text:
Stanley Unwin (comedian)

Stanley Unwin (7 June 1911 – 12 January 2002), sometimes billed as Professor Stanley Unwin, was a British comic actor and writer.

He invented his own comic language, "Unwinese", referred to in the film Carry On Regardless (1961) as "gobbledygook". Unwinese was a corrupted form of English in which many of the words were altered in playful and humorous ways, as in its description of Elvis Presley and his contemporaries as being "wasp-waist and swivel-hippy". Unwin claimed that the inspiration came from his mother, who once told him that on the way home she had "falolloped (fallen) over" and "grazed her kneeclabbers".

Early life
Unwin's parents, Ivan Oswald Unwin (1880–1914) and his wife Jessie Elizabeth ( Brand; 1883–1968) emigrated from England to the Union of South Africa in the early 1900s. Their son was born in Pretoria in 1911. Following his father's death in 1914, due to the family's poverty Unwin's mother arranged for the family to return to England. She worked as a cook at Bow Road police station. By 1919, Unwin had been sent to the National Children's Home in Congleton, Cheshire. In the late 1920s, he studied radio, television and languages at Regent Street Polytechnic in London.

In 1937, he married Frances, with whom he had two daughters and a son. Unwin later stated that Unwinese had its roots in enlivening the bedtime stories that he used to tell his children. In 1940, he was given a job in transmitter maintenance for the BBC, and was assigned to the Borough Hill transmitting station in Daventry. Unwin, Frances and their nine-month-old daughter, Marion, moved to Long Buckby in Northamptonshire, where Unwin would reside for the rest of his life.

Comedy career
Unwin's early career and training introduced him to wireless and radio communication, and this, coupled with work in the BBC's War Reporting Unit from about 1944, ultimately proved to be his passage into the media.

While based in Birmingham from 1947 to 1951, Unwin made his first, accidental, transmission. While testing equipment, he gave the microphone to broadcaster F.R. "Buck" Buckley, who ad-libbed a spoof commentary about an imaginary sport called "Fasche". Buckley then introduced Unwin as "Codlington Corthusite", whereupon Unwin continued the sketch in Unwinese. The recording was broadcast on Pat Dixon's Mirror of the Month programme and a favourable audience reaction led to the commissioning of another sketch in which Unwin, playing an inhabitant of Atlantis, was interviewed about life in the sunken city. A letter of praise from Joyce Grenfell, whom Unwin admired, gave him confidence and he determined on a career in show business.

After the war, while in Egypt and recording a series of shows by Frankie Howerd, Unwin stood in for the comedian when Howerd fell ill. Unwin's next major breakthrough came when producer Roy Speer introduced him to the comedian Ted Ray. Once Ray had heard Unwin talking, he said simply: "I want him in the series" – namely, The Spice of Life, co-starring June Whitfield and Kenneth Connor. During the mid-1950s, Unwin performed in about a dozen shows for Speer and made the acquaintance of Johnnie Riscoe and his daughter, Patsy, who would become his managers for the rest of his career. By the end of the 1950s, Unwin had ventured into the film industry, being given a part in the Cardew Robinson film Fun at St. Fanny's (1956).

In 1968, Unwin was invited to narrate "Happiness Stan", a six song fairy tale about a boy of the same name, taking up the entire side two of the Small Faces' album Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, which reached number 1 in the UK Albums Chart.

In 1969, Unwin appeared in Gerry Anderson's "Supermarionation" TV series The Secret Service, both in person and as the voice of the puppet character Father Stanley Unwin, whose appearance was based on him. Episodes typically comprised one or more scenes in which the character of Unwin would attempt to baffle opponents with his gobbledegook. When Lew Grade, Anderson's financial backer and head of distributor ITC, was introduced to the Unwinese dialogue, he cancelled the production on the basis that he believed viewers would not understand what Unwin was saying, despite the fact that such confusion was intentional.

Though professionally retired in his later decades, Unwin still continued to make occasional appearances. In the 1970s, he appeared on The Max Bygraves Show on ITV, sometimes speaking normally and sometimes in gobbledegook. In the final episode, Bygraves tested a number of gobbledegook phrases on Unwin, who claimed that he could not understand them. In 1985, Unwin recorded with Suns of Arqa on their album Ark of the Arqans, providing spoken word accompaniment in Unwinese on the first three tracks. In 1987, he recorded again with Suns of Arqa on their track "Erasmus Meets The Earthling", featured on their album Seven, and a remixed version of this track was released again in the 1990s. He appeared as himself in a hospital scene of Inside Victor Lewis-Smith. In 1994, Unwin collaborated with British dance music act Wubble-U on their single "Petal"; on its re-release in 1998, the track ranked number 55 in the UK Chart. In 1998, Unwin made a cameo appearance in the Aardman Animations series Rex the Runt, as an accountant who speaks largely in fairly standard English, occasionally lapsing inexplicably into Unwinese.

Unwinese
Unwinese, also known as "Basic Engly Twenty Fido", was an ornamented and mangled form of English in which many of the words were deliberately corrupted in a playful and humorous manner, but which was still largely comprehensible to the listener. Unwin's performances could be hilarious yet disorientating, where the meaning and context were conveyed in a disguised and picturesque style. For example, in his talk on music, "Populode of the Musicolly", Unwin says:

"They do in fact go back to Ethelrebbers Unready, King Albert's burnt capers where, you know, the toast fell in and the dear lady did get a very cross knit and smote him across the eardrome excallybold. The great sword which riseyhuff and Merlin forevermore was the beginning of the Great Constitution of the Englishspeaking peeploders of these islone, oh yes."

Unwinese has been compared to Lewis Carroll's nonsense poetry, such as Jabberwocky, where the sentences sound superficially like English when read aloud, but their precise meaning is unclear.

Selected works

 * Fun at St. Fanny's (1955, film) as The Guide
 * Beyond Our Ken (1958, radio, cameo)
 * Rotatey Diskers with Unwin (1960, LP of Unwinese)
 * The Miscillian Manuscript (1961, travel journal in Unwinese, illustrated by Roy Dewar)
 * Inn for Trouble (1960, film) as Farmer
 * Carry On Regardless (1961, film) as Landlord
 * House & Garbidge (1962, book spoofing home and lifestyle magazines, with Dewar)
 * Advertisement for India Autoways (TV/cinema) (1966) (car tyre manufacturer) with Raymond Baxter
 * Rock-a-Bye Babel and Two Fairly Tales (1966, book of spoof nursery rhymes and fairy tales, with Dewar)
 * Unwin Time (1966, 13 x 5 mins series made by ATV Midlands) Professor Stanley Unwin explains the basics of a sport or hobby. Editions included The Skill of Boatyfloating, All Horse Trot and Jumpy, and All Fish and Dangley
 * Press for Time (1966, film) as Mr. Nottage (Town Clerk)
 * Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake (Small Faces album, 1968, as Narrator of Side 2)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968, film) as Chancellor of Vulgaria
 * The Secret Service (1969, TV series) as Father Stanley Unwin
 * Pirelli Tyres TV advertisement (1980, featuring slogan "Outstandifold in the wetty grippers")
 * The Laughing Prisoner (The Tube TV Special) (1987, TV, The Prisoner parody)
 * Just a Minute (1987, 1989; radio)
 * Shaun the Sheep Movie (2015, archive footage)

Death and legacy

Unwin died at Danetre Hospital in Daventry on 12 January 2002. He is buried in the churchyard at Long Buckby, with Frances, who predeceased him in 1993. Their gravestone bears the epitaph, "Reunitey in the heavenly-bode – Deep Joy!".

A thanksgiving service was held at St Lawrence's Church in Long Buckby and ended with a rendering of "Bye Bye Blackbird" by John Percival and friends. The valediction had been prepared by Unwin's family in his own style: "Goodly Byelode loyal peeploders! Now all gatherymost to amuse it and have a tilty elbow or a nice cuffle-oteedee – Oh Yes!"

Suns of Arqa released a tribute album to Unwin (entitled "Tributey") following his death, featuring a selection of his works with the band over the years, as well as various interviews.

Unwin's work is considered to have been a significant influence on the two books written by John Lennon: In His Own Write (1964) and A Spaniard in the Works (1965).

title: Stanley Unwin (comedian)


text:
Pete and Dud

Pete and Dud were characters played by the comedians and entertainers Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

The dialogue format originated in 1964 when Dudley Moore invited Peter Cook to appear in a television performance. Cook scripted a conversation between two men from Dagenham wearing flat caps. This proved to be very popular with television audiences and the partnership was continued during the series Not Only... But Also.

Pete is a know-it-all and would-be intellectual, very much in the spirit of E. L. Wisty, and Dud is a put-upon Herbert in a subservient role, who tries to impress Pete with his knowledge. Neither of them has any real sense.

The "Dagenham Dialogues" between the two ranged from paintings (Pete finds the Mona Lisa snooty, and the bottoms of Rubens's nudes seem to follow them around the room), reasons why geckos do not live long and being annoyed by film stars (including "bloody Greta Garbo" and "bloody Anna Magnani") pestering them for romance.

During the 1970s, Cook and Moore used a similar formula for the more adult Derek and Clive recordings.

The comic and personal relationship between Cook and Moore is the subject of the play Pete and Dud: Come Again, by Chris Bartlett and Nick Awde. In 2010, a group of comedians, Hugh Dennis, Angus Deayton and Alistair McGowan among them, recreated some of the Pete and Dud comic routines on BBC Two in Pete and Dud: the Lost Sketches.

Recalling his relationship with David Bowie, English musician Brian Eno has stated "We knew each other for over 40 years, in a friendship that was always tinged by echoes of Pete and Dud.”. Eno has recalled that during the recording sessions for Bowie's "Heroes" album, he and Bowie would communicate in Peter Cook and Dudley Moore voices: "We slipped into Peter Cook and Dudley Moore characters. Bowie was Pete and I was Dud, and for the whole time we stayed in character. “Ooh, I dunno about that synthesizer part, Dud.”” Bowie himself recalled, "Brian and I did have Pete and Dud down pretty pat. Long dialogues about John Cage performing on a ‘prepared layer’ at the Bricklayers Arms on the Old Kent Road and the like. Quite silly.”

