Since the smash hit of Jordan B. Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, publishers have been looking for other notable figures who might provide self-help for young, conservative men. I reviewed another such entry for Law & Liberty, and now I turn to one by Eduard Habsburg, from the storied European aristocratic family that once ruled over half of Europe, most of South America, and even part of North America. Indeed, on the cover, Habsburg includes his title, “Archduke of Austria,” a claim now of only symbolic importance, as Austria is a republic that abolished titles of nobility in 1919. Habsburg himself serves as Hungary’s ambassador to the Holy See. But his use of the noble title is likely a way of appealing to the intended Anglosphere audience: to appear as an example of an alternative world to which perhaps European nations might return. Titled The Habsburg Way: Seven Rules for Turbulent Times, Habsburg hopes to provide rules from his family’s history that model the good life.

There is more to the book than rules, however; Habsburg also introduces an alternative view of political life. In his preferred society, the people are passive subjects who emulate virtues of quiet obedience instead of republican self-government. In case this seems unappealing, he softens the blow with what seems to be a genuine humility about the obligations aristocrats have in ruling over their subjects, but he is clearly quite happy to celebrate Habsburg greatness as something his family enjoyed to the exclusion of the subjects who served them. What could be more aristocratic than a Habsburg pronouncing rules for others to obey?

While Habsburg is soft in his approach, the foreword, written by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, is hard. It provides the interpretative lens for reading Habsburg’s rules. He says:

Even if there were differences in methods and political positions, the perpetual goal of Hungarians and Habsburgs alike was always the same: how to remain ourselves through the centuries and how to make Central Europe a strong, independent player in world politics. Eduard Habsburg’s book proves how much we think alike. We affirm that mankind can best find happiness in the family. We believe that Christianity will preserve our identity. And we maintain that integrating Europe—in opposition to its peoples’ will—is preposterous.

With some humor, he concludes the foreword pronouncing, “So don’t be surprised that a Hungarian freedom fighter (with his fair share of scars) now writes the foreword to this superb book on the Habsburgs. We are on the same side again, and we are going to battle together again, as we did eight hundred years ago.” I gather that Orbán is here referring to the alliance between Rudolf of Habsburg, King of the Germans, and King Ladislaus IV of Hungary, although it is unsettling to refer to Rudolf, who persecuted the Jews extensively. In any case, we are told that there is a battle behind these rules, but Orbán and Habsburg do not mention against whom. Presumably, one enemy would be Eurocrats in Brussels, but this book was published in English. Neither America nor the United Kingdom are members of the European Union. So, what gives?

One clue: Habsburg begins his introduction asking why anyone would want to do something the Habsburg way when “the United States and many modern nations” contain citizens “wary of rulers, kings, emperors, and tyrants in general…” One wonders why Habsburg would admit that “rulers, kings, emperors” are “tyrants in general,” but, regardless, the ostensible answer to the question is that there is something in the Habsburg Way he believes could benefit everyone. Is that the real reason, though? Note that he addresses an audience of English-speaking (mostly American) readers who long for an aristocratic way of life, if only vicariously through Habsburg’s own experiences and history.

Habsburg’s rules for his subjects are the following:

1. Get married (and have lots of children).
2. Be Catholic! (and practice your faith).
3. Believe in the Empire (and in subsidiarity).
4. Stand for Law and Justice (and your subjects).
5. Know who you are (and live accordingly).
6. Be brave in battle (or have a good general).
7. Die well (and have a memorable funeral).

My first impression when reading these was to ask what Orbán, a Reformed Protestant, thought of Rule 2. We already know, however, that the two are on the same team again, so perhaps he tolerates the Habsburg Catholicism for now. Once again, we see in Rule 6 a call for battle, and Orbán has already admitted that he is the new Habsburg general. But let us take the rules in order.

