• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Rupture and Continuity: The fate of the Habsburg inheritance after 1918 5 December 2018 – 30 June 2019 Rupture and Continuity: The fate of the Habsburg inheritance after 1918 5 December 2018 – 30 June 2019 The key texts have been translated into English and compiled in this booklet to guide you through the exhibition. Texts: Ilsebill Barta, Martin Mutschlechner Translation: Sophie Kidd 2 1. About the exhibition ‘The Republic of Austria is the proprietor of the entire movable and immovable property on its territory of the Court Exchequer as well as properties tied to the previously reigning House or a branch thereof.’ Section 5 of the Habsburg Act of 10 April 1919 With this brief statement the young Republic laid claim to the ownership of the material legacy of the Habsburg Monarchy in the spring of 1919. However, the actual appropriation of the former imperial court offices, art collections, palaces and estates proved to be considerably more complicated. The whole process took three years to complete, and the ‘court without an emperor’ continued to exist until November 1921, albeit under republican administration. Based on this imperial legacy, the exhibition explores various facets of the historical and social upheaval of the time. First of all the convoluted legal nexus of Habsburg properties and collections is presented in order to ex- plain the various ways in which they were appropriated and exploited by the new Republic. Continuities in these processes can be seen particularly on the administrative level. The young Republic faced huge challenges as it struggled with the conse- quences of the world war, widespread poverty and the crisis in supplies. The established political powers feared revolution. The successor states and the victorious powers were demanding their share of the Monarchy’s inheritance – the ‘abduction’ of sixty-six valuable paintings from the Kunst- historisches Museum by the Italian Military Commission being only the most spectacular case to feature here. The grey areas in the legal position concerning former imperial property led to conflicts, some of which were milked for what they were worth in the media, such as the affair of the crown jewels, which Emperor Karl had had taken out of the country during the final days of the Monarchy. The exhibition shows how the Republic went about taking possession of its new property: by exchanging symbols and names, and re-inventorying and reorganizing the art treasures, but also through active appropriation. Disabled war veterans, for example, regarded themselves as the victims of Habsburg injustice, and as such justified in forcibly occupying parts of the palace at Schönbrunn. In this ‘democratization’ of the imperial holdings, palaces and art collections were opened up to the general public, and a number of public education 3 initiatives were put in place. The exhibition takes the two examples of Schönbrunn and the Hofburg, the symbolic centres of power, to showcase the many plans for use that sought to profitably exploit this imperial legacy. Many of these schemes were swiftly rejected, while others live on to this day. A whole section of the exhibition is devoted to the ‘Red Archduchess’, the daughter of Crown Prince Rudolf. A professed Social Democrat, she bequeathed her inheritance – works of art from the private ownership of Empress Elisabeth and her father – to the Republic. 2. The last Habsburg throne Ever since the advent of the early advanced civilizations, the throne has been a symbol of divine and secular power, and the act of enthronement a defining sign of the claim to power and authority. The throne consists of a canopy of state, a throne seat with a high back and heraldic animals (sphinxes or lions, for example) as decoration and symbols of power and might. Standing on a stepped dais, it is elevated above the monarch’s subject – hence the expression ‘to ascend the throne’. Arms and insignia referring to the ruling dynasty can be affixed to the throne or canopy. When vacant, the throne symbolically represents the perpetual presence of monarchical authority, even when the ruler is physically absent. In the case of the Habsburgs, each ruler had his or her own throne; that is to say, there was no single throne used by the monarchy down the gener- ations. The throne displayed here was made for Emperor Franz Joseph and stood in the Privy Council Chamber in the ceremonial apartments of the Leopoldine Wing of the Hofburg. It was only used on important ceremonial occasions, for example, when Franz Joseph gave a speech from the throne, something he did only four times during his long reign. On occasions when a larger audience had to be accommodated, such as the ceremonial opening of the Imperial Assembly in 1879, the throne was set up in the Hall of Cere- monies. One of the last times that this throne was used by Franz Joseph was in 1900, when the heir presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, standing before the steps of the throne, solemnly renounced the rights to the throne of his (as yet unborn) children. This was the condition imposed by Franz Joseph in 4 consenting to the archduke’s morganatic marriage to Countess Sophie von Chotek. In 1919 the ‘throne without an emperor’ was moved to the Hofmobilien- depot (Court Furniture Depository), as it had ceased to be needed in the Hofburg. Without a monarchy or an emperor, a throne is no more than a simple chair. Nonetheless, the varying positions taken towards the throne, emperor and the Habsburg heritage occupied and divided the political parties of the Re- public until far into the twentieth century. 