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pete and Dud


text:
Kent M. Keith

Kent M. Keith (born in 1949 in Brooklyn) is an American writer and leader in higher education.

Raised in Nebraska, California, Virginia, Rhode Island and Hawaii, where he graduated from secondary school, Keith entered Harvard College to study government. After graduating, he read philosophy and politics at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, received his J.D. degree at Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and earned an Ed. D. from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.

His early career was as an attorney with Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright and then as Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development. He served as the President of Chaminade University from 1989 to 1995 and was then the Senior Vice President for the YMCA of Honolulu. From 2007 to 2012 he served as CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (US), and from 2012 to 2015 he served as CEO of the Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership (Asia) based in Singapore. In 2015, he became president of Pacific Rim Christian University in Honolulu.

The Paradoxical Commandments
The Paradoxical Commandments is both a poem and a book by Keith, which he wrote as an undergraduate. It is often found in slightly altered form.

In 1997, Keith learned that the poem "The Paradoxical Commandments" had hung on the wall of Mother Teresa's children's home in Calcutta, India; and, two decades after writing the original poem, Dr. Keith wrote a book of the same title expanding on the themes of the poem: Anyway: The Paradoxical Commandments: Finding Personal Meaning in a Crazy World.

Publications

 * The Silent Revolution: Dynamic Leadership in the Student council, Harvard Student Agencies, 1968 (republished by National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1972).
 * The Silent Majority: The Problem of Apathy and the Student Council, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1971.
 * An Ethic for Ocean Resource Development, 1981.
 * Nukolii and Hawaii's Future, 1983.
 * The Paradoxical Commandments: Finding Personal Meaning in a Crazy World, Inner Ocean Publishing, 2001.
 * Anyway: The Paradoxical Commandments: Finding Personal Meaning in a Crazy World, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2002.
 * Do It Anyway: The Handbook for Finding Personal Meaning and Deep Happiness in a Crazy World, New World Library, 2003.
 * Jesus Did It Anyway: The Paradoxical Commandments for Christians, Berkley, 2005.
 * Nine University Presidents who Saved Their Institutions: The Difference in Effective Administration, Edwin Mellen Press, 2008.
 * Do It Anyway: Finding Personal Meaning and Deep Happiness by Living the Paradoxical Commandments, New World Library, 2008.
 * Have Faith Anyway: The Vision of Habakkuk for Our Times, Jossey-Bass, 2008.
 * The Case for Servant Leadership, Terrace Press, 2012.
 * Morality and Morale: A Business Tale, Terrace Press, 2012.
 * Questions and Answers about Servant Leadership, Greenleaf Center, 2012.
 * Servant Leadership in the Boardroom: Fulfilling the Public Trust, Greenleaf Center, 2013
 * The Ethical Advantage of Servant Leadership: Guiding Principles for Organizational Success, Greenleaf Center, 2013.
 * The Christian Leader at Work: Serving by Leading, Terrace Press (Honolulu, Hawaii), 2015.

Personal life
He lives with his wife, Elizabeth Keith, and three children in Honolulu, Hawaii.

title: Kent M. Keith


text:
Franz Joseph I of Austria

Franz Joseph I or Francis Joseph I (Franz Joseph Karl ; Ferenc József Károly ; 18 August 1830 – 21 November 1916) was Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, and the ruler of the other states of the Habsburg monarchy from 2 December 1848 until his death in 1916. In the early part of his reign, his realms and territories were referred to as the Austrian Empire, but were reconstituted as the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867. From 1 May 1850 to 24 August 1866, he was also president of the German Confederation.

In December 1848, Franz Joseph's uncle Emperor Ferdinand I abdicated the throne at Olomouc, as part of Minister President Felix zu Schwarzenberg's plan to end the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Franz Joseph then acceded to the throne. In 1854, he married his cousin Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria, with whom he had four children: Sophie, Gisela, Rudolf, and Marie Valerie. Largely considered to be a reactionary, Franz Joseph spent his early reign resisting constitutionalism in his domains. The Austrian Empire was forced to cede its influence over Tuscany and most of its claim to Lombardy–Venetia to the Kingdom of Sardinia, following the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 and the Third Italian War of Independence in 1866. Although Franz Joseph ceded no territory to the Kingdom of Prussia after the Austrian defeat in the Austro-Prussian War, the Peace of Prague (23 August 1866) settled the German Question in favour of Prussia, which prevented the unification of Germany from occurring under the House of Habsburg.

Franz Joseph was troubled by nationalism throughout his reign. He concluded the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted greater autonomy to Hungary and created the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. He ruled peacefully for the next 45 years, but personally suffered the tragedies of the execution of his brother Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico in 1867, the suicide of his son Rudolf in 1889, and the assassinations of his wife Elisabeth in 1898 and his nephew and heir presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in 1914.

After the Austro-Prussian War, Austria-Hungary turned its attention to the Balkans, which was a hotspot of international tension because of conflicting interests of Austria with not only the Ottoman but also the Russian Empire. The Bosnian Crisis was a result of Franz Joseph's annexation in 1908 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had already been occupied by his troops since the Congress of Berlin (1878). On 28 June 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo resulted in Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against the Kingdom of Serbia, which was an ally of the Russian Empire. This activated a system of alliances declaring war on each other, which resulted in World War I. Franz Joseph died in 1916, after ruling his domains for almost 68 years. He was succeeded by his grandnephew Charles I & IV.

Early life

Franz Joseph was born on 18 August 1830 in the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna (on the 65th anniversary of the death of Francis of Lorraine) as the eldest son of Archduke Franz Karl (the younger son of Francis I), and his wife Sophie, Princess of Bavaria. Because his uncle, reigning from 1835 as the Emperor Ferdinand, was disabled by seizures, and his father unambitious and retiring, the mother of the young Archduke "Franzi" brought him up as a future emperor, with emphasis on devotion, responsibility and diligence.

For this reason, Franz Joseph was consistently built up as a potential successor to the imperial throne by his politically ambitious mother from early childhood.

Up to the age of seven, little "Franzi" was brought up in the care of the nanny ("Aja") Louise von Sturmfeder. Then the "state education" began, the central contents of which were "sense of duty", religiosity and dynastic awareness. The theologian Joseph Othmar von Rauscher conveyed to him the inviolable understanding of rulership of divine origin (divine grace), and therefore a belief that no participation of the population in rulership in the form of parliaments was required.

The educators Heinrich Franz von Bombelles and Colonel Johann Baptist Coronini-Cronberg ordered Archduke Franz to study an enormous amount of time, which initially comprised 18 hours per week and was expanded to 50 hours per week by the age of 16. One of the main focuses of the lessons was language acquisition: in addition to French, the diplomatic language of the time, Latin and Ancient Greek, Hungarian, Czech, Italian and Polish were the most important national languages of the monarchy. In addition, the archduke received general education that was customary at the time (including mathematics, physics, history, geography), which was later supplemented by law and political science. Various forms of physical education completed the extensive program.

On his 13th birthday, Franz Joseph was appointed Colonel-Inhaber of Dragoon Regiment No. 3 and the focus of his training shifted to imparting basic strategic and tactical knowledge. From that point onward, army style dictated his personal fashion—for the rest of his life, he normally wore the uniform of a military officer. Franz Joseph was soon joined by three younger brothers: Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian (born 1832, the future Emperor Maximilian of Mexico); Archduke Karl Ludwig (born 1833, father of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria), and Archduke Ludwig Viktor (born 1842), and a sister, Archduchess Maria Anna (born 1835), who died at the age of four.

Revolutions of 1848
During the Revolutions of 1848, the Austrian Chancellor Prince Klemens von Metternich resigned (March–April 1848). The young archduke, who (it was widely expected) would soon succeed his uncle on the throne, was appointed Governor of Bohemia on 6 April 1848, but never took up the post. Sent instead to the front in Italy, he joined Field Marshal Radetzky on campaign on 29 April, receiving his baptism of fire on 5 May at Santa Lucia.

By all accounts, he handled his first military experience calmly and with dignity. Around the same time, the imperial family was fleeing revolutionary Vienna for the calmer setting of Innsbruck, in Tyrol. Called back from Italy, the archduke joined the rest of his family at Innsbruck by mid-June. It was here that Franz Joseph first met his cousin and eventual future bride, Elisabeth, then a girl of ten, but apparently the meeting made little impression.

Following Austria's victory over the Italians at Custoza in late July 1848, the court felt it safe to return to Vienna, and Franz Joseph travelled with them. But within a few weeks Vienna again appeared unsafe, and in September the court left once more, this time for Olmütz in Moravia. By now, Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz, an influential military commander in Bohemia, was determined to see the young archduke soon put on the throne. It was thought that a new ruler would not be bound by the oaths to respect constitutional government to which Ferdinand had been forced to agree, and that it was necessary to find a young, energetic emperor to replace the kindly but mentally unfit Ferdinand.

By the abdication of his uncle Ferdinand and the renunciation of his father (the mild-mannered Franz Karl), Franz Joseph succeeded as Emperor of Austria at Olmütz on 2 December 1848. At this time, he first became known by his second as well as his first Christian name. The name "Franz Joseph" was chosen to bring back memories of the new Emperor's great-granduncle, Emperor Joseph II (Holy Roman Emperor from 1765 to 1790), remembered as a modernising reformer.

Under the guidance of the new prime minister, Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, the new emperor at first pursued a cautious course, granting a constitution in March 1849. At the same time, a military campaign was necessary against the Hungarians, who had rebelled against Habsburg central authority in the name of their ancient constitution. Franz Joseph was also almost immediately faced with a renewal of the fighting in Italy, with King Charles Albert of Sardinia taking advantage of setbacks in Hungary to resume the war in March 1849. However, the military tide began to turn swiftly in favor of Franz Joseph and the Austrian whitecoats. Almost immediately, Charles Albert was decisively beaten by Radetzky at Novara and forced to sue for peace, as well as to renounce his throne.

