrong (on the contrary, it's normal practice), per precedence, in using Otto throughout the article and it's simpler and less confusing than changing it at some seemingly arbitrary point, and as of now, we don't even know when he started using the name Otto von Habsburg and when it apparently became his official name in Germany. It's quite possible that his diplomatic passport that he was granted by the Spanish government used a number of royal titles, whatever he wished himself. Mocctur (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The rule we should follow here is the same as for any article: reflect the common usage as found in reliable published sources, particularly English-language sources since this is the English-language Wikipedia. It is not necessarily the name that appears on the birth certificate or the passport. The articles at Bill Clinton and Cher are examples of non-legal names. As for how we refer to him, it seems logical that once he renounced his claim to the throne he also stopped claiming to being an Austrian Archduke (except as a courtesy title). He may have held additional titles in other countries, but I don't think he's known by any of them. After Austria ceased to be his domain, he ceased to be "of Austria". This is the same as we'd do for someone who is ennobled, only in reverse. If commoner John Smith is elevated to Duke of Alabama in 1833, then we'd call him "Smith" first and then "the Duke", "John", etc. afterwards. We don't use "Dr" for people with academic degrees, only for physicians.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He never stopped claiming to be an Austrian Archduke, as evidenced by numerous sources. The Pope referred to him in an official statement as an Austrian archduke only yesterday. He also never stopped claiming the title of Prince Royal of Hungary and countless other titles. Present-day Austria was just one of many territories (a very small part) of Austria-Hungary. He did not cease to be "of Austria" any more than Constantine II of Greece and any other exiled royal ceased to be referred to in a similar way, as a title of courtesy -- Austria in this context doesn't refer to present-day Austria, but to the former Austria. Usage in English sources varies, and the use of the name Otto von Habsburg doesn't imply that he wasn't also an Archduke; The Daily Telegraph's royalty obituary refers to him as Archduke Otto von Habsburg, and his wife as the Archduchess Regina.[9] Mocctur (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, he was called "Archduke" as a courtesy title, the same way one calls a retired military officer by their highest rank while in the service as a courtesy. In any case, rather than arguing over it I suggest we simply compile available sources, perhaps in a subject like Talk:Otto von Habsburg/name, and simply follow their lead. We can tell readers that he was known by various names and titles throughout his life.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But the sources are not necessarily referring to the same thing. Today's newspaper articles are referring to 2011's Otto von Habsburg. He started using that name as a public person maybe as late as the late 1970s. He was widely referred to as Archduke Otto of Austria by American newspapers (see for example [10]), and by the White House as well, when he lived in the US. It's not like there is only one correct name. He was known by different names and titles throughout his life, in his later life usually as Otto von Habsburg, but often in combination with a title such as Archduke or a style such as H.I.R.H. As said before, it can be acceptable to refer to him as Habsburg from the time he started using that name himself in the context of his political career, but we would need to establish when this happened. Mocctur (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, a quick check of the Proquest newspaper archive, which includes thousands of English-language publications from America, UK, Australia, etc, plus a small number of German-language sources, brings these results: "Otto von Habsburg": 289 hits. "Otto Habsburg": 39 hits. "Otto of Austria":6 hits. "Otto von Osterreich": 0 hits. The archive is mostly from the 1985-current in English, and perhaps 2000-current in German.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt he was primarily referred to as Otto von Habsburg (at least) since the 1980s, and the article is also titled Otto von Habsburg. But this doesn't mean he wasn't also considered an exiled royal and additionally referred to as such. What we are discussing is not the naming of the article, or whether his name was Otto von Habsburg during the last decades of his life. Mocctur (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph, cited in the article, said in 2010, even while referring to him as "Archduke Otto von Habsburg", said:

• Although Otto was the heir to the Austrian Empire, he was unusual among "pretenders" in electing to ignore his aristocratic title, preferring to style himself Dr Otto von Habsburg... [..] He never claimed the throne of Austria, and in 2000 renounced his sovereignty of the Order of the Golden Fleece, the last sign of his leadership of the Imperial Family. [11]

