Talk:Conditional noble

Invalid article title - Should be PREDIALIST
The term itself tells you to condition the nobility. Conditionality: If ... then ... So it does not exist historically. This is a misleading translation into English Conditional Noble. Namely in Latin it is said Nobilis predialis, not conditiones nobilitatis. Or a nobleman or not, there is no one in between. Therefore, the article title should be changed to Predialist

--Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Martyn Rady, who dedicated one of his books to the Hungarian nobility, uses the term "conditional noble" as an umbrella term for all categories of Hungarian semi-nobles . Consequently, I think the article, which is not dedicated to only one category of the semi-nobles, should not be renamed. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The oldest document related to the predominants is from 1217 - Golden Bull Andrew II in which he writes: ...Episcopus et Capitulum ejusdem, Nobis humiliter supplicando postularunt, ut nos omnia Privilegia super Praediis, possessionibus, et libertatibus alisq redditibus, tam a sancto Ladislao Rege, primo Fundatore Ecclesiae, tam etiam a Praedecessoribus Nostris sigili Nostri videlicet aureae Bulae munimine confirmaremus...

The following document is from Charles I of Hungary from 4 March 1318. Then from King Matthias Corvinus from 1467 in wich he writes:

...Nos itaq mandatis serenitatis vestrae ipsius obedientes ut tenemur juxta Mandatum ejusdem habentes certitudines de premissis, ad fide, nostram Deo debitam, Fidelitatem q Vestrae serenitati et suo sacro Diademati observandans, fatemur et attestamur praeattactos universos Nobiles Praediales jam fato Ecclesiae et Episcopatatis titulo, praerogativa et libertate ab antiquo...

Arhives of the Archidiocese of Zagreb, Protocol: 827 Processus Kirinich contra comitatum Zagrabiensis 1807-1816, pages 209-222.

Everything is in the archives of the Archdiocese of Zagreb. And the predominants have many documents in the same archive. All documents are written in Latin. There are no documents that would contain the conditiones nobilitatis phrase. Mr. Martyn Rady did not investigate in church archives.In church archives there are a lot of noble predialist. The book of Martyn Rady is poor with original documents and represents an understanding of an England on Hungary's and Croatia's history in the wrong way.If an English "historian" uses the term Conditional noble as a roof expression it does not mean he is right. On the contrary, Hungarian and Croatian historical aspects do not know conditionally nobility, so even semi-nobles. This is the view of a quasi-historian who has no idea about the relations within the Hungarian kingdom. Let him come to Zagreb to archbishopric archives and investigate the history of Croats in their original documents. Also the Hungarian History of Budapest in original documents. It is not enough to quote some old works, read them and understand them. Since there is no term "Conditional noble" in the original documents of the predecessors in the Archbishopric Archives of Zagreb, there is no such term as the predialist is wrong and the article has to be renamed.

--Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR and WP:Sources. Rady is a renowned historian whose books are published by renowned academic institutions and we are not in the position to challenge his views based on our research without referring to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not trust the Englishman. The English works for the interests of England, not for the interests of Hungary and Croatia. Reliable sources and how they exist. And the English academics are not sacred cows that they should not be allowed to oppose them. The Englishman can not write the history of either Hungarians or Croats. Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.185.206 (talk)