Revolution in Hungary
Unlike other Habsburg ruled areas, the Kingdom of Hungary had an old historic constitution, which limited the power of the crown and had greatly increased the authority of the parliament since the 13th century. The Hungarian reform laws (April laws) were based on the 12 points that established the fundaments of modern civil and political rights, economic and societal reforms in the Kingdom of Hungary. The crucial turning point of the Hungarian events were the April laws which was ratified by his uncle King Ferdinand, however the new young Austrian monarch Francis Joseph arbitrarily "revoked" the laws without any legal competence. The monarchs had no right to revoke Hungarian parliamentary laws which were already signed. This unconstitutional act irreversibly escalated the conflict between the Hungarian parliament and Francis Joseph. The Austrian Stadion Constitution was accepted by the Imperial Diet of Austria, where Hungary had no representation, and which traditionally had no legislative power in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary; despite this, it also tried to abolish the Diet of Hungary (which existed as the supreme legislative power in Hungary since the late 12th century.)

The new Austrian constitution also went against the historical constitution of Hungary, and even tried to nullify it. Even the territorial integrity of the country was in danger: On 7 March 1849 an imperial proclamation was issued in the name of the Emperor Francis Joseph, according to the new proclamation, the territory of Kingdom of Hungary would be carved up and administered by five military districts, while the Principality of Transylvania would be reestablished. These events represented a clear and obvious existential threat for the Hungarian state. The new constrained Stadion Constitution of Austria, the revocation of the April laws and the Austrian military campaign against Kingdom of Hungary resulted in the fall of the pacifist Batthyány government (which sought agreement with the court) and led to the sudden emergence of Lajos Kossuth's followers in the Hungarian parliament, who demanded the full independence of Hungary. The Austrian military intervention in the Kingdom of Hungary resulted in strong anti-Habsburg sentiment among Hungarians, thus the events in Hungary grew into a war for total independence from the Habsburg dynasty.

Constitutional and legitimacy problems in Hungary
On 7 December 1848, the Diet of Hungary formally refused to acknowledge the title of the new king, "as without the knowledge and consent of the diet no one could sit on the Hungarian throne", and called the nation to arms. While in most Western European countries (like France and the United Kingdom) the monarch's reign began immediately upon the death of their predecessor, in Hungary the coronation was indispensable; if it were not properly executed, the kingdom remained "orphaned".

Even during the long personal union between the Kingdom of Hungary and other Habsburg ruled areas, the Habsburg monarchs had to be crowned as King of Hungary in order to promulgate laws there or exercise royal prerogatives in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. From a legal point of view, according to the coronation oath, a crowned Hungarian king could not relinquish the Hungarian throne during his life; if the king was alive and unable to do his duty as ruler, a governor (or regent, as they would be called in English) had to assume the royal duties. Constitutionally, Franz Josef's uncle Ferdinand was still the legal king of Hungary. If there was no possibility to inherit the throne automatically due to the death of the predecessor king (since King Ferdinand was still alive), but the monarch wanted to relinquish his throne and appoint another king before his death, technically only one legal solution remained: the parliament had the power to dethrone the king and elect a new king. Due to the legal and military tensions, the Hungarian parliament did not grant Franz Joseph that favour. This event gave to the revolt an excuse of legality. Actually, from this time until the collapse of the revolution, Lajos Kossuth (as elected regent-president) became the de facto and de jure ruler of Hungary.

Military difficulties in Hungary

While the revolutions in the Austrian territories had been suppressed by 1849, in Hungary, the situation was more severe and Austrian defeat seemed imminent. Sensing a need to secure his right to rule, Franz Joseph sought help from Russia, requesting the intervention of Tsar Nicolas I, in order "to prevent the Hungarian insurrection developing into a European calamity". For the Russian military support, Franz Joseph kissed the hand of the tsar in Warsaw on 21 May 1849. Tsar Nicholas supported Franz Joseph in the name of the Holy Alliance, and sent a 200,000 strong army with 80,000 auxiliary forces. Finally, the joint army of Russian and Austrian forces defeated the Hungarian forces. After the restoration of Habsburg power, Hungary was placed under brutal martial law.

With order now restored throughout his empire, Franz Joseph felt free to renege on the constitutional concessions he had made, especially as the Austrian parliament meeting at Kremsier had behaved—in the young Emperor's eyes—abominably. The 1849 constitution was suspended, and a policy of absolutist centralism was established, guided by the Minister of the Interior, Alexander Bach.

Assassination attempt in 1853

On 18 February 1853, Franz Joseph survived an assassination attempt by Hungarian nationalist János Libényi. The emperor was taking a stroll with one of his officers, Count Maximilian Karl Lamoral O'Donnell, on a city bastion, when Libényi approached him. He immediately struck the emperor from behind with a knife straight at the neck. Franz Joseph almost always wore a uniform, which had a high collar that almost completely enclosed the neck. The collars of uniforms at that time were made from very sturdy material, precisely to counter this kind of attack. Even though the Emperor was wounded and bleeding, the collar saved his life. Count O'Donnell struck Libényi down with his sabre.

O'Donnell, hitherto a Count only by virtue of his Irish nobility, was made a Count of the Habsburg monarchy (Reichsgraf). Another witness who happened to be nearby, the butcher Joseph Ettenreich, swiftly overpowered Libényi. For his deed he was later elevated to the nobility by the emperor and became Joseph von Ettenreich. Libényi was subsequently put on trial and condemned to death for attempted regicide. He was executed on the Simmeringer Heide.

After this unsuccessful attack, the emperor's brother Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian called upon Europe's royal families for donations to construct a new church on the site of the attack. The church was to be a votive offering for the survival of the emperor. It is located on Ringstraße in the district of Alsergrund close to the University of Vienna, and is known as the Votivkirche. The survival of Franz Joseph was also commemorated in Prague by erecting a new statue of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of the emperor, on Charles Bridge. It was donated by Count Franz Anton von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, the first minister-president of the Austrian Empire.

Consolidation of domestic policy
The next few years saw the seeming recovery of Austria's position on the international scene following the near disasters of 1848–1849. Under Schwarzenberg's guidance, Austria was able to stymie Prussian scheming to create a new German Federation under Prussian leadership, excluding Austria. After Schwarzenberg's premature death in 1852, he could not be replaced by statesmen of equal stature, and the emperor himself effectively took over as prime minister. He was one of the most prominent Roman Catholic rulers in Europe, and a fierce enemy of Freemasonry.

Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867
The 1850s witnessed several failures of Austrian external policy: the Crimean War, the dissolution of its alliance with Russia, and defeat in the Second Italian War of Independence. The setbacks continued in the 1860s with defeat in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which resulted in the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867.

The Hungarian political leaders had two main goals during the negotiations. One was to regain the traditional status (both legal and political) of the Hungarian state, which was lost after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. The other was to restore the series of reform laws of the revolutionary parliament of 1848, which were based on the 12 points that established modern civil and political rights, economic and societal reforms in Hungary.

The Compromise partially re-established the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from, and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Instead, it was regarded as an equal partner with Austria. The compromise put an end to 18 years of absolutist rule and military dictatorship which had been introduced by Francis Joseph after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Franz Joseph was crowned King of Hungary on 8 June, and on 28 July he promulgated the laws that officially turned the Habsburg domains into the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary.

According to Emperor Franz Joseph, "There were three of us who made the agreement: Deák, Andrássy and myself."

Political difficulties in Austria mounted continuously through the late 19th century and into the 20th century. However, Franz Joseph remained immensely respected; the emperor's patriarchal authority held the Empire together while the politicians squabbled among themselves.

Bohemian question

Following the accession of Franz Joseph to the throne in 1848, the political representatives of the Kingdom of Bohemia hoped and insisted that account should be taken of their historical state rights in the upcoming constitution. They felt the position of Bohemia within the Habsburg monarchy should have been highlighted by a coronation of the new ruler to the king of Bohemia in Prague (the last coronation took place in 1836). However, before the 19th century the Habsburgs had ruled Bohemia by hereditary right and a separate coronation was not deemed necessary.

His new government installed the system of neoabsolutism in Austrian internal affairs to make the Austrian Empire a unitary, centralised and bureaucratically administered state. When Franz Joseph returned to constitutional rule after the debacles in Italy at Magenta and Solferino and summoned the diets of his lands, the question of his coronation as king of Bohemia again returned to the agenda, as it had not since 1848. On 14 April 1861, Emperor Franz Joseph received a delegation from the Bohemian Diet with his words (in Czech):

"I will have myself crowned King of Bohemia in Prague, and I am convinced that a new, indissoluble bond of trust and loyalty between My throne and My Bohemian Kingdom will be strengthened by this holy rite."

In contrast to his predecessor Emperor Ferdinand (who spent the rest of his life after his abdication in 1848 in Bohemia and especially in Prague), Franz Joseph was never crowned separately as king of Bohemia. In 1861, the negotiations failed because of unsolved constitutional problems. However, in 1866, a visit of the monarch to Prague following defeat at the Battle of Königgrätz was a huge success, testified by the considerable numbers of new photographs taken.

In 1867, the Austro-Hungarian compromise and the introduction of the dual monarchy left the Czechs and their aristocracy without the recognition of separate Bohemian state rights for which they had hoped. Bohemia remained part of the Austrian Crown Lands. In Bohemia, opposition to dualism took the form of isolated street demonstrations, resolutions from district representations, and even open air mass protest meetings, confined to the biggest cities, such as Prague. The Czech newspaper Národní listy complained that the Czechs had not yet been compensated for their wartime losses and sufferings during the Austro-Prussian War, and had just seen their historic state rights tossed aside and their land subsumed into the "other" half of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, commonly called "Cisleithania".