Is that incorrect? Did he ever claim the throne or not? Did he style himself "Dr Otto von Habsburg"? If he did, then the Wikipedia version would be "von Habsburg" purposes of reference.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. That article is simply wrong. There is an enormous amount of sources supporting this. If he never claimed the throne, it would make no sense for him to renounce that claim (to the Austrian throne) in the 1960s. The article cites a statement where he even regrets signing the document renouncing the claim. Here the pretender is arriving in the US. As pointed out, his own website[12] uses "His Imperial and Royal Highness Dr. Otto von Habsburg". Again, he did not use one name, he used several depending on situation, there is now a Totenwache for "Seine Kaiserliche und königliche Hoheit Erzherzog Otto von Österreich, Königlicher Prinz von Ungarn". Hungarian newspapers wrote upon his death that he never renounced the claim to the Hungarian throne. As someone said below, he lobbied actively for the United States government to recognize him as King of Hungary during WWII and also wanted them to recognize an Austrian government-in-exile likely headed by himself. Mocctur (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see that a number of sources try to avoid the issues by always referring to him as "Otto von Habsburg". They neither treat "Habsburg" as a surname nor "Otto" as a reignant name, but just use the entire formula. I'm afraid that compromise would be too clumsy for this long article.   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues: (1) what his 'formal name' is - like Anthony Wedgewood Benn/Wedgie Benn/Tony Benn and others Otto used/was addressed by/was referred to by several different names that varied over time; and (2) what name he would be generally recognised by in the English speaking world - which seems to be some variant on (Dr) Otto (von) Habsburg. For the purposes of the article on English Wiki (and probably Simple English Wiki) this would seem be the primary name, with redirects from the less frequent variants, and a discussion in the text of the names used. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute at all over which name should be the primary name/article title. We all agree that he was primarily referred to as Otto von Habsburg in English at least during the last decades. Mocctur (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just making it clear - as with the ex-2nd Viscount Stansgate. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I just came across a New York Times article from 1940 which refers to him as "Otto von Habsburg". I don't think it's correct to say that that was just a later usage.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that (it was not clear if he used the name, or the journalist used it), but I also saw that he signed his own letters to President Roosevelt as Otto of Austria and that other articles referred to him as such. It's possible that he used these names interchangeably over a longer period, and maybe used one name in a German language context and preferred a different one in an English language context in the past. Mocctur (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What he called himself is not really our concern. We should follow the most common usage(s) in reliable, published sources. The question still remains whether to refer to him as "Otto", "von Habsburg", or "Habsburg".   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Between "von Habsburg" and "Habsburg", the latter seems to be primarily an Austrian usage. That's consistent with their abolition nobility. However in English-language sources "von Habsburg" seems more common.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, in today's coverage of the funeral "Habsburg" seems common. Reuters, AFP, The Independent, BBC.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Crticism lacking in the article

This article lacks criticism. He was criticised among other things regarding his attitude to nationalism, and behaviour in WW2 where he lobbied to be recognised as king of Hungary by United States against the wishes of Central European people. It would also be interesting to bring up what his Pan-Europa Movement led by Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalerg stood for in 70s, and even today. This wasn't a simple movement for unification of Europe, but much more ideological organisation as Transparency in global change: the vanguard of the open society by Burkart Holzner, Leslie Holzner states "Pan-Europa Union became an exclusive conservative Catholic elite". The article should describe his ideas in full and simplify his ideology to just "unification of Europe". Critical assessment of some of his statements and behaviours should also be included. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He was very much opposed to the whole idea of nationalism. Do you mean he was criticized for this by nationalists? I remember reading some time that he lobbied to be recognized as King of Hungary during WWII, this should definitely be added to the article. He also lobbied for the recognition of an Austrian government-in-exile (as opposed to the Nazi government). Why do you think he, a refugee from Nazism, wanted Allied countries to recognize him as the legitimate ruler instead of the Nazis in Austria and their allies in Hungary at the time? His activities during these years when he opposed Nazism were in no way unique. Charles de Gaulle was never elected by anyone when he proclaimed himself a leader either. Mocctur (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He may have been opposed to nationalism, but according to an obituary in Die Zeit, he was close to Spanish-style fashism. This explains why he had a Spanish diplomat's passport during Franco's reign. We should really mention this, as it appears to be rather important for understanding him. Hans Adler 11:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I already added to the article that he held Franco in a high regard. He lived in Spain during Franco's reign for some years too. I've read that he had a friendly relationship with Franco and met him many times. (most conservative people in Europe, e.g. the British tories, were sympathetic to Franco, so this wasn't really unexpected. He also grew up in Spain, so he was more or less like a Spanish conservative.). Mocctur (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated in this newspaper article, Kurier http://kurier.at/nachrichten/3921065.php July, 8, 2011, Dr. Otto Habsburg made a statement before the Austrian Parliament, in 2008 on the anniversary of the Anschlus "1938 Remembrance Day" speech that there was "no other country in Europe with more right to declare itself a victim as Austria" ("keinen Staat in Europa, der mehr Recht hat, sich als Opfer zu bezeichnen, als es Österreich gewesen ist"). The context of the speech made it a declaration, in the public opinion, that Otto believed that Austria was a victim of the Nazis and not a participant. This statement once again distanced the Habsburgs from popular opinion and resulted in a number of small anti-fascist demonstrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.235.108 (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Polyonymy (or, the name game)