3. The emperor and the dynasty On ascending the throne in November 1916, Karl (1887–1922) came into an inheritance that was fraught with difficulties. Already weakened by social and ethnic tensions, the Habsburg Monarchy was challenged to breaking- point by the First World War. Karl inherited the throne from his great-uncle Franz Joseph (1830–1916). The ageing emperor had ruled for sixty-eight years and had latterly come to be regarded as a remote symbol of permanence and stability. However, he also stood for stagnation and exhaustion. With Karl, who was twenty-nine at the time of his accession, a new gen- eration had come to the fore at the rigid Viennese court. The differences manifested themselves in the way Karl interacted with the people around him: Franz Joseph was invariably very aloof, concerned to preserve majestic dignity, while Karl was far more personal, cultivating a kinder, more affable manner. However, this made him all the more vulnerable. Despite his ‘modern’ manner, Karl was pervaded by a profound sense of his monarchical mission, with the idea of the dynasty playing a decisive role in his conception of himself as ruler. He put his complete trust in what he saw as the natural authority of his imperial office – without comprehending that this was no longer unquestioned in the light of the looming decline of the Habsburg Monarchy. His activities as ruler were marked by overzealousness and a lack of fore- sight. While Karl bubbled over with ideas, he was unable to find opportuni- ties to put them into practice. His well-meaning but often naive efforts to achieve peace foundered on political reality and the omnipotent machinery of war. 5 Karl was strongly influenced by his wife Zita of Bourbon-Parma (1892–1989), whom he had married in 1911. His bride was from a formerly sovereign princely house, a stalwart member of the Catholic Church and had been brought up on the principles of monarchical legitimism. Generally described as harmonious and happy, their marriage produced eight children. 4. What belongs to the emperor? Not everything that the emperor possessed and used actually belonged to him personally. The various palaces, art collections and estates that were commonly referred to as ‘imperial’ were in fact classified in different propri- etary categories. By the end of the Monarchy a distinction was made between three main groups, namely between the Court Exchequer of state, the family assets of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty, and the private property of individual members of the ruling house. After 1918 the category to which particular palaces and assets were assigned determined their subsequent fate. Private property It is an astonishing fact that Karl and Zita, the last imperial couple, had very little in the way of private assets. Their possessions were limited to the Villa Wartholz in Reichenau (Lower Austria) and the small estate of Feistritz bei St Peter on Kammersberg (Styria). It was not until 1917 that Karl acquired a large estate when he purchased the Bohemian demesne of Brandeis an der Elbe/Brandýs nad Labem. The direct descendants of Franz Joseph were far wealthier, the elderly em- peror having made sure that his daughters Gisela and Marie Valerie, and his granddaughter Elisabeth, the only child of Crown Prince Rudolf, were well provided for. There were also a number of collateral lines, as the House of Habsburg- Lorraine was widely ramified thanks to the numerous progeny of Maria Theresa. The richest branch line was that of Teschen, deriving from Arch- duchess Marie Christine and Albert of Saxe-Teschen. There were, however, also less well-endowed lines that were financially dependent on appanage from the state and allowances from the Family Fund. 6 After 1918 The question of the private assets of individual members of the family was resolved in different ways in the successor states of the Habsburg Monar- chy. In Austria and Hungary this property was left untouched, whereas in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia their private property was expropriated in its entirety. 4.1 The ‘tied assets’ The Habsburg fidei commissa and funds are ‘not the individual property of a person, but of the dynasty’.

Load more

  48

Copy Link