Before proceeding, though, there is the issue of method. The method Habsburg uses to elaborate on these rules is to draw from the history of his family. He concedes from the outset that such a move might introduce jokes about the inbred marriages and the Habsburg jaw. For perhaps a little too long, he defends his family from the charge with some discussion of how few marriages were inbred (leaving aside that one such marriage is too many) and that the Habsburg jaw may not have been the result of inbreeding (dubious, but who cares). Still, he insists, “Of the seventy-three [inbred] marriages…, it is said that nearly all of them were happy!”

The first rule is just good, sound advice: get married. He mentions that the Habsburgs had a saying, “Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube” or “Others may lead wars, but you, Austria, get married.” The motivation for his advice is both practical and personal, as marriage is both the “building block of society” and “one of the greatest sources of joy.” A decline in marriage both signals and increases isolation and alienation. The Habsburgs had big families, which they used to ensure marriages that ensured peace within the empire. It was a good political strategy but hardly a selling point for ordinary people today. 

His first example is unhelpful for explaining how marriage is the foundation for civil society. He relates the effort to beat King Louis XI to marriage with the late Charles the Bold of Burgundy’s daughter, Margaret. Maximillian Habsburg succeeds after a rich relative lends him money, only to see the poor woman die two years later from falling off a horse, with the consolation that “Burgundy remained a Habsburg possession, as did the chivalric Order of the Golden Fleece.” Habsburg’s priorities seem a little different from what he suggested at the opening of the chapter, and for readers in a romantic rivalry today, it may not be feasible to ask Margaret of York for some cash. We are treated to a happy ending for Maria Theresa Habsburg, who won over the Hungarian magnates to support the Pragmatic Sanction, which allowed women to inherit Habsburg titles. We are also acquainted with a relatable Habsburg, Archduke John, who in 1829 went slumming with Anna Plochl, a postmaster’s daughter, in a “morganatic marriage (below his rank).” At least they were happy. 

The marriage chapter ends with an account of Karl of Austria, who tried and failed in 1921 to reclaim the Hungarian throne, retiring to Madeira afterwards with his wife Zita. The chapter ends with the advice that, “Romance, while wonderful, is perhaps slightly overrated in our times, at least when it comes to building long-lasting relationships. In the end, marriage is about serving each other—and helping each other get to heaven!” Hear, hear, but most of the examples—except for “Morganatic John” and his very brief account of Franz Joseph and Elisabeth—hardly illustrate these points.

The charge to “Be Catholic!” is unique because it has two chapters, with the first opening with a recognition that Catholic rulers had a history of religious coercion. Yet, Habsburg assures the reader that the emperor did this only because it was his “duty as an emperor” and “an act of charity because it helped others reach eternal salvation.” Habsburg argues that Christian rulers must live out their faith publicly because it makes rulers more honest, which is why there should not be a full secularization of the public sphere. While the issue of honesty is, well, contestable, the conclusion is true. 

What does it mean for Habsburg, though? He means it as a defense of Charles V against Martin Luther, a theological battle that Charles utterly lost. Charles stepped down in 1556, with Ferdinand I ascending the throne amidst multiple catastrophes for the Empire. Ferdinand was chiefly responsible for the Treaty of Augsburg, making him the architect of the end of Catholic Christendom. Before becoming Emperor, however, Ferdinand lost much of Hungary to John II Sigismund after Bishop George Martinuzzi called upon the Ottomans to protect Sigismund’s claim. Sigismund became a de facto vassal of the Ottomans. Given this track record of failure, it’s unsurprising that after Charles V stepped down, Ferdinand I struggled to gain acceptance of his claim to the Holy Roman Empire. By the time he had stabilized his rule, he had lost some portions of Catholic Christendom to the Caliphate and others to Protestantism. So much for “Be Catholic!” 