One affectation of the Austrian and German royal and noble families is polyonymy -- the giving of multiple names. Otto had 17 baptismal names -- a record? I'd love to see his entry in the register!

Otto's compatriot W. A. Mozart, not of a noble family, had five baptismal names. His fourth name, Theophilus, is latinized as Amadeus.

Robert ADDINGTON (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a record. I've heard of some who had over 20. Mocctur (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, Mocctur, but can you cite any examples? Robert ADDINGTON (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire and longest record reign

• Had the Holy Roman Empire not been abolished in 1806, he would have been the most likely person to be elected Holy Roman Emperor.[13]

This was not actually asserted in the source. It's an absurd claim. Had Napoleon never existed, had WWI never occurred, etc. It's excessively speculative.

• Had the dual monarchy still existed, he could have reigned for 89 years, the longest precisely recorded reign in human history.

Do we have a source for this or are we just making that conclusion on our own? If the subject had the responsibilities of state it is entirely plausible that his life would have been shorter. I'll remove these assertions unless there's objection.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Otto was the residuary heir/chief claimant to the Austro-Hungarian throne for 89 years - fact. Victoria of the UK and George III of the UK and Hanover each reigned for 60+ years - fact. 'Had all other things been equal' he would have outreigned them: suitable for mention on the talk page. The likelihood of the HRE surviving had Napoleon not wound it up is a matter of debate - as is who would have been elected (anyone wish to develop an Althistory wiki timeline in which Margaret Thatcher ends up being Holy Roman Empress?). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from his own life span, his father's may have been far longer if he hadn't endured exile. So it's really, "if Austria or Hungary had remained monarchies, if his father had still died young, and if he had still lived to 98, then he would have been..." But that's all speculation based on original research. Let's stick to the facts and avoid the speculation. He was "residuary heir/chief claimant to the Austro-Hungarian throne for 89 years" would be a fine statement. But we can't go beyond that without a source, and even with one it's a minor point.

If we allowed this where would we stop? "If Otto had been named Karl, and if he'd assumed the throne, he would have been Karl II of Austria and Karl V of Hungary". "If he had returned to Austria in the 1930s, as he'd hoped, he probably would have been executed by Hitler." "If he had been younger and undergone astronaut training, and if NASA allowed foreigners in the Apollo program, he could have been the first Austrian on the Moon." Let's report what did happen rather than what might have happened.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

'Residuary heir' is an invented term of mine - 'the person who would logically and without dispute inherit the ruling title were the monarchy/prinicipality etc': as distinct from claimants and pretenders - there could thus be residuary heirs to the components of the German Empire, and the Indian princely states. Neither Harold Godwinson nor William of Normandy were Edward the Confessor's residuary heir; nor were the claimants following Margaret of norway's death.

Otto was one of the longest-lived royals; he held the role of claimant/residuary heir for a record 89 years - a figure which is unlikely to be exceeded in the foreseeable future. Two correct statements and a prediction which even with minimal knowledge of lifespans seems reasonable - Prince Charles of Wales has only been heir to the throne for 59 years. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to whom? Who says this is a record? Us? That doesn't cut it.

