Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 April 3

= April 3 =

Could Maximilian I of Mexico have reacquired his rights to the Austrian throne had he lived?
Had Mexico decided not to execute Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico but instead decided to deport him to his birth country of Austria (then the Austrian Empire), could Maximilian have reacquired his rights to the Austrian throne? Or was his previous renunciation of his rights to the Austrian throne considered permanent--with Maximilian not being able to do anything about this even if he would have lost his Mexican throne but kept his life?

Have there ever been any cases of an Austrian prince being put back into the line of succession after renouncing his rights to the Austrian throne? Futurist110 (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There weren't that many Austrian Emperors. There were four at my count.  You could quite easily research all four and their children and the answer should be easy to locate.  You can find the names of all four in the article titled Emperor of Austria.  -- Jayron 32 11:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How were the Archdukes of Austria different from Austrian Emperors, though--other than in regards to their title? Futurist110 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure who to count, you can of course search farther back. Per Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne, the rules governing succession were in the Imperial house law of 1839. You would have to read that to find out if there was any provision for regaining rights of succession, once renounced (language desk may be able to help).
 * Here is a list of all the princes who renounced rights under that law. Another related article is List of heirs to the Austrian throne. The case of Archduke Heinrich Anton of Austria may be of interest - apparently the Emperor pardoned his morganatic marriage and restored him to the imperial family, but these sources are fuzzy on what that meant re succession rights. I still think your best bet is to read the house law. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at the Austrian house laws seems like a good idea. Futurist110 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Originally, the Archduke of Austria was a title unique to the rulers of Upper Austria, first claimed in the Privilegium Maius. Before the 19th century, there was one Archduke, and he ruled the territory (which was a small portion of what would later become the Austrian Empire).  Starting in 1804, with the creation of the Austrian Empire, the former Archduke (also Holy Roman Emperor), adopted the title of "Emperor of Austria", and the title of "Archduke" was then granted to all male-line heirs of the throne.  Within a few generations, every son, grandson, great grandson, nephew, grand-nephew, etc. of a prior Emperor got to use the title, and there were dozens of them.  So, during the Austrian Empire (basically the long 19th century), which is the time period we're talking about, it meant the same thing as "Royal Family" in the UK or Prince du Sang in French.  -- Jayron 32 17:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. For what it's worth, though, I was asking about Austrian Archdukes before the creation of the Austrian Empire--so, before 1804. I really should have made that part clearer. Futurist110 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Austrian Empire was created to be a successor state to the Holy Roman Empire, created specifically so that the head of the Habsburgs could retain the Imperial dignity, and would not be "demoted" when the HRE ended. Officially, the HRE didn't end until 1806, so there was a short overlap when Emperor Francis held both titles (a "Double Emperor"), but the writing was on the wall in 1804.  The HRE lands were being gobbled up by Napoleon, and it was soon all going to be French client states anyways]].  Since the Austrian lands were outside of the HRE, it would maintain a constitutional continuity when the HRE was finally put to death, because the Francis's Austrian lands wouldn't devolve to Napoleon.  Emperor of Austria explains the situation quite well.  As with the HRE, the Austrian Empire had no "native" lands of its own, technically each constituent state retained its own constitution, and the Emperor ruled those states in the role of the monarch of those states (Duke of Carniola or King of Hungary) individually, similar to the way that Queen Elizabeth is the "Head of the Commonwealth", and separately "Queen of the UK" and "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of Australia" etc.  See Emperor of Austria for more details.  -- Jayron 32 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing these links! I will make sure to check them out! Futurist110 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Israel vs Palestine
What is the Solution to the Israel / Palestine problem? I suspect that the solution, when found will be by a person who is not a politician and is able to view the problem holistically and from a fully third party perspective. The Wiki-reference desk folk are deeply well read and knowledgeable in many fields and so I would be curious to know any potential solution suggestions. In relation to this. In the late 90's pre- 9/11 I recall the aforementioned issue gaining much more airtime on news and television. Is this simply my perspective or has this changed in light of the 9/11 and post terror related conflicts, or...has the matter quietened significantly with less rockets into Israel and less land incursions into Palestinian territory? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that a solution based on the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative would be the most viable. Of course, Har Homa would probably need to be included within Israel's borders. Futurist110 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)