The Czech hopes were revived again in 1870–1871. In an Imperial Rescript of 26 September 1870, Franz Joseph referred again to the prestige and glory of the Bohemian Crown and to his intention to hold a coronation. Under Minister-President Karl Hohenwart in 1871, the government of Cisleithania negotiated a series of fundamental articles spelling out the relationship of the Bohemian Crown to the rest of the Habsburg Monarchy. On 12 September 1871, Franz Joseph announced:

"Having in mind the constitutional position of the Bohemian Crown and being conscious of the glory and power which that Crown has given us and our predecessors… we gladly recognise the rights of the kingdom and are prepared to renew that recognition through our coronation oath."

For the planned coronation, the composer Bedřich Smetana had written the opera Libuše, but the ceremony did not take place. The creation of the German Empire, domestic opposition from German-speaking liberals (especially German-Bohemians) and from Hungarians doomed the Fundamental Articles. Hohenwart resigned and nothing changed.

Many Czech people were waiting for political changes in monarchy, including Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and others. Masaryk served in the Reichsrat (Upper House) from 1891 to 1893 in the Young Czech Party and again from 1907 to 1914 in the Realist Party (which he had founded in 1900), but he did not campaign for the independence of Czechs and Slovaks from Austria-Hungary. In Vienna in 1909 he helped Hinko Hinković's defense in the fabricated trial against prominent Croats and Serbs members of the Serbo-Croatian Coalition (such as Frano Supilo and Svetozar Pribićević), and others, who were sentenced to more than 150 years and a number of death penalties. The Bohemian question would remain unresolved for the entirety of Franz Joseph's reign.

German question

The main foreign policy goal of Franz Joseph had been the unification of Germany under the House of Habsburg. This was justified on grounds of precedence; from 1452 to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, with only one brief period of interruption under the Wittelsbachs, the Habsburgs had generally held the German crown. However, Franz Joseph's desire to retain the non-German territories of the Habsburg Austrian Empire in the event of German unification proved problematic.

Two factions quickly developed: a party of German intellectuals favouring a Greater Germany (Großdeutschland) under the House of Habsburg; the other favouring a Lesser Germany (Kleindeutschland). The Greater Germans favoured the inclusion of Austria in a new all-German state on the grounds that Austria had always been a part of Germanic empires, that it was the leading power of the German Confederation, and that it would be absurd to exclude eight million Austrian Germans from an all-German nation state. The champions of a lesser Germany argued against the inclusion of Austria on the grounds that it was a multi-nation state, not a German one, and that its inclusion would bring millions of non-Germans into the German nation state.

If Greater Germany were to prevail, the crown would necessarily have to go to Franz Joseph, who had no desire to cede it in the first place to anyone else. On the other hand, if the idea of a smaller Germany won out, the German crown could of course not possibly go to the Emperor of Austria, but would naturally be offered to the head of the largest and most powerful German state outside of Austria—the King of Prussia. The contest between the two ideas, quickly developed into a contest between Austria and Prussia. After Prussia decisively won the Seven Weeks War, this question was solved; Austria lost no territories to Prussia as long as they remained out of German affairs.

Three Emperors League

In 1873, two years after the unification of Germany, Franz Joseph entered into the League of Three Emperors (Dreikaiserbund) with Emperor Wilhelm I of Germany and Emperor Alexander II of Russia, who was succeeded by Tsar Alexander III in 1881. The league had been designed by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, as an attempt to maintain the peace of Europe. It would last intermittently until 1887.

Vatican
In 1903, Franz Joseph's veto of Jus exclusivae of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla's election to the papacy was transmitted to the Papal conclave by Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko. It was the last use of such a veto, as the new Pope Pius X prohibited future uses and provided for excommunication for any attempt.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

During the mid-1870s a series of violent rebellions against Ottoman rule broke out in the Balkans, and the Turks responded with equally violent and oppressive reprisals. Tsar Alexander II of Russia, wanting to intervene against the Ottomans, sought and obtained an agreement with Austria-Hungary.

In the Budapest Convention of 1877, the two powers agreed that Russia would annex southern Bessarabia, and Austria-Hungary would observe a benevolent neutrality toward Russia in the pending war with the Turks. As compensation for this support, Russia agreed to Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A scant 15 months later, the Russians imposed on the Ottomans the Treaty of San Stefano, which reneged on the Budapest accord and declared that Bosnia-Herzegovina would be jointly occupied by Russian and Austrian troops.

The treaty was overturned by the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, which allowed sole Austrian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina but did not specify a final disposition of the provinces. That omission was addressed in the Three Emperors' League agreement of 1881, when both Germany and Russia endorsed Austria-Hungary's right to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, by 1897, under a new tsar, the Russian Imperial government had again withdrawn its support for Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Russian foreign minister, Count Mikhail Muravyov, stated that an Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina would raise "an extensive question requiring special scrutiny".

In 1908, the Russian foreign minister, Alexander Izvolsky, offered Russian support, for the third time, for the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary, in exchange for Austrian support for the opening of the Bosporus Strait and the Dardanelles to Russian warships. Austria's foreign minister, Alois von Aehrenthal, pursued this offer vigorously, resulting in the quid pro quo understanding with Izvolsky, reached on 16 September 1908 at the Buchlau Conference. However, Izvolsky made this agreement with Aehrenthal without the knowledge of Tsar Nicholas II or his government in St. Petersburg, or any of the other foreign powers including Britain, France and Serbia.

Based upon the assurances of the Buchlau Conference and the treaties that preceded it, Franz Joseph signed the proclamation announcing the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Empire on 6 October 1908. However a diplomatic crisis erupted, as both the Serbs and the Italians demanded compensation for the annexation, which the Austro-Hungarian government refused to entertain. The incident was not resolved until the revision of the Treaty of Berlin in April 1909, exacerbating tensions between Austria-Hungary and the Serbs.

Outbreak of World War I

On 28 June 1914 Franz Joseph's nephew and heir-presumptive Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his morganatic wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist of Serbian ethnicity, during a visit to Sarajevo. When he heard the news of the assassination, Franz Joseph said that "one has not to defy the Almighty. In this manner a superior power has restored that order which I unfortunately was unable to maintain."

While the emperor was shaken, and interrupted his holiday to return to Vienna, he soon resumed his vacation at his Kaiservilla at Bad Ischl. Initial decision-making during the "July Crisis" fell to Count Leopold Berchtold, the Austrian foreign minister; Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the chief of staff for the Austro-Hungarian army and the other ministers. The ultimate resolution of deliberations by the Austro-Hungarian government during the weeks following the assassination of the Archduke was to give Serbia an ultimatum of itemized demands with which it was virtually certain Serbia would be unable or unwilling to comply, thus serving as a "legal basis for war".

A week after delivery of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, on 28 July, war was declared. Within weeks, the Germans, Russians, French and British had all entered the fray which eventually became known as World War I. On 6 August, Franz Joseph signed the declaration of war against Russia.

Death

Franz Joseph died in the Schönbrunn Palace on the evening of 21 November 1916, at the age of 86. His death was a result of developing pneumonia of the right lung several days after catching a cold while walking in Schönbrunn Park with King Ludwig III of Bavaria. He was succeeded by his grand-nephew Charles I & IV, who reigned until the collapse of the empire following its defeat at the end of the First World War in 1918.

He is buried in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna.

Family

It was generally felt in the court that the emperor should marry and produce heirs as soon as possible. Various potential brides were considered, including Princess Elisabeth of Modena, Princess Anna of Prussia and Princess Sidonia of Saxony. Although in public life Franz Joseph was the unquestioned director of affairs, in his private life his mother still wielded crucial influence. Sophie wanted to strengthen the relationship between the Houses of Habsburg and Wittelsbach—descending from the latter house herself—and hoped to match Franz Joseph with her sister Ludovika's eldest daughter, Helene ("Néné"), who was four years the emperor's junior.

However, Franz Joseph fell deeply in love with Néné's younger sister Elisabeth ("Sisi"), a beautiful girl of fifteen, and insisted on marrying her instead. Sophie acquiesced, despite her misgivings about Sisi's appropriateness as an imperial consort, and the young couple were married on 24 April 1854 in St. Augustine's Church, Vienna.

Their marriage would eventually prove to be an unhappy one; though Franz Joseph was passionately in love with his wife, the feeling was not mutual. Elisabeth never truly acclimatized to life at court, and was frequently in conflict with the imperial family. Their first daughter Sophie died as an infant, and their only son Rudolf died by suicide in 1889 in the infamous Mayerling Incident.

In 1885 Franz Joseph met Katharina Schratt, a leading actress of the Vienna stage, and she became his friend and confidante. This relationship lasted the rest of his life, and was—to a certain degree—tolerated by Elisabeth. Franz Joseph built Villa Schratt in Bad Ischl for her, and also provided her with a small palace in Vienna. Though their relationship lasted for thirty-four years, it remained platonic.

The empress was an inveterate traveller, horsewoman, and fashion maven who was rarely seen in Vienna. Sisi was obsessed about preserving her beauty, carrying out many bizarre routines and strenuous exercise, and as a result suffered from ill health. She was stabbed to death by an Italian anarchist in 1898 while on a visit to Geneva. A few days after the funeral, Robert of Parma wrote in a letter to his friend Tirso de Olazábal that "It was pitiful to look at the Emperor, he showed a great deal of energy in his immense pain, but at times one could see all the immensity of his grief." Franz Joseph never fully recovered from the loss. According to the future empress Zita of Bourbon-Parma he told his relatives: "You'll never know how important she was to me" or, according to some sources, "You will never know how much I loved this woman."

Relationship with Franz Ferdinand
Archduke Franz Ferdinand became heir presumptive (Thronfolger) to the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1896, after the deaths of his cousin Rudolf (in 1889) and his father Karl Ludwig (in 1896). The relationship between him and Franz Joseph had always been a fairly contentious one, which was further exacerbated when Franz Ferdinand announced his desire to marry Countess Sophie Chotek. The emperor would not even consider giving his blessing to the union, as Sophie was merely of noble rank, not dynastic rank.

Although the emperor received letters from members of the imperial family throughout the fall and winter of 1899 beseeching him to relent, Franz Joseph stood his ground. He finally gave his consent in 1900. However, the marriage was to be morganatic, and any children of the marriage would be ineligible to succeed to the throne. The couple were married on 1 July 1900 at Reichstadt. The emperor did not attend the wedding, nor did any of the archdukes. After that, the two men disliked and mistrusted each other.