Prince Charles is heir to an extent throne. The subject was in a similar position for about two years.

The subject renounced his claim in 1961. It's really more like 43 years as residuary heir to the throne. After that the claim presumably passed to his son. So it all depends on how you count it and any conclusion is based on altered assumptions, which is why we call it speculation.   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is 89 years since Otto's father died: and Otto only renounced the claim to the Austrian throne (with mental reservations) rather than his 'large collection of other titles' - and he only passed the headship of the House of Habsburg to his son.

His entries in the record books probably include a mention as an author - the only other contender was the 1920s European queen who wrote under a pen-name: with several others writing 1-2 volumes. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He was the claimant to the throne of Hungary and numerous other European countries for 89 years, which is a record in human history. It's not speculation, just a simple fact.

As for the Holy Roman Empire, this could be removed from the lead, but could be reworded and mentioned somewhere else in the article. In The Wall Street Journal, Seth Lipsky had an article called "Lunch With the Holy Roman Emperor". It's undisputed that he was the head of the house which held the position of Holy Roman Emperor from 1440 until it was abolished (with only a very short interruption). So we could mention something along those lines. Mocctur (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to whom is this a record? What's our source?

As for HRE, obviously the reporter was just using a jocular reference. Sure we can include a very brief account of the history of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty in the article. We could put it at the beginning of the "Early life" section, something like "family background". Something like, "The male heads of the house of Habsburg had traditionally been elected HRE until its end in 1806."   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a list of longest reigning monarchs of all time, and several other articles on people by time in office. I've removed the HRE thing for now. Mocctur (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the HRE edit. Wikipedia articles aren't usable as sources. Sources have two functions: asserting that a fact is true and that it is notable. While it may be true that the subject was foremost in some way or another, we need an secondary source to show it's worth mentioning. Otherwise we might write true but minor points like, "Otto was the first Austrian crown prince named 'Otto'" or "Otto was the first crown prince to visit the U.S." or "Otto was the first claimant to the Hungarian throne to use a cell phone". Secondary sources act like filters to keep us from adding every true but insignificant fact. Again, the subject's life and significance are sufficient that they need no padding. The cold details are enough.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we have articles such as List of longest reigning monarchs of all time, List of longest-reigning British monarchs, Current reigning monarchs by length of reign, etc. etc., demonstrates that this is not trivial or in any way comparable to "first claimant to the Hungarian throne to use a cell phone" (we don't have such lists). The Wikipedia articles aren't really being used as sources because this is uncontroversial information which was already evident from this article, from its sources, and from other articles, and their sources. If someone were credibly able to dispute it, it would be sensational. The List of longest reigning monarchs of all time itself cites sources, so pointing to that article isn't the same as pointing to some unsourced/dubious statement in Wikipedia. That 89 years of being claimant to a throne is highly significant is something for example David Warren points out in an article in the Ottawa Citizen[14], there is a good possibility that we will have to wait another 2,000 years for a similar case. Mocctur (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We still need a source.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that we do not have List of people who claimed a title for the longest time.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note further that opinion pieces, like David Warren's, are not usually considered as reliable sources for anything other than the writer's opinions.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What can be definitely stated is:

• Otto was sufficiently notable for what he did - Europolitics, author etc, and would deserve a WP article on those grounds.
• He was the heir-claimant to the Austro-Hungarian succession and might have been given a short article/mention on the AH Empire/KuK Karl pages even if he lived fairly quietly - and would have achieved a record #verifiable# rule had he become monarch in some Althistory - the number of (I deduce from the 70th wedding anniversary name) Diamond Jubilees is relatively scarce.
• Otto was the heir-claimant for 89 years - and like Charles being Prince of Wales for 59 this is a record #of some kind# which should be recognised.
• The first Pope/Patriarch/KuK/Grand Duchess/Prince of Wales etc to send an email/use a cellphone etc is due to pure chance - being alive and capable of doing so when the object/activity came into use (and so is irrelevant). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing over whether the subject merits an article

Any number of things could have happened in alternate versions of history. But we're not here to speculate about them.