It is not good to base an article on English books and an English "historian". There are archival sources for predialist, and every true historian will go to check the smallest document, and will not sit in an armchair and write a letter. As far as Rady is concerned, he is not competent for the history of Croats and Hungarians. He is Professor of Central European History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies. And this is more a political school than an educational institution. Search Boroska's true sources, not Martyn Rady, who has no idea of the history of Hungarians and Croats.--193.198.185.206 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I had a chance to see a tantalizing book by Martyn Rady. It's about recent history. The book is "The breakup of Yugoslavia" from 1994. Where it tends to be true that Chetniks are guerrilla, and Croats are fascists, and that's not true. This book and this predialist is also how to verify the credibility of Martyn Rady as a historian. The English are not the center of the world and will not be. --193.198.185.206 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your above remarks suggest that you are not familiar with the basic principles of our community. I suggest that you should seek assistance at Teahouse before editing Wikipedia, because deleting content from a well-referenced article without referring to reliable sources could be regarded as a serious breach of our community rules and may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I requested a third opinion on the above issue . Please do not edit the article before the third opinion is provided. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion?
Hello, I found this page on the 'request for third opinion' page, I can offer to help. Having read what is above, I should point out that I do live in England (although personally, I am not English but British). It is possible some might feel that makes me biased, but I hope I can persuade you I might not be. I would be very much against the idea that "Englishmen" can impose on the history of Hungarians and Croats, however, I would point out that this is English-language wikipedia, and that should count for something. I am a native English speaker. Isn't the way forward to find consensus on the best term in English (language) for the title of the article? FrankP (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above remarks. I am a Hungarian, but I do not think that any English or British or Croat historian or editor want to "impose on the history" of my nation. Rady (who is an expert of the medieval history of Hungarian law) uses this term. How could we reach a consensus in accordance with WP policies if we ignore him? Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should examine all relevant sources of course, Borsoka, I agree. Just to be clear about what is involved, could I first clarify I have the right idea of what is disputed. Is it accepted that the usual Latin term found in contemporary documents was Nobiles Praediales or something similar? And presumably there are also suitable terms in Croat, Magyar and whatever are the relevant vernacular languages? The question is, what is the appropriate translation in English to be used as the title of the article? Is that correct? Are there any writers in English on this topic besides Rady that might help us determine what is normal academic usage in English? FrankP (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A possible alternative could be the expression "predialist", because Hungarian historians use the term "prediális nemes" ("predialist noble"). However, this term is regarded the synonym of a special group of conditional nobles, known in Hungarian as "egyházi nemesek" "nobles of the Church" as it is demonstrated by the relevant entry in Magyar történelmi fogalomtár, I. kötet: L–Zs [Thesaurus of Terms of Hungarian History, Volume I: L–Zs]: "prediális nemesek, egyházi nemesek" [predialists, nobles of the Church]. The same entry clearly refers to other groups of "conditionarius nemesek" [conditinal nobles]. (The Thesaurus is cited in the article.) Historian Pál Engel does not use the term "conditional noble", but he writes of "[s]everal communities enjoying [a] half-noble status", describing them as the "lowest stratum of those who were held to be "noble"" in his Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary (, page 84). Consequently we can conclude that there were several groups of "half-nobles" in Hungary (this term is invented by myself, based on Engel's wording) and they are collectivelly called "conditionarius nemesek" in Hungarian (according to the Thesaurus) and "conditional nobles" in English (according to Rady). Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty complicated then? We have several different categories of 'half-nobles' or whatever, and part of the problem, I am guessing, is that the distinctions between these groups are very infrequently discussed in English. Perhaps there is not a widely accepted term. I looked up the word 'predialist' in the OED and it really is barely in use at all (I certainly had never heard it). The OED quotes a few uses of the cognate terms 'predial' and so on (all quite archaic), but 'predialist' itself has exactly one cited usage, from 1762, and it seems to refer exactly to the group you mention as Nobles of the Church. It is such an obscure word in English it does not seem very useful as an article title. FrankP (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the subject is rarely discussed in English. On the other hand, we have a reliable source - a book written by a specialist, published by a renowned publishing house in English - that uses the term "conditional noble". I have not read other reliable sources, published either in English or in Hungarian, that challenge the use of this term. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is so, but there's a second problem now it seems to me, and that is to identify correctly which terms apply to which groups of people. I'd like to check I understand this point properly. You have identified the "nobles of the Church" with "prediális nemesek" or synonymously "egyházi nemesek". Then we have the present article, which describes a larger group that includes, but is not restricted to, the prediális / egyházi nemesek. The larger group can be referred to in Hungarian sources as "conditionarius nemesek". Is that right? In which case, "conditional noble" seems entirely reasonable for this page, and the (obscure) English word "predialist", if it is to be used at all, should be in the other article (the one about the prediális nemesek). FrankP (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you summarized the issue correctly., do you have any remarks? Borsoka (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have comments. The conditional noble name is obscure as well as semi-noble. In Croatia there were predialist who came to the title Baron. It is the Makar family, which at the time of liberation wars from the Turks in the late 17th century got the title baron. Also in Croatia, by the Croatian Parliament in 1752, a smaller part of the bishop's predialist was listed. Because they enjoyed all the rights of the nobility. But that was not over until the end.

It is a problem of Hungary and Croatia, which from 1945 to 1990 were under communism. And communist rulers practically in all respects defended the nobility, and through various quasi-scientific works. So only those papers that deal with the subject of the predialist are good ones that were made before 1945 or show original documents that speak the opposite of mine. states that Rady is an experta for the medieval history of Hungary. No expert is sitting in England and writing books without a single archive document. Expert becomes prolonged archival research and work on original documents. So if he's an expert on medieval history, why he deals with problems in relations between Croats and Serbs in the 1990s. It's like a veterinarian starts to heal people. England has long been pursuing its policy toward Eastern Europe. That is why, in England, such institutions as the School of Slavonic and East European Studies were created.There are also schools for other parts of the world, and in the interest of English politics.