His interactions with Franz Ferdinand were strained; the emperor's personal attendant recollected in his memoirs that: "thunder and lightning always raged when they had their discussions."

Following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie in 1914, Franz Joseph's daughter, Marie Valerie, noted that her father expressed his greater confidence in the new heir presumptive, his grandnephew Archduke Charles. The emperor admitted to his daughter, regarding the assassination: "For me, it is a relief from a great worry."

Name
Franz Joseph's names in the languages of his empire were:

 * Franjo Josip I
 * Franjo Josip I.
 * František Josef I
 * Franz Joseph I
 * I. Ferenc József
 * Francesco Giuseppe I
 * Franciszek Józef I
 * Francisc Iosif
 * Фрања Јосиф
 * František Jozef I
 * Franc Jožef I
 * Фра́нц Йо́сиф I

Titles and styles

 * 18 August 1830 – 2 December 1848: His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke and Prince Francis Joseph of Austria, Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia
 * 2 December 1848 – 21 November 1916: His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty The Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary

His official grand title after the Ausgleich of 1867 was: "Francis Joseph the First, by the Grace of God Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, King of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Oświęcim, Zator and Ćeszyn, Friuli, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Zara (Zadar); Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent (Trento) and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro (Kotor), and over the Windic march; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia."

National decorations

 * Knight of the Golden Fleece, 1844; Chief and Sovereign, 2 December 1848 (Orden vom Goldenen Vlies, ex officio as Emperor of Austria)
 * Grand Master of the Military Order of Maria Theresa (Militär Maria-Theresien-Orden, ex officio as Emperor of Austria)
 * Grand Master of the Royal Hungarian Order of St. Stephen (Königlich ungarischer St. Stephan-Orden, ex officio as Emperor of Austria)
 * Grand Master of the Austrian Imperial Order of Leopold (Leopold-Orden, ex officio as Emperor of Austria)
 * Grand Master of the Imperial Order of the Iron Crown (Orden der Eisernen Krone, ex officio as Emperor of Austria)

In addition, he founded the Order of Franz Joseph (Franz Joseph-Orden) on 2 December 1849, and the Order of Elizabeth (Elizabeth-Orden) in 1898.

Foreign decorations
• Ascanian duchies: Grand Cross of the Order of Albert the Bear, 27 October 1849

• Baden:

• * Knight of the House Order of Fidelity, 1851

• * Grand Cross of the Zähringer Lion, 1851

• Bavaria:

• * Knight of St. Hubert, 1849

• * Grand Cross of the Military Order of Max Joseph

• Belgium: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (civil), 19 April 1849

• Brunswick: Grand Cross of the Order of Henry the Lion, 1854

• Bulgaria:

• * Knight of Saints Cyril and Methodius

• * Order of Bravery, Grade I

• Denmark: Knight of the Elephant, 17 January 1849

• Ernestine duchies: Grand Cross of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order, March 1852

• France: Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour

• Hanover:

• * Knight of St. George, 1848

• * Grand Cross of the Royal Guelphic Order

• Hawaii:

• * Grand Cross of the Order of Kamehameha I, 1865

• * Grand Cross of the Order of Kalākaua, 1878

• Hesse-Darmstadt: Grand Cross of the Ludwig Order, 3 May 1851

• Hesse-Kassel: Knight of the Golden Lion, 19 November 1851

• Holy See: Grand Cross of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem

• Italy:

• * Knight of the Annunciation, 13 April 1869

• * Grand Cross of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, 1869

• * Grand Cross of the Crown of Italy, 1869

• Japan: Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum, 7 May 1880; Collar, 25 October 1898

• Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion

• Mecklenburg-Strelitz: Cross for Distinction in War, 1st and 2nd Classes

• Mexico: Grand Cross of the Mexican Eagle, with Collar, 1865

• Modena: Grand Cross of the Eagle of Este, 1856

• Monaco: Grand Cross of St. Charles, 24 September 1872

• Montenegro: Grand Cross of the Order of Prince Danilo I

• Nassau: Knight of the Gold Lion of Nassau, May 1858

• Netherlands: Grand Cross of the Military William Order, 21 June 1849

• Oldenburg: Grand Cross of the Order of Duke Peter Friedrich Ludwig, with Golden Crown, 9 March 1853

• Parma: Senator Grand Cross of the Constantinian Order of St. George, with Collar, 1849

• Prussia:

• * Knight of the Black Eagle, 14 August 1844; with Collar, 1851

• * Grand Commander's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern, 16 September 1884

• * Pour le Mérite (military), with Oak Leaves, 27 August 1914

• Romania:

• * Collar of the Order of Carol I, 1906

• * Grand Cross of the Star of Romania

• Russia:

• * Knight of St. Andrew, 30 December 1845

• * Knight of St. Alexander Nevsky

• * Knight of the White Eagle

• * Knight of St. Anna, 1st Class

• * Knight of St. George, 4th Class, 2 July 1849

• Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach: Grand Cross of the White Falcon, 1 October 1857

• Saxony:

• * Knight of the Rue Crown, 1847

• * Grand Cross of the Military Order of St. Henry

• Serbia:

• * Grand Cross of the Cross of Takovo

• * Order of Miloš the Great, 1st Class

• Siam: Knight of the Order of the Royal House of Chakri, 15 July 1891

• Spain: Grand Cross of the Order of Charles III, with Collar, 10 May 1875

• Sweden-Norway:

• * Knight of the Seraphim, with Collar, 9 July 1850

• * Knight of the Norwegian Lion, 5 April 1904

• Tuscany: Grand Cross of St. Joseph

• Two Sicilies: Knight of St. Januarius, 1848

• United Kingdom:

• * Stranger Knight Companion of the Garter, 14 August 1867 (revoked 1915)

• * Recipient of the Royal Victorian Chain, 16 August 1904 (revoked 1915)

• Württemberg: Grand Cross of the Württemberg Crown, 1850

Honorary appointments

 * Honorary General of the Swedish Army, 1888
 * Colonel-in-chief of the 1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards, British Army, 25 March 1896 – 1914
 * Colonel-in-chief of the Kexholm Life Guards Grenadier Regiment, Russian Army, until 26 June 1914
 * Colonel-in-chief of the 12th Belgorod Lancer Regiment, Russian Army, until 26 June 1914
 * Colonel-in-chief of the 16th (Schleswig-Holstein) Hussars, German Army
 * Colonel-in-chief of the 122nd (Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, King of Hungary (4th Württemberg) Fusiliers
 * Field Marshal of the British Army, 1 September 1903 – 1914Imperial Standard of Austria-Hungary (Before 1915).svg

Legacy

Franz Josef Land in the Russian Arctic was named in his honour in 1873 by the Austro-Hungarian North Pole expedition which first reported finding it. The Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand's South Island also bears his name.

Franz Joseph founded in 1872 the Franz Joseph University (Hungarian: Ferenc József Tudományegyetem, Romanian: Universitatea Francisc Iosif) in the city of Cluj-Napoca (at that time a part of Austria-Hungary under the name of Kolozsvár). The university was moved to Szeged after Cluj became a part of Romania, becoming the University of Szeged.

In certain areas, celebrations are still being held in remembrance of Franz Joseph's birthday. The Mitteleuropean People's Festival takes place every year around 18 August, and is a "spontaneous, traditional and brotherly meeting among peoples of the Central-European Countries". The event includes ceremonies, meetings, music, songs, dances, wine and food tasting, and traditional costumes and folklore from Mitteleuropa.

Personal motto

 * "With united forces" (as the Emperor of Austria) – "Mit vereinten Kräften" – "Viribus Unitis"
 * "My trust in [the ancient] virtue" (as the Apostolic King of Hungary) – "Bizalmam az Ősi Erényben" – "Virtutis Confido"

Issue

 * Archduchess Sophie of Austria; 5 March 1855 – 29 May 1857.
 * Archduchess Gisela of Austria; 12 July 1856 – 27 July 1932. Married Prince Leopold of Bavaria (second cousin) in 1873; had issue.
 * Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria; 21 August 1858 – 30 January 1889. Married Princess Stephanie of Belgium in 1881; had issue. Died in a murder–suicide.
 * Archduchess Marie Valerie of Austria; 22 April 1868 – 6 September 1924. Married Archduke Franz Salvator (second cousin) in 1890; had issue

title: Franz Joseph I of Austria


text:
Fabien Barthez

Fabien Alain Barthez (born 28 June 1971) is a French racing driver and former professional footballer who played as a goalkeeper. At club level, he played football in both France and England with Toulouse, Marseille, Monaco, Manchester United and Nantes. At international level, he played for the France national team, with whom he won the 1998 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2000 and the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup, representing his nation at a total of three editions of both the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Championship; he also reached the final of the 2006 FIFA World Cup, after which he retired from international football.

Nicknamed Le Divin Chauve ("The Divine Bald One"), due to his trademark shaved head,  Barthez was France's most capped player in the FIFA World Cup, with 17 appearances at the finals and shares the record for the most World Cup finals clean sheets with Peter Shilton, with ten. In club football, he won the UEFA Champions League with Olympique Marseille in 1993 as well as several Ligue 1 and Premier League titles. After retiring from football in 2007, Barthez began a career in motorsport in 2008.

Early life
Barthez was born in Lavelanet, Ariège.

Marseille
Barthez made his first division debut for Toulouse on 21 September 1991, against Nancy. He joined Marseille in 1992, and won both the French championship and the Champions League at the end of his first season in Marseille, keeping a clean sheet in a 1–0 victory over Milan in final of the latter competition. The 1993 victory made him the youngest goalkeeper to win a Champions League title until Iker Casillas did so in 2000.