The situations of Charles, Prince of Wales is fundamentally different from that of the subject. If the Queen of England were to die tomorrow, then Wales would almost automatically become the next King of England. OTOH, for the subject to have regained either of his thrones would have required major legal changes, and at least following WWII there haven't been significant pro-monarchist movements in Austria or Hungary. He was closer to being King of Spain, a throne to which he had only minimal claim.

I used cellphones as an example of the kinds of things we could add that are true but are not sufficiently relevant or significant to have been mentioned by secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

He was the Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary and would automatically have become Emperor if his father died during those years, just like Charles hypothetically could become king if he outlives his mother. That said, Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary or Prince of Wales are positions in their own right. Mocctur (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, so the subject was the heir apparent to an extent throne for about two years while Charles has been heir apparent for almost 60 years. The Austrian nobility was dissolved in 1919, so he ceased to be Crown Prince of Austria or Archduke then, and those remained just courtesy titles. Likewise, the Hungarian throne disappeared and when it was re-instated the law was changed to require the election of a king, meaning that the subject was not heir to it. I don't know the circumstances about his lesser thrones. In any case, let's stick to summarizing reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Otto held #some# role with regard to his being the heir to Karl and the theoretical ruler of the territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for 'many decades': the problem is in defining what. A similar issue is likely to arise with a few other 'significant royals' - most notably Michael of Romania and Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (and may they live as long as Otto). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If an entrepreneur founds a valuable company, has a son and heir, and then the company goes bankrupt, to what is the son an heir? The non-existent business? Anyway, there's little point in arguing over this between ourselves. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

'Odd facts and loose ends' do tend to generate the most discussion - and similar discussions are likely to arise in future as indicated. 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase 1066 and All That - it is Wrong but Wromantic - and the feeling that he qualified for a record 'of some sort' (especially as he did not reach his 100th).

Would add Prince Sihanouk to the above semi-royals. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

About Ottos claim: Since austria was claimed a Single Empire out of the Holy Roman Empire by emperor Francis I./.II (Franz I./II.)there never has been a coronation nore a official ceremony - Even if Monarchy was abolished by "Republic of Deutschösterreich" as the Austrian state called itself slightly after WW I. the title goes with the Person as it is in GB - so in German it would be "Der Kaiser ist tot, lang lebe der Kaiser" = "The Emperor is dead, long live the Emperor". The Title was inherited by law of the Dynasty, as such rightful. So if there still was an Austro-Hungarian Empire Otto would have served for 89 years, without any coronation. Infact Otto v. Habsburg-Lothringen has served the public via his Mandate for European Parliament, and has been involved in politics his whole life. So I felt free to add the relative duration of a hypothetic reign under "Trivia" Xandl Hofer (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

See WP:LEAD. The intro should mostly summarize the article. It is not the right place to mention details that aren't in the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is rather excessive. - dwc lr (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be reworked, it's very unfinished and lacking. Mocctur (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 

In the meantime, please don't add more details to the lead that aren't in the body of the text. A lead should summarize the article, not astonish the reader with random facts.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Spieth

• He continued to enjoy considerable public support in Austria; from 1931 to 1938, 1,603 Austrian municipalities named Otto an honorary citizen and monarchists rallied in support of him with a mass gathering of 80,000 people in 1938.
  • Alexander Spieth, Politisch sehn, falsch sehn. Anmerkungen zu Joseph Roths Legitimismus, doctoral diss., 2009, pp. 256–257 [15]
• Der österreichische Legitimismus war schon in den letzten zwei Jahren durchaus nicht die Bewegung „verkrachter Aristokraten“ etwa oder „verkalkter Offiziere“; der Hauptmann Oswald, früher Adjutant Kaiser Karls, trotz seines feudalen Äußeren von den Wiener Arbeitern geliebt und bei jeder legitimistischen Versammlung bejubelt, hatte mehr als 80 000 Anhänger in Wien; darunter nicht wenige „illegale“, die nur in legitimistischen Versammlungen offen sagen konnten, sie seien illegal und Sozialdemokraten.