Worse for Habsburg the author, Ferdinand’s death led to the coronations of Maximillian II, who was a crypto-Protestant. It was not until Ferdinand II that the Counter-Reformation took hold at the height of Austrian power, in which the emperor unapologetically persecuted Protestants. Habsburg favorably quotes his ancestor, saying, “Non-Catholics think me unfeeling for banning heresy. But I love them rather than hate them. If I didn’t love them, I would leave them freely in their error.” 

It is unclear to me how a reader is supposed to react to such a paternalistic justification for the violation of conscience rights, except by concluding that the lessons of pluralism had not yet been learned in the 17th century, allowing princes like Ferdinand II to serve as a cautionary tale. The Reformation did not stop just because he loved his Protestant subjects to death during the Thirty Years War—which he lost. The lesson here is not what Habsburg claims it to be. As I see it, despite the publicly Catholic state of Austria, one emperor privately disavowed the faith while the Reformation moved ahead in part because of the linkage between the Habsburgs and imperial bishops. Ferdinand II could not put back together what Charles V could not prevent from falling apart. What good are these emperors anyway?

The second “Be Catholic!” chapter begins with Emperor Leopold I and Eucharistic devotions that heralded, “EUCHARISTIA, an anagram for HIC EST AUSTRIA: Austria is Eucharist.” This tale is meant to provoke piety in the reader, I suspect, but it provoked something altogether different in me, as I have it on good authority that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. The chapter then discusses various Habsburg infidelities and failures in judgment, which continued until the family was ultimately thrown out of power. I am at a loss for what an ordinary person should take away from any of this. Habsburg concludes the chapter with the lesson that even emperors are sinners. I did not need to read this book to know that. His emphasis on familial failures seems to overlook that Austria failed to industrialize and could not manage the multiple nationalist groups that arose during the nineteenth century. All the sins of the Habsburgs seemed tied to their desire to retain power, but that is not the lesson Habsburg intends. 

The “Believe in the Empire,” chapter is strange but lovely. What makes the chapter strange is that there is no empire left for the Habsburgs, but perhaps the invocation of the old empire is meant to stand against the “new” empire of the European Union. After pages of self-serving paternalism, Habsburg recognizes the importance of subsidiarity and writes well of it. Centralized governments lack knowledge for handling local affairs while also having less accountability for bad outcomes of policy. In a conspiratorial vein typical of Catholic traditionalists, Habsburg notes that the centralization of government is a “Masonic idea that reason could determine the best policy, and therefore that all change could come from above and be implemented by a small, virtuous elite.” One should note, though, that Habsburg appeals to subsidiarity to explain the Hungarian approach to the European Union, not the relationship between Orbán and his citizens. The European Union is so vile (Masonic?) an empire that Habsburg uses the republican language, “remember that you are not subjects.”

The republican zeal does not last, as the chapter “Stand for Law and Justice” contains the parenthetical “(and Your Subjects).” This chapter is a defense of monarchy, which focuses on the personal nature of good monarchical rule wherein kings and queens are “raised to serve—to serve their country with every appearance, every gesture, every parade, and every photo.” Monarchical service consists of royals putting themselves second to the nation. He contrasts this to the modern politician who treats personal advancement as a primary goal, usually at the expense of the people. The basis for this view is Habsburg’s personal experience with modern monarchs, who as a rule make the ceremonial appearances he mentions—and nothing else. Even this has been too much for some modern royals! The British Prince Harry has left the Sceptered Isle to become a Californian influencer.

Other than Habsburg describing his proximity to European monarchs, the chapter lists some services Habsburgs rendered to Hungary and how Hungarians gave thanks in 1848 by revolting against Austrian rule until a stable peace was reached in 1867, one that entailed Hungarian autonomy. Oddly, the chapter ends with Habsburg favorably quoting Theodore Roosevelt endorsing the idea of serving the people first; Roosevelt was no king and would have likely found the comparison galling, as he endorsed the French Republic in 1910.