Marseille, however, would be stripped of their domestic title, though not of the Champions League crown, due to their involvement in a domestic match fixing scandal, and a year later (1994) would suffer a forced relegation to the second division due to a related financial bankruptcy. He stayed with the club in Division 2 for the 1994–95 season, despite many offers from elite French clubs, helping Marseille to the title. This, however, did not earn them a promotion back to Ligue 1 due to their punishment (they were promoted the following season, after finishing second in division 2).

Monaco
In 1995, Barthez joined AS Monaco and won Ligue 1 titles in 1997 and 2000. He also played in Jean Tigana's talented Monaco side, which famously put his future club Manchester United out of the Champions League in 1998 on away goals after a 1–1 draw at Old Trafford.

Manchester United
As a result of Barthez's success in the World Cup and the Euros, he caught the attention of Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, who was searching for a star goalkeeper to replace the recently departed Peter Schmeichel, as Ferguson did not think that the previous season's goalkeeper, Mark Bosnich, was a long-term replacement. Barthez joined United for £7.8 million in 2000. He was later reunited with national teammate Laurent Blanc, who joined United in 2001. The Barthez–Blanc head-kissing ritual was performed at the start of Champions League matches.

Well known for being eccentric, Barthez started out well for Manchester United. His first season was a triumph as he answered all the questions about how he would handle rainy Manchester compared to sunny Monaco. Barthez performed brilliantly throughout the season and became a crowd favourite. The fans loved his eccentric behaviour, his taunting dribbles and step-overs past opposing strikers, and most importantly, his remarkable reaction saves. Very often, it was critical saves that kept United from defeat or dropping valuable points, helping United to the 2000–01 FA Premier League title, their third in a row.

A memorable incident happened when Manchester United faced Leeds United in March 2001. After dropping a cross from Robbie Keane, Barthez deliberately kicked out with his foot at Ian Harte, who fell to the ground on the edge of six yard box, and the referee awarded a penalty to Leeds. Harte stepped up but Barthez made a low, one-handed save to his right. The only blemish in his first season was his failed attempt at "psyching out" West Ham United's Paolo Di Canio in the FA Cup Fourth Round; Di Canio beat the offside trap, while Barthez stood still with his hand up expecting the referee to blow his whistle, or Di Canio to stop. Di Canio continued and scored the only goal of the game, and later said it was "better to score and then see whether the goalkeeper is right or wrong".

The 2001–02 season was split into two parts for him. The first half was tumultuous. The Frenchman seemed to be taking some unnecessary risks outside his penalty area, and his antics began to have consequences that allowed unneeded goals for opposing teams. He was at fault for two goals in a 3–2 home defeat by Deportivo de La Coruña in October 2001. Ferguson said how "eventually he will get caught out" and it wouldn't happen again. But another couple of late errors against Arsenal in a 3–1 defeat at Highbury the following month put much pressure on Barthez, with two goals gifted to Thierry Henry, one of which came from a mis-hit clearance. Barthez was at the centre of further controversy when, after already being on a yellow card following an argument with Matthew Upson, he was caught by television cameras raising his middle fingers behind his back towards the Arsenal supporters, who had been taunting him for his errors towards the end of the match; the incident was missed by the referee Peter Jones, however. There was much speculation as to what was the source of Barthez's decline, and critics such as the BBC's Phil McNulty urged him to be dropped. Sir Alex Ferguson, however, had faith in his goalkeeper, and stuck by him. Consequently, in the second half of the season, Barthez repaired his reputation with consistent, solid performances and the spectacular saves that he was famous for. His turn in fortunes was shown in a 2–2 draw with Derby County at Pride Park. Derby forward Malcolm Christie looked to have sealed his hat-trick, but referee Steve Dunn controversially disallowed the goal, ruling that Christie kicked the ball out of Barthez's hands.

He was also noted for playing mind games before opposition players took a penalty. The first time this occurred was in November 2001 when Leicester City came to Old Trafford. As Muzzy Izzet prepared to take a penalty, Barthez stood aside from the goal, with his hands behind him on the post. Izzet, tired of waiting, slotted the ball in the bottom corner, but referee Andy D'Urso made him retake the penalty, this time with Barthez in goal. Izzet went the same way, but Barthez denied him with a fine save to his right. An almost identical incident happened less than a year later in October 2002, when Barthez was unhappy about the awarding of a penalty to Fulham, and so went from post to post banging his boots, and refused to be in goal for the penalty. This time he was booked for his antics by referee Mike Dean, and so he then took his place between the posts and made it work again by saving Steed Malbranque's spot kick.

The 2002–03 season ended with another Premier League crown for United. The season was a mixed bag for Barthez. One highlight was a fabulous save to deny Dietmar Hamann's 30-yard rocket at Anfield against Liverpool, as United held on to win 2–1. In other games, he let goals go past him that he would have been expected to save, and suffered from a run of poor form towards the end of the season. Barthez was also widely criticized in United's exit to Real Madrid in the Champions League, especially for Ronaldo's opener which beat him at the near post. It would prove to be his last ever game with United as Sir Alex Ferguson's patience had finally run out. Barthez was dropped for the final three games of the season, with Roy Carroll taking his place.

Return to Marseille
Barthez's poor form at the end of the previous season and the arrival of American newcomer Tim Howard in summer of 2003, saw the Frenchman face competition for a starting spot at United. As Barthez had only returned from international duty in August, Howard played during the club's American tour of the summer, and his performances led Ferguson to choose him to start over Barthez in the Community Shield in August. By October, Howard had won the starting goalkeeper's job from Barthez; as a result, United agreed to release Barthez from his contract at Old Trafford after the 2003–04 season, and also agreed to loan Barthez out to his former club Marseille for the remainder of that season. Barthez began training with Marseille, who took on a portion of his wages, but FIFA initially blocked the loan deal on the grounds that it was not agreed upon within the international transfer window. The two clubs agreed on a loan deal after the transfer window reopened on 1 January 2004, and Barthez joined Marseille soon afterwards. On 27 April, Marseille and Barthez agreed to a two-and-a-half-year contract which would keep him at the club until spring 2006.

Barthez was involved in a controversy during a friendly match between Marseille and Morocco's Wydad Casablanca on 12 February 2005. With ten minutes left, a Marseille player was sent off and a brawl erupted between players on the pitch. Barthez was reported for spitting on the Moroccan referee. On 21 April, Barthez was summoned to a hearing before the disciplinary committee of the French Football Federation (FFF); the following day, he received a six-month suspension, with the last three months being suspended. In an unusual move, the federal council of the FFF appealed the suspension, arguing that the punishment should have been for a minimum of six full months. Eventually, his suspension was extended to six full months due to political pressures.

Retirement
On 8 August 2006, Barthez announced he was still hoping to play professional football for another two years, insisting he was also looking to continue his career in the French international setup. His ideal scenario would have been a return to first club Toulouse, where he could be close enough to allow him to take care of his sick mother. But he said if he did not have a club by 31 August he would not carry on with football. On 5 October 2006, it was confirmed that he had retired from football, having failed to agree a return to Toulouse. Barthez commented, "The only club I wanted to go to was not so happy to have me. It happens and you have to live with it."

Comeback
On 17 December 2006, Barthez announced his return to football by signing a contract with Ligue 1 side Nantes, who were lacking an experienced goalkeeper following Mickaël Landreau's move to Paris Saint-Germain the previous summer. Serbian goalkeeper Vladimir Stojković, originally recruited to replace Landreau, failed to impress and left Nantes at the winter break following a rift within the squad.

On 29 April, Nantes chairman Rudi Roussillon announced that following an altercation with a Nantes fan, Barthez had left the city with his family. The next day, Barthez confirmed that he had quit the team, and the club terminated his contract. Barthez denied that he was planning to retire, and in an article for French daily L'Équipe, he said that he was looking for another contract for at least two years. Barthez was linked with numerous clubs, but nothing ever materialised and he had to face never playing professional football again.

Luzenac
In 2012, Barthez became the honorary president of Championnat National team Luzenac, where he personally picked Quentin Westberg and Nicolas Dieuze to sign for the club.

Early international career
On 26 May 1994, Barthez won his first cap for France in a 1–0 victory against Australia. Barthez was understudy to Bernard Lama at UEFA Euro 1996 – at which France reached the semi-finals – after testing positive for cannabis earlier that year; he was suspended for two months as a result. Following a later suspension to Lama instead, however, Barthez subsequently gained the number one goalkeeping position shortly after the tournament and would not relinquish it for a decade.

1998 World Cup
In the 1998 FIFA World Cup, which was hosted by his home country, Barthez conceded only two goals in seven games and won the Yashin Award as the best goalkeeper of the tournament, also placing second in the IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper award that year, behind José Luis Chilavert. Barthez was also well known during the tournament for letting teammate and good friend Laurent Blanc kiss his shaved head before the start of every match, supposedly for good luck. Barthez was an integral part of his national team's inaugural triumph which also made it the first time in 20 years that a host had won the World Cup. He kept five clean sheets throughout the tournament, with the only goals he conceded being a penalty in the group stage against Denmark, and another goal against Croatia in the semi-final. In the quarter-final shootout defeat of rivals Italy, he kept a clean sheet, and also saved Demetrio Albertini's penalty kick. He kept another clean sheet in the final, which ended in a 3–0 win over defending champions Brazil. During the game, Barthez was also at the centre of a notable controversial incident when he made a spectacular save while rushing out and attempting to anticipate Brazilian superstar Ronaldo, doing his trademark leap/step-over the attacking striker to grab the ball, which injured Ronaldo in the process; Barthez later commented that he never intended to hurt the striker. Following France's World Cup victory, Barthez was one of the most popular national players in France, after Zinedine Zidane.

Euro 2000
Two years later, Barthez was again the starter as his country won Euro 2000. It was the first time in 26 years that a national team held both the World Cup and Euro titles, a feat last accomplished by West Germany in 1974. After that triumph, France held the top position in the FIFA World Rankings system from 2001 to 2002.

2002 World Cup and Euro 2004
Barthez played on France's World Cup team again in 2002 in which they exited in the first round without winning a game or scoring a goal; he kept his only clean sheet of the tournament in his nation's second group match, a 0–0 draw against Uruguay. He was also his nation's starting keeper throughout their victorious Confederations Cup campaign in 2003, and at Euro 2004; in the latter tournament, he saved David Beckham's penalty shot in the opening round robin match, but France went out in the quarter-finals to eventual winners Greece.