I personally investigate historically about predialist. The term predialist binds to the Latin word predium - possession. I currently prescribe a court dispute between Valentino Kirinić, the predialist, and the Zagreb Church and the Zagreb County. In that document from 1808-1827. all the documents from 1217 to the Habsburg rulers were mentioned. So in these writings I also find in Latin: Prediales seu Nobiles Ecclesiae Vasalos. Namely, in 1094, King Ladislaus I of Hungary founded the Zagreb Diocese and gave possession of his possessions. Predialist are vassals of the church, not vassals of kings. Predialist are obliged to fight under the flag of the church, not under the royal flag. If the church opposes the king, then the predialist stand by the church. Also, predialist inherit their predominant possessions on the male line. Predialist did not pay tax to the king. Preachers could also be taken by priests, canons and bishops (after education and studies). Also every canon, and the canon could only be a nobleman, could have given his relatives a predominant possession. This is especially the case in Croatia, Varaždinske Toplice since the 12th century various gifts became property of the Church of Zagreb, before the donations were noble possessions, and the nobility remained afterwards. So even after that, they could not live up to their possessions. For example, the predialist properties are from the genus Škrlec whose ancestors were the cousins ​​of the Zagreb canonical. Also in the XVII. The century can also be Peter Knapich, whose cousins ​​became predialist. There are many such examples. The English had no such thing and they could not understand it.

That is why I think the title of the article should be Predialist, and in the article should be avoided the terms "conditional noble" and "semi-noble".

--Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dmitar Zvonimir, thank you very much for taking the trouble to give us your detailed and considered comments. I would like to take them up under several headings:


 * (1) I am not taking issue with the historical examples that you mention, my intention here is to ask the question of how best to word the article, and in particular what its title should be.


 * (2) "The English had no such thing" - yes agreed, indeed, the historical relations between nobles, church and crown were very different in Medieval England, as they were different again in Spain, Russia or the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is the function of the encyclopedia to explain these differences, and in this encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org) that needs to be in plain and precise English. Perhaps an increase in understanding for everyone can come from explaining it well.


 * (3) It's pretty clear the SSEES is a bona fide academic institution, a department of UCL, and that Rady himself is qualified to write on this subject. I suggest you stop with the Anglophobic and ad hominem attacks on Rady and his institution, that is not going to get you anywhere.


 * (4) Admitting this one source as citeable within Wikipedia does not mean there cannot be others -- if you think Rady is wrong, fine, great, (maybe he is?) -- but you have to convince by providing other sources, ones which do not constitute WP:original research, that might back up your argument. These can be weighed against the ones you disagree with. You actually have not done that in your comment.


 * (5) The disagreement here is how the particular classes of nobles concerned should best be described in English. Therefore the sources you cite must be those in the English language, by historians who are referring to the classes of nobility in Hungary, but using English terms which may translate Hungarian, Croat or Latin ones. This is a necessary and logical conclusion, it does not represent any "English imposition" concerning historicity. And of course it does not invalidate the primacy of the sources in Latin or Hungarian. But this is not Latin wikipedia.


 * (6) You have not commented on the distinction brought to light in my discussion with -- namely between the nobles described in this article (under the Hungarian heading "conditionarius nemesek") and those discussed in the article "nobles of the Church" who may be the more precise target of the term "prediális nemesek".


 * (7) In your comment here you have expressed a number of opinions but you have not cited relevant sources. We understand that your preference is for the article to be entitled 'Predialist', but wikipedia is not a vehicle for your personal preferences. Please cite sources which offer an alternative way to discuss in the English language the Hungarian terms "prediális nemesek", "egyházi nemesek" and/or "conditionarius nemesek".


 * FrankP (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And how there is a relevant source - in archives. I said Rady can not be called an expert if he's sitting in Englsek and writing there. There are numerous sources for various archives. Let him come and search. I have stated a credible source and there are many. That which does not exist in English does not really give rise to inaccuracies. Because the neuk then invoke English wikipedia. And I challenge anyone to find a source of archives in which to write conditionalis nobilitatis, conditionarius nemesek, or uvjetno plemstvo (conditional noble) - and let me in the digital photo give me a quotation of the archival source - which is the archive and the correct signature.

It is not believable that everyone is writing, but it is credible that it can be checked on the basis of archival sources. Latinski je bio jezik srednjeg vijeka i diplomacije, pa je velika većina dokumenata pisana i latinskim. Ima i manji broj dokumenata pisan hrvatskim ili mađarskim jezikom.
 * Machine translation of the above = "Latin was a language of middle ages and diplomacy, so the vast majority of documents were written in Latin. There is also a small number of documents written in Croatian or Hungarian." Please use English to make your points on the talk page, so the whole community can follow the discussion. This note added by FrankP (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that one archive source, and next week I will be all the confirmation of the rulers of Andrew II of Hungary to the Habsburgs, related to the term predialist.