I added a citation request for the 1,603 municipalities. That tag was removed and the assertion of a gathering of 80,000 was added with the Spieth dissertation as the source. First, we still need a source for the 1,603 municipalities. Second, I'm concerned that we may be misreading Spieth. He seems to be saying that the subject had 80,000 supporters and that he (or the legimistist cause) was cheered at meetings, but not that all 80,000 supporters attended a mass meeting. Also, the passage seems to concern support for monarchism, not personal support for the subject. Lastly, details like this shouldn't be in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's no response I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Spieth material. A source has been added for the "1,603" assertion:

• He continued to enjoy considerable public support in Austria; from 1931 to 1938, 1,603 Austrian municipalities named Otto an honorary citizen.
  • Heinz Arnberger, Winfried R. Garscha, Rudolf G. Ardelt, Christa Mitterrutzner, Anschluß 1938, Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen Widerstandes, Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1988, ISBN 3215068249

What does that source say about the matter?   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1,603 is not an "assertation". It's a completely uncontroversial and widely known fact, already found in the corresponding German article. Arnberger et al. confirm the 1,603 honorary citizenships ("Bis zum "Anschluß" verliehen 1603 Gemeinden Otto Habsburg die Ehrenbürgerschaft", p. 30) and discuss the background of this campaign, also from p. 30. The honorary citizenships are also mentioned by numerous other sources[16] [17][18][19].

As for the mass gathering with 80,000 participants on 11 February 1938, I don't understand how Spieth could be interpreted the way you are interpreting him, but as the German Wikipedia article points out, there was one mass gathering in that year, which is quite evident from Spieth's dissertation in my opinion. Support for "monarchism" without support for "the subject" is a completely meaningless idea as he was the Emperor in the monarchists' opinion, the Austrian monarchist movement in the 1930s was called "Ottonen" (supporters of Otto). Mocctur (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything we add to an article is an "assertion". Thanks for finding those sources. Let's make sure everything in the article is as well-sourced.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

children's legal names

• His children's legal names at the time of their birth was "of Austria-Hungary" (von Österreich-Ungarn).
  • [20]

The source does not seem to support this assertion. If I read the interview correctly, Gabriela von Habsburg says that her mother traveled to Luxembourg especially for her birth. Her great-uncle was the Grand Duke there, and presumably would have allowed the family to use any name they liked. However I don't see where she claims that all of her siblings were similarly named. Nor does it say that this was her "legal name", just the name on the certificate. Unless there's anything else, I think we should move this citation to Gabriela von Habsburg, and somply say that this was the name on her birth certificate.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are correct about this. Mocctur (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 

Thanks. The more general problem with repeated incidents of misrepresenting sources is that it becomes harder to give the benefit of the doubt that less accessible sources are being summarized correctly. Could you please double check any such sources that you've added and make sure that the material in the article is a close summary of exactly what's written?   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The printed sources were material taken from the German Wikipedia article which used these sources, or material accessible from Google Books, or found in fulltext elsewhere on the Internet in the case of the dissertation. Mocctur (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

When you add citations, please include any hyperlinks to online versions. I've got a questions for you on a newly added source, see #Spieth above.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The National Archives info on Otto

The 'official information open to public view' is given at [21].

Will see if there is anything more in the records. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a UK website. When I have time I'll check if the Austrian National Archive has anything with an English translation. Anyway, I need a break from Wikipedia for a while. I don't see how full time editors can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.235.108 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

austria-lexikon.at

This appears to be a webforum: http://www.austria-lexikon.at/af/Wissenssammlungen/Biographien/Habsburg,_Otto If so, we should not use it as a source.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a web forum in the same sense that Wikipedia is a web forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.235.108 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't use Wikipedia as a source. If austria-lexikon.at allows people to add content without editorial review then it would not be an acceptable source. See WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. That was just a link I used for convenience, as it had all the relevant information at a glance. Though I am fairly sure that the contributions on Austria Lexicon do go through an editorial process before being posted. I was happy to see that their article on Otto von Habsburg had no discrepencies. Anyway, I have since updated all my contributions to the article with reliable newspaper and archival souces. Just post a message if you feel that any other source is not to Wiki standards. As all my events and dates are accurate, I will have no trouble to otherwise substanciate may additions to the article with sources that comply to Wiki guidelines. Best regards, 62.47.120.190 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, that articles looks a lot like an old copy of the German Wikipedia article, but I never tracked it down. Newspapers and magazines are almost all acceptable sources. Thanks for putting in the effort.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Political career and After WWII section

