In Czech historiography, Prince Charles I of Liechtenstein personifies the process of the post-White Mountain confiscations and the political and social changes in the post-White Mountain Czech lands. Between 1918 and 1945 he even became the subject of historiographical and journalistic discussion within Czech historiography, which was directly linked to the foundation and strengthening of the Czechoslovak Republic. These attitudes also led to discussions between historians standing on the side of the emergent Czechoslovak Republic and historians from the circle of the Prince of Liechtenstein. Contemporary research shows that the role of Charles I of Liechtenstein was by no means straightforward. This was due to the personal ambitions of the ruler of the emergent princely house, but also because of the complex historical context, when the representatives of the Central European aristocracy were searching for a place between the estates' community and the ruling dynasty. Charles I of Liechtenstein's case was also different due to geography and the individual countries where the Liechtensteins held positions, functions and offices. In the Margraviate of Moravia in particular, Charles I of Liechtenstein was the victim of confiscation declared during the Estates' Uprising. After the uprising had been defeated he could return to the country and reclaim his land. In Bohemia, Liechtenstein was rewarded for his loyalty to the Austrian house during the rebellion by soon becoming the emperor's commissar and then the emperor's governor. It was in that capacity that he arrested and tried the main rebels and presided over their execution at the Old Town Square. In the 1620s he organised the imperial confiscations in Bohemia. In Opava, which was gradually moving towards the Silesian principality, Liechtenstein attempted to enter as the supreme ruler and organise his own confiscations from this position. However, this manoeuvre came up against the interests of Emperor Ferdinand II and his central offices, which did not agree with such a division of the monarchy. But Charles I of Liechtenstein did make gains in Moravia, where he was awarded a large amount of property from his erstwhile opponent, the rebel provincial governor Ladislav Velen of Žerotín, the most important being the domain of Moravská Třebová. Charles I of Liechtenstein died in 1627 when, from the emperor’s perspective, peace and normality had finally returned to the Czech lands. His role in the confiscation process, albeit with certain dark shadows, nevertheless contributed towards the great advancement of the Princely House of the Liechtensteins, which would last for centuries.
One of the objectives of the Czech-Liechtenstein Commission of Historians was to try to chart the contemporary state of research into several historical themes which had been suggested as a result of the Czech-Liechtenstein declaration of 2009. This concerns the history of the Principality of Liechtenstein with a particular focus on Czech-Liechtenstein relationships, as well as on the history of the Princely House of Liechtenstein, again in relation to its activities on the territory of the Czech lands as well as in Central Europe. This overview of the literature shows that the history of the Liechtenstein family and its standing in Central European and European history has been a long-term presence in European historiography. The history of the Liechtenstein family has been studied within the context of aristocratic history/the history of social elites, the history of states, cultural and art history, as well as regional and local historiography. Within Czech historiography, the Liechtenstein family is typically present as part of the history of the Czech state and the history of Czech society, particularly in connection with the history of the medieval Czech kingdom, the history of the Battle of White Mountain, as well as relating to research into the foundation of the Czechoslovak Republic and the history of memory and identity. Therefore, the history of the Liechtenstein family differs substantially from the traditional histories of the nobility and individual aristocratic families. In terms of the historiography of Liechtenstein itself, there is a relatively close connection between the history of the Liechtenstein family and the Liechtenstein state.
In its first part, the present article presents the role of Peter Geiger as an historian and as cochairman of the Liechtenstein-Czech Commission of Historians. PD Dr. Peter Geiger has been the co-chairman of the Liechtenstein-Czech Commission of Historians for the last ten years. Between 2010 and 2020, he was one of its basic building blocks. In the commission, Associate Professor Geiger dealt mainly with the modern history of Liechtenstein and selected aspects of Liechtenstein-Czech relations. He prepared a crucial article on how frequently Czechoslovak and Czech topics figured in the pages of the Liechtenstein press, and thus what impression the ordinary citizen of the Principality of Liechtenstein could form of the original homeland of their princes. In the context of his research into Liechtenstein continuities and discontinuities, he again described the transformation of Liechtenstein from a somewhat marginal territory within the Liechtenstein states into the centre of life of the princely family. Peter Geiger's professional interest in the Liechtenstein-Czech Commission of Historians was divided between the history of the family and the history of the country and its inhabitants, especially in the area of property gains and losses. He therefore wrote two fundamental studies on the topic of the "Liechtensteins, Liechtenstein and Czechoslovakia in the 20th Century". The first of these deals with the efforts of the Liechtenstein family from 1938–1945 to regain and save the property they lost in connection with the so-called first land reform. Geiger's articles on the expropriation of Liechtenstein citizens living in Czechoslovakia after 1945 can thus be considered a fundamental topic. In the second part of the article, other contributions are then thematised and contextualised; these included in this "Liechtenstein" volume of the Studia Historica Brunensia journal.
On 24 May 2006, Thomas Winkelbauer was presented with an honorary doctorate at Masaryk University in Brno. On this occasion a laudation was given, summarizing Winkelbauer's work as a historian of the Early Modern Age, as well as his role in establishing contacts between Czech and Austrian historiography. Winkelbauer's main area of interest is the history of the Habsburg monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries in the widest geographical and methodological contexts. His research and publication activities cover the political, legal, social, economic, cultural and religious history of the period. Thomas Winkelbauer's academic work recently reached a new level with the publication of an extensive synthesis of the history of the Habsburg monarchy "Österreichische Geschichte 1522–1699. Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht", which was published as part of a series of "great" histories of Austria. Winkelbauer's office in the historical university building in Vienna’s Ring has become a natural meeting point for historians from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands.
Profesor Thomas Winkelbauer of the University of Vienna is a respected historian of the Early Modern Age. His bibliography reveals that a large part of his research work focuses on the princely Liechtenstein family, both in his monographs (in particular Gundaker of Liechtenstein and Karl of Liechtenstein), as well as contextually (as part of the history of the aristocracy in the Early Modern Age and the wider context of Austrian history). Thomas Winkelbauer wrote an important monograph on Gundaker of Liechtenstein, to which he later added specialist studies and editorial sources. He uses this Austrian-Moravian to demonstrate how the world of the aristocracy worked in the Early Modern Age. He also examines the themes of religion and conversion as one of the decisive elements directly linked to the political rise of individuals and families in the Early Modern Age. It is also important to remember that for Winkelbauer, the Liechtensteins represent "the aristocracy which knows no bounds". All of these issues are also addressed in Winkelbauer's outstanding synthesis on Austrian history in the 16th and 17th centuries.