Here I re-enter the archival source:Arhives of the Archidiocese of Zagreb, Protocol: 827 Processus Kirinich contra comitatum Zagrabiensis 1807-1816, pages 209-222.

That is why I remain with the title of the article to be a Predialist, to remove the words "conditional noble" and "semi-noble" from the article. For "conditional noble" and "semi-noble" historically in the Croatian-Hungarian kingdom never existed.


 * As it is demonstrated by references to two books published by historians above, the predialists were a class of conditional nobles/semi-nobles in Hungary, therefore we can conclude that this category did existed in Hungary. As per WP:Primary, any references to archives are irrelevant, because they are primary sources. Rady and Engels' view could only be challenged by references to works published by historians or other specialists of the subject of the article, as per WP:NOR., do you agree with the transfer of the expression "predialist" and its synonyms in other languages to the relevant article: Nobles of the Church (Kingdom of Hungary). Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Borsoka: based on the evidence provided, it does seem correct to transfer the references. But I am making it clear I am not knowledgeable on the topic so it's not really for me to make that call. I'm trying to put myself in the position of a potential reader of the article, and considering what I would need to make the subject clear to me. FrankP (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Slovak historian Vladimír Segeš identifies the predialists as "a special group in the service of the magnates and high church dignitaries." He adds that "Legally and socially [the predialists] belonged to the lowest level of the Hungarian nobility. ... As a reward for military service they might even obtain [an estate], which was called praedium... The peculiarity of this property was that its ownership and the right to inherit it were bound to the performance of the military (or other) obligations connected with the land. ... From the 16th century only a few prelates retained the right to maintain predialists." (Entry "predialists" in ) Segeš's words are fully in line with the views of Rady and Engel, who also emphasize that the predialists cannot be regarded fully-fledged noblemen. Segeš's words also suggest that the predialists were identical with the nobles of the Church. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That last point is the crucial one -- whether the Ten-lanced nobles and/or the nobles of Turopolje and other groups also fall under the praedialis label, or if it just the egyházi nemesek. FrankP (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dmitar: I'm sorry to say so but your engagement is verging on the disruptive. Your points have been made before, and answered. They do not conform to Wikipedia policy, as has been explained by myself and Borsoka. Yet now you repeat the same arguments. It is agreed that the primary sources are the basis of the historical record, nobody disputes that. But a source in Latin cannot tell us what the correct English term is, which is what is at issue. I do recognize your familiarity with the subject-matter, you could really help us, but do you understand the Wikipedia policy about types of sources? WP is not the place for your own analysis of primary sources. Please, if you want your point of view to be persuasive you would do well to understand and work within the relevant policies. It would be helpful to have your input on that basis. FrankP (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Following a step suggested on the policy page WP:Consensus I have posted requests for help on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Hungary and WP:WikiProject Croatia. FrankP (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already asked for some photos of the photographs to be published, on the basis of which Rady and Engel claim that the predialist are conditioned noblemen or semi-nobles. Today, everyone can go home without looking at any archive, writing any book with quotation, and that book does not have to answer the truth. I am looking to publish cited documents where it would have been proven that before 1945 the predialist were called conditional nobles. Such a document does not exist. The noblemen of Turopolje are the true noblemen, which was confirmed by the rulers' documents in the 16th century. There is a record of more than 400 noblemen of the then Križevci County and Zagreb County that the noblemen of Turopolis are free nobles, not Juraj Branderburg.

Let no one hide behind the role of a scientist unless he proves that such a document exists. The main character of the predicates, that they are not the subjects of the king, but the church, and that they correspond to churches and churches are paying taxes. There are a number of examples in Croatia where real noblemen became predialists; like Kirinic, Horvat, Bešenic, Žugec ... So it can not be said that the predominants are semi-nobles, or conditional nobles. The Croatian nobility has never used a term nobleman. That term was left after 1945 by those who hated every kind of nobility.--Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, nobody claims that the predialist were called conditional nobles before 1945. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I found a new source, written by a Hungarian historian and published in English, that uses the term: "Voivodes and cnezes who held this semi-noble status were identified in charters as 'noble voivode' or 'noble cnez' (nobilis voivoda, nobilis kenezius). Their social status was equivalent of that of the Hungarian 'conditional noble' (conditionarius), who was also burdened with defined services." . Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)