2006 World Cup
His place as starting goalkeeper in France's 2006 World Cup campaign, in the face of a substantial public campaign in support of Grégory Coupet, was surprising to many, even more so given Coupet's flawless performance in the remainder of the World Cup qualifying campaign after Barthez's suspension. The decision was met with derision in the French press and also led to Coupet's walking out of the national squad before the tournament, though he was to return one day later. The move was viewed by some as a desire to keep the veterans of France's 1998 World Cup victory on the team. L'Equipe reported after the World Cup that Barthez would have walked out of the squad had he not been named the starter.

France had a slow start in the group stage, drawing their first two games and putting their chances of reaching the knock-out stages at risk. Fortunately, Barthez's team found their form and won their final round robin match 2–0 to advance to the next stage, where they upset heavily favoured Spain 3–1 in the round of 16.

In defeating Brazil, 1–0 on 1 July 2006, Barthez, having made only one save in the game (on an injury time shot from Ronaldo), became the first keeper to blank the Brazilian team in consecutive World Cup finals matches, the first being the 1998 final (3–0). France is now one of only four nations (along with Italy, Argentina and the Netherlands) to have shut Brazil out twice in the World Cup finals, and the first to have done it in consecutive matches, both times with Barthez in goal.

Barthez again kept another clean sheet – his fourth of the tournament – in the semi-final against Portugal (with Zinedine Zidane's penalty shot the winning goal), though he appeared in questionable form. A few minutes from time, he spectacularly spilled a free-kick which Luís Figo recovered, heading over the bar although unchallenged. He did, however, redeem himself in injury time when a French defender fumbled the ball, enabling a Portuguese player to mount a last-moment attack. Barthez scrambled out of the net and blocked the first shot.

During the final against Italy, he briefly captained his team for the remainder of the second period of extra time after Zidane was sent off. During the penalty shootout, neither he nor his Italian counterpart Gianluigi Buffon made a save, and France striker David Trezeguet's missed shot ultimately proved decisive. This proved to be Barthez's 87th and final international appearance, as he retired from international football following the tournament.

Motorsport career
After retiring from football in 2007, Barthez began a career in motorsport in 2008. He began competing at selected events in the Porsche Carrera Cup France that year with the team SOFREV Auto Sport Promotion. He also competed at two events in the THP Spider Cup. In 2009, he raced in a number of various motorsport series such as the French GT Championship, Bioracing Series and the Caterham Sigma Cup France as well as the Porsche Carrera Cup France. He continued to race in the FFSA GT Championship in 2010 and picked up his first podium in race 1 at Dijon-Prenois. In the 2012 season, he won his first race in the FFSA series at the Circuito de Navarra in race two and finished seventh in the championship. In 2013, he was crowned French GT Champion alongside Morgan Moullin-Traffort, driving a Ferrari.

In 2013, he also competed in the newly re-branded FIA GT Series alongside Gérard Tonelli in the Gentleman Trophy class with SOFREV ASP driving a GT3-spec Ferrari 458 Italia.

In February 2014, it was announced that Barthez would enter the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans race, driving Sofrev ASP's Ferrari 458. Barthez and his co-drivers finished 29th overall and ninth in LMGTE Am class.

Coaching career
On 2 July 2010, after Laurent Blanc's appointment as the new manager of the France national team, Barthez was named among the team's technical staff as a goalkeeping coach.

Style of play
Rated by pundits as one of the greatest goalkeepers of his generation, in his prime, Barthez was considered to be one of the best goalkeepers in the world,   and is regarded as one of the best French players ever in his position,  being named the fourth greatest French goalkeeper of all time in IFFHS' Century elections, behind Bernard Lama, Pierre Chayriguès and Julien Darui. Standing at 1.80m, he was not particularly tall for a goalkeeper, although he was extremely athletic, and was known for his elevation, as well as his decision-making, bravery, ability to read the game, and commitment when coming out to collect the ball, which made him effective in the air and enabled him to command his area effectively in spite of his short stature;  however, at times he was still caught out on high balls due to his lack of height and poor handling, and he also came under criticism on occasion for his indecisiveness when struggling to deal with crosses. A flamboyant and instinctive keeper, he was also extremely agile, and possessed excellent reflexes, which enabled him to produce spectacular, acrobatic, and decisive reaction saves;       he also possessed a good positional sense. In addition to his shot-stopping abilities,  Barthez was also known to be a passionate, popular, and highly recognisable footballing figure,  who stood out for his outgoing personality, self-assurance, and composure under pressure, as well as his leadership from the back and authoritative presence in goal. Furthermore, Barthez was highly regarded for his exceptional skills with the ball at his feet, as well as his accurate distribution with his left foot, which enabled him to play the ball out from the back or launch an attack with his quick throws or long goal kicks; his confidence in possession often led him to be involved in the build-up of plays, and he often operated outside the penalty area, and would even occasionally attempt to dribble with the ball past opposing strikers with feints such as nutmegs or stepovers. He was also very quick off his line, and often acted as a sweeper-keeper, thus contributing to the evolution of the role. Pundit Garth Crooks once remarked “he’s a fine fine lad. You can count the number of mistakes he makes by the number of hairs on his head”. While he received plaudits for his goalkeeping ability in the media, throughout his career Barthez also frequently came under criticism from pundits for his stubbornness, and his aggressive, unorthodox and eccentric style of play, as well as for taking unnecessary risks; he was also deemed to be inconsistent, unreliable and prone to errors and lapses in concentration.

Personal life
Through his career, Barthez was known for his active romantic life, and dated Canadian model Linda Evangelista. She became pregnant but miscarried, six months into the pregnancy. The couple broke up in 2000, reunited in 2001, and then officially ended their relationship in 2002. Barthez is a smoker. Known for his eccentric and superstitious personality, Barthez often wore red briefs underneath his goalkeeping shorts, and usually cut off the sleeves of his goalkeeping jersey. Although most starting goalkeepers are usually assigned the number 1 shirt, he instead chose to wear the number 16 shirt.

Endorsements
During his playing career, Barthez signed advertising deals with McDonald's and Adidas.

Honours
'''Marseille
 * UEFA Champions League: 1992–93
 * Division 2: 1994–95

AS Monaco
 * Division 1: 1996–97, 1999–2000
 * Trophée des Champions: 1997

Manchester United
 * Premier League: 2000–01, 2002–03

France
 * FIFA World Cup: 1998; runner-up: 2006
 * UEFA European Championship: 2000
 * FIFA Confederations Cup: 2003

Individual
 * FIFA World Cup Yashin Award: 1998
 * FIFA World Cup All-Star Team: 1998
 * Ligue 1 Goalkeeper of the Year: 1998
 * IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper: 2000
 * UEFA Euro Team of the Tournament: 2000
 * PFA Team of the Year: 2000–01 Premier League
 * Équipe type spéciale 20 ans des trophées UNFP: 2011
 * The Dream Team 110 years of OM: 2010
 * Most clean sheets in the Premier League: 2000–01

Orders
 * Knight of the Legion of Honour: 1998

Records
 * Second-most caps for France as a goalkeeper: 87 (behind Hugo Lloris)
 * Most FIFA World Cup clean sheets: 10 (with Peter Shilton)

title: Fabien Barthez


text:
Deposition (law)

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

History
Depositions by written interrogatories first appeared around the mid-15th century as a procedure for discovery, factfinding, and evidence preservation in suits in equity in English courts. They differed radically from modern depositions in three ways: (1) the party seeking a witness's testimony merely propounded written interrogatories which were read out loud by a master or court-appointed commissioner to the witness in a closed proceeding without parties or counsel present; (2) the witness's first-person oral answers under oath were not recorded verbatim, but were summarized by the master, commissioner, or a clerk appointed by them into a third-person continuous narrative; and (3) the resulting written product (also called a "deposition") was filed with the court under seal and its contents were not revealed or "published" to the parties until shortly before trial.

The modern deposition by oral examination began to develop in New York in the early 19th century when Chancellor James Kent of the New York Court of Chancery allowed masters to actually examine witnesses (that is, pursue lines of questions in real time based on the witness's preceding answers) rather than read static interrogatories (which tended to be broadly worded and resulted in very inefficient depositions). He also allowed parties and counsel to be present during depositions. This meant depositions were no longer secret and led to counsel insisting on taking over the examinations themselves. These developments gradually spread across the United States and Canada.

During the late 19th century, summary narratives by court-appointed examiners were replaced by verbatim transcripts by court reporters. Finally, the merger of common law and equity procedure led to the adoption of live testimony in open court as the default method of taking trial evidence in all trials (equity had used depositions by written interrogatories in lieu of live testimony), which reduced the deposition to its modern role in American civil procedure as a discovery and evidence preservation device.

Canada
In Canada, the process is nearly identical to that followed in the United States, but the proceeding is called an examination for discovery. Typically, the questions for the witness will be a mixture of direct questions and cross-examinations on prior statements. While most of the same objections to form are applicable as in the United States, the witness's lawyer may additionally take certain questions "under advisement" as a means of delaying answering the question, without making a formal objection.

The process is considered in Canada to be time-consuming and expensive when conducted without limits. As a result, Rule 31.05.1 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure has, since January 1, 2010, limited examinations for discovery to seven hours per party except with consent of the other parties or the leave of the court. British Columbia implemented similar reforms on July 1, 2010, although the new Rule 7-2(2) can be read in two ways, it appears to be that each party can examine each other party for a maximum of seven hours unless the court orders otherwise. The alternative reading is that each party is only to be examined for a maximum of seven hours.

China
In mainland China, it is generally illegal to take depositions for use in foreign courts.

United States
Deposition is the preferred term in U.S. federal courts and in the majority of U.S. states. In some unusual situations, depositions can be taken during or even after trial.