My addition to the after wwii section was made as accurately and objectively as I could: regarding the process Otto von H. went through to get citizenship and a passport. This subject matter is "lightly" touched upon in the Political career section. I'll quote the bit that doesn't seem neutral to me:

"However, several elements in the country, particularly the Socialists, were ill-disposed to welcoming back the heir of the deposed dynasty. This touched off political infighting and civil unrest that almost precipitated a crisis of state, and later became known as the "Habsburg Crisis." It was only on 1 June 1966, after the People's Party won an outright majority in the national election, that Otto was issued an Austrian passport, and was finally able to visit his home country again on 31 October 1966 for the first time in 48 years"

It is certainly more colorful than my just the facts version.

The Republic had only been completely independent for about 11 years, so it seems natural that some people felt it dodgy to revisit a past that they we happy ended with WWI. It would not be leaving someting out, in my opioion, if the role of the political parties involved during this period were seen in the light that such a theme is about as relevant as the burocracy involved.

There were protests (it was the 60s afterall...even in Europe), but the wording makes it sound like there was undue civil unrest provoked by this man. The english speaking slant, when it tries to analyse Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right inevitably leads to a face palm from Austrians who just want to people who disagree with element of the 1st and 2nd Republics.

I*d like to just see the facts of this man's life and not a judgement of the ideologies of the various political parties, no matter how suptly done.

It may be worth it to go into depth regarding the 5 years of litigation during the period know as "the Habsburg Crisis", but more along the lines of the German Wikipedia version. This is the German Wiki page on the "Habsburg Crisis" and the Habsburlaw:

"Verzichtserklärung

Die Einreise in die am 12. November 1918 ausgerufene Republik Österreich war ihm und den anderen Familienmitgliedern durch § 2 Habsburgergesetz vom 3. April 1919 untersagt, so lange sie nicht auf die Zugehörigkeit zum Haus Habsburg-Lothringen und die aus ihr gefolgerten Herrschaftsansprüche verzichteten und sich als getreue Staatsbürger der Republik bekannten. Otto gab diese Erklärung gegen den Rat seiner Mutter im Mai 1961 ab, um als Europapolitiker nach Österreich einreisen zu können (siehe Abschnitt Die „Habsburg-Krise“, 1961–1966),[14] und unterschrieb sie mit dem für ihn seit dem Adelsaufhebungsgesetz vom 3. April 1919 in Österreich gültigen Namen: Otto Habsburg-Lothringen."

I could, like the German version, eventually get around to creating someting similar (the german version has a seperate article that reader may access), as well as reworking and incorporating what I see as best between my paragraph and the other that I would attempt to make more neutral, but the little work that I have done on this article during the last two days has given me a headache.

If someone has the time, it would be nice to see a compromise between my attempt at a neutral approach, and the above, in my opinion, slightly slanted point of view. Otherwise, perhaps in a month or two, I will submit a better structured version, for administrator approval if no one else gets around to it.

Man, this has been hard work for me. I have alot of respect for those of you who do this all the time.

Hats off and best regards, Gerhard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.235.108 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Add to WWII section

May need some citations but should be proovable

During his Exile in the USA Otto along with his younger brothers was in direct contact with President Roosevelt and the goverment. Otto tried to found an "Austrian Battallion" in the US Army, which was delayed and never actually happened, as it´s said that the Democratic US government couldnt or wouldn´t help a Monarch regain his throne(since some high ranked US official thought monarchy means despotism). Nevertheless Otto succesfully tried to avoid the Bombardment of Austrian cities especially the Capital Vienna which then were delayed by high ranked Commanding Personal. First bombardments on Vienna began later in the war (1943). Otto tried hard to set symbolic steps for the will of Austria and Austrians tob be free independent and democratic. Also Otto warned the US goverment that past WWII there should be great concearns about Austria becoming a communist sattelite of Soviet rule. Otto was commonly known in the US as "Otto of Austria", also tried to launch some actions to keep Austria and its neighbouring countries in mind of the US people via starting a series of stamps containing the nazi-occupied nations of europe and much more.

best regards Xandl Hofer (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)