The chapter “Know Who You Are” concerns how Habsburgs forged familial histories and made esoteric, public inscriptions like “AEIOU” to signify their right to rule. Given that Habsburg is writing a familial history, the careful reader should take note. There is an account of the Order of the Golden Fleece and the Spanish ceremonials that Habsburg uses to remind readers that his family once controlled the Spanish Empire. Yet, Habsburg arguably does not know himself. He calls himself the Archduke of Austria, when such a title has not existed for over a century. His family history is cherry-picked and tendentious. Habsburg desperately wants his reader to think he is someone else, someone with greater political relevance in European politics than an ambassador to the Vatican. This job is not insignificant, but it is no Archduke. 

“Be Brave in Battle” is a lovely chapter charting the course of Habsburg battles, including Lepanto, the Siege of Vienna, the fights with Napoleon, and Solferino. Amusingly, Habsburg takes a parenthetical swipe at the French when speaking of Vienna, “(Like at Lepanto, France was again conspicuously absent as it was busy taking Lorraine away from the emperor).” The Habsburgs did not personally lead these battles, which would have been ill-advised by the seventeenth century. By then, monarchs were not principally warriors but heads of state. His brief account of Blessed Karl of Austria in his battles was wonderful reading, but even Habsburg must explain that, by the end of the war, then-Emperor Karl I could do nothing to stop the war because his fate was tethered to the more powerful Germans. Remembering, as we should, that Orbán frames his alliance with Habsburg as a battle, one should take note that Habsburg praises his ancestors for having good generals.

Finally, “Die Well” mostly consists of explaining the details of the “Knocking Ritual” for when Habsburg emperors were buried. The ritual is too long to explain here, but Habsburg’s account is wonderful reading. The Habsburgs are buried in the Kapuzingergruft, a Capuchin crypt. After several attempts to demand entrance based on the many Habsburg titles, the Capuchin friar at the door only lets the body in when the Habsburg funeral party announces that the one desiring entry was “a mortal and sinful man.” A moving story.

The reader may wonder why I have opted for a chapter-by-chapter account of the book for this review. Why not something easier to read, based on its themes or central argument? The answer is that this book has only one theme—the Habsburgs—and no stated central argument. The rules do not hold together well, and his conclusions do not match the examples he gives. Even the better chapters, like those on battle and death, have the effect of alienating the reader from the family, as no one in America has had these kinds of experiences and could hardly find a way to adapt them to ordinary life in a modern constitutional republic.

Piecing together the chapters above reveals the real intention of the book. It is meant to provide a vision of a postliberal order that emulates the preliberal one. Emperors are good and should live decent lives, so that their rule can spare their subjects the trials of self-government and the travails of centralized, bureaucratic government. Implicit in the appeal to subsidiarity is that the personal rule of emperors is better for local independence, but the emperor sets the term for that independence. Freedom of conscience is not included in that independence, or at least not necessarily, as the emperor has the role of shaping that conscience not merely in pious appearances but by church-sanctioned coercion—despite the disaster this coercion created. 

Are there any lessons one may truly learn from the Habsburg experience? It is hard to say, but I doubt it. The Habsburgs are so far removed from our own experiences that there is not much in public life worth emulating today. As one exception, I suppose Christians could admire Blessed Karl I of Austria in his desire to end the First World War, something Habsburg spends some time discussing, as well as his loving marriage to Zita. In my view, American Catholics have more to learn from St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Servant of God Isaac Hecker, Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, and Venerable Augustus Tolton.

Habsburg hopes the book will provoke admiration for ancestral families governing over devout empires. He recognizes that these empires faced internal and external conflict, but they crucially provided the possibility for a conservative, Christian culture demonstrated from the heights of power. Does Habsburg wish to become Archduke again? He is uncertain if a restoration is possible and explains that he would not be the claimant, having a very distant claim to Hungary. Perhaps, however, Orbán’s rule in Hungary might pave the way for a restoration? Stranger things have happened.