Civil procedure
In almost all cases pending in United States federal courts, depositions are carried out under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. About 35 states use versions of the FRCP in their state courts. Other states have discovery rules that are set out either in court rules or statutes, and which vary somewhat from one state to another. According to FRCP Rule 30, the number of depositions is limited to ten depositions per side (i.e. plaintiffs and defendants), with deposition of each deponent limited to a single day of no more than seven hours (unless specified otherwise in local rules of the district). The person to be deposed (questioned) at a deposition, known as the deponent, is usually notified to appear at the appropriate time and place by means of a subpoena. Frequently the most desired witness (the deponent) is an opposite party to the action. In that instance, legal notice may be given to that person's attorney, and a subpoena is not required. But, if the witness is not a party to the lawsuit (a third party) or is reluctant to testify, then a subpoena must be served on that party. To ensure an accurate record of statements made during a deposition, a court reporter is present and typically transcribes the deposition by digital recording or stenographic means. Depending upon the amount in controversy and the ability of the witness to appear at trial, audio or video recordings of the deposition are sometimes taken as well.

Conduct of depositions
Depositions usually take place at the office of the court reporter or in the office of one of the law firms involved in a case. However, depositions are also sometimes taken at a witness's workplace or home, or in a nearby hotel's conference room. Generally, the deposition is attended by the person who is to be deposed, their attorney, court reporter, and other parties in the case who can appear personally or be represented by their counsels. Any party to the action and their attorneys have the right to be present and to ask questions.

Prior to taking a deposition, the court reporter administers the same oath or affirmation that the deponent would take if the testimony were being given in court in front of a judge and jury. Thereafter, the court reporter makes a verbatim digital or stenographic record of all that is said during the deposition, in the same manner that witness testimony is recorded in court. Some jurisdictions allow stenomask technology in lieu of traditional stenographic equipment, although many jurisdictions still prohibit stenomask because of its disconcerting effect on some lawyers and witnesses.

Attorneys for the deposing litigant are often present, although this is not required in all jurisdictions. The attorney who has ordered the deposition begins questioning of the deponent (this is referred to as "direct examination" or "direct" for short). Since nods and gestures cannot be recorded, the witness is instructed to answer all questions aloud. After the direct examination, other attorneys in attendance have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The first attorney may ask more questions at the end, in re-direct, which may be followed by re-cross.

During the course of the deposition, one attorney or another may object to questions asked. In most jurisdictions, only two types of objections are allowed: The first is to assert a privilege and the second is to object to the form of the question asked. Objections to form are frequently used to signal the witness to be careful in answering the question. Since the judge is not present, all other objections, in particular those involving the rules of evidence, are generally preserved until trial. They still can be made sometime at the deposition to indicate the serious problem to judge and witness, but the witness must answer the question despite these objections. If the form objection is made, the opposite party still has the right to re-phrase the same question and ask it again. Indeed, in Texas, lawyers were so aggressively using objections to indirectly coach their witnesses on the record that all objections outside four narrow categories are now prohibited and making such prohibited objections waives all objections to the question or answer at issue. California is the major "outlier" on deposition objections; under the California Civil Discovery Act as enacted in 1957 and heavily revised in 1986, most objections must be given on the record at the deposition (and must be specific as to the objectionable nature of the question or response) or they are permanently waived.

As with oral examination at trial, depositions can become heated at times, with some attorneys asking harassing questions to provoke witnesses into losing their tempers, some witnesses giving evasive answers, and occasional use of profane language. In extreme situations, one side or the other may ask the reporter to mark the record, then may suspend the deposition, demand a rush transcript, and file an emergency motion to compel a response, for a protective order, or for sanctions. Some courts have magistrates or discovery commissioners who are on call for such contingencies, and the parties are supposed to use them to referee such disputes over the telephone or via email before resorting to filing motions. In extreme circumstances where the relationship between the lawyers, parties, or witnesses has totally broken down, the court may require the use of a discovery referee who will have authority to sit in on depositions and rule immediately on objections as they are presented, may order that all further depositions take place in court in the presence of a judge, or may grant terminating sanctions if the record is already clear as to which party or attorney is responsible for the breakdown in civility.

Parties can bring documents to the deposition and ask document identification questions to build a foundation for making the documents admissible as evidence at trial, as long as the deponent admits their authenticity. The court reporter and all parties in the case are usually provided a copy of the documents during the deposition for review.

In recent years, developments in litigation technology has allowed the use of paper documents to be replaced by electronic documents and exhibits in the deposition. In such cases, the examining attorney marks and distributes the official exhibits electronically using a laptop or tablet device. The deponent, court reporter, and all parties receive digital official exhibits or courtesy copies. Combined with live transcript feed technology and legal videography, digital exhibit technology has made participation in remote depositions more functional and popular.

Under FRCP 30(d)(1) and its state counterparts, a deposition normally must take place for no longer than seven hours on one day per each deponent, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties or ordered by the court. The deposing party who knows that a deposition will require more than seven hours on one day must either ask the deponent to stipulate to more time, or, if the deponent is uncooperative, promptly file a motion for a longer deposition. For many years, California was the major exception to this rule, in that its Civil Discovery Act had no default time limit; depositions could theoretically proceed indefinitely, or at least until the deposition became so obviously excessive and burdensome that the deponent was able to move for a protective order. However, in January 2013, the California legislature amended the Civil Discovery Act to fall in line with the federal rule, by requiring that depositions will typically be limited to seven hours of total testimony. It is worth noting that this new rule does not apply to "any case brought by an employee or applicant for employment against an employer for acts or omissions arising out of or relating to the employment relationship."

After the deposition, the transcript is then published in the form of a hardcopy booklet, which is provided to the deponent as well as to any party to the suit who wishes to purchase a copy. The booklet will have the case caption (the name of the court, case number, and names of the parties) on the front. Inside, the pages have line numbers along the left margin, so that the parties can precisely cite testimony by page and line in later court documents. Timestamps are inserted into the margin if a video recording is being made; in the event the witness is unavailable for trial, the parties or the court will use the timestamps to identify admissible segments which a video editor will stitch together to present to the jury. A concordance is automatically generated by the stenographic system's software and included in the back of the booklet. Finally, the booklet includes the court reporter's certificate in which they formally certify the truth and accuracy of the transcript. (In some states, the court reporter is also a notary public.) Most court reporters can also provide a digital copy of the transcript in ASCII, RealLegal, and PDF formats.

The court reporter also keeps a copy of the documents provided to the deponent during the deposition for document identification questions, unless digital document and exhibit technology is employed, in which case the deponent and all parties receive the official exhibits in real time. The deponent normally has the right to read and sign the deposition transcript before it is filed with the court. The deponent cannot change his testimony as recorded by the court reporter in the deposition transcript, but under rule 30(e) the deponent can correct on an additional "errata sheet" any mistakes in the deposition transcript shortly after the transcript has been typed and bound.

The errata sheet allows the deponent to make any modifications that make "changes in form or substance," giving the deponent the option to alter their record from the original transcript. Issues may arise where a party attempts to make substantive changes to testimony through errata sheets.

Use of depositions
The chief values of obtaining a deposition, as with any discovery proceeding, is to give all litigant parties in a contested case a fair preview of the evidence, and to provide support documents for further trials and dispositive motions. The process provides a "level playing field" of information among the litigants and avoids surprises at trial (traditionally regarded as an unfair tactic). Another benefit of taking depositions is to preserve a witness's recollection while it is still fresh, since the trial may still be months or years away. When a witness's testimony in open court is inconsistent with that given at deposition, a party can introduce the deposition to impeach (or contradict) the witness. In the event a witness is unavailable for trial (usually because they are deceased, seriously ill, or live hundreds of miles away), their deposition may be read or played before the jury and made part of the record in the case, with the same legal force as live testimony. In some states, stenographic, audio, or video records of depositions can be offered into evidence even if the witness is available. Deposition of the opposite party is often used to produce self-incriminating statements from the deponent, also document identification questions can make exhibits admissible for hearings and summary judgment motions.

Sometimes, after a number of witnesses have been deposed, the parties will have enough information that they can reasonably predict the outcome of a prospective trial, and may decide to arrive at a compromise settlement, thus avoiding trial and preventing additional costs of litigation. Accordingly, while most depositions are not videotaped, opposing counsel may use the opportunity to get an impression of the witness's affect and appearance, because these are telling factors as to how that person will present in front of a jury. Furthermore, deposition transcripts are frequently submitted in support of motions for summary judgment as evidence that there is no triable issue of fact. The moving party may use transcripts to argue that even if all the testimony given at deposition was given again at trial, no reasonable factfinder could find in the opponent's favor on a material issue of fact. The rationale is that generally, a witness must give consistent testimony on all material issues of fact both at deposition and at trial (unless there is a very good reason for changing one's answers), or else the inconsistencies can and will be used to impeach his credibility.

Criminal procedure
In some United States jurisdictions, depositions may be taken in criminal cases, for reasons that vary between jurisdictions. In federal criminal cases, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 governs the taking of depositions. Each state has its own laws which govern the taking of depositions.

Most jurisdictions provide that depositions may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of a witness, that is, preserve their testimony for trial. If the person requested to testify (deponent) is a party to the lawsuit or someone who works for an involved party, notice of time and place of the examination before trial can be given to the other side's attorney, but if the witness is an independent third party, a subpoena must be served on him/her if he/she is recalcitrant. This occurs when a witness may not be able to testify at trial. The deposition of the witness is taken and, if the witness is unable to appear at trial, the deposition may be used to establish the witness' testimony in lieu of the witness actually testifying. Regarding depositions to preserve testimony, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional right of the defendant to be present during the deposition and to cross-examine the witness. The defendant may waive this right.

Some jurisdictions provide that depositions may be taken for purposes of discovery. In these jurisdictions, the defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present, although such a right may be established by statute.

Some jurisdictions require that because of the sensitive nature of taking a deposition of a minor, it must be videotaped.

A defendant in a criminal case may not be deposed without their consent because of the Fifth Amendment right to not give testimony against oneself.

title: Deposition (law)