Talk:Doctrine of the Holy Crown

Fontos lenne megemlíteni h a Szt Korona az egy koronázó korona volt és az aktus után nem nagyon viselték.

Másik: nem hiszem h csak és kizárólag (vagy főként) az un. "szélsőjobb" csoportok osztanák e tant.

Valahol hallottam h korabeli irásemlékek mindig Fehérvárt emlegetnek és nem Székesfehérvárt, holott az igazi (nagy) MO területén 4 fehérvár nevű település is létezett (minimum). Továbbá lehetett mégegy a Pilisben etc. és ez valószínűbb helyszín a Korona tárolására és akár a koronázásra. Ezzel kapcsolatosan töredékesek az infóim de utána kéne járni, nem velem vitatkozni. Csak érdekességképpen említettem.

Neutrality
There is no discussion on the neutrality of this page so I remove the flag in the article. Abdulka (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article asserts that Hungary invented, among other things, the ideas of popular sovereignty and equality of all men in the 11th century, 700 years before these ideas even became widespread in Europe, and established them and maintained them all that time as the basis of its statehood. This is a very strong claim. The sources are only Hungarian, in Hungarian, and, incidentally, the claim benefits a Hungarian nationalist, idyllic view of that nation's history. For me, this is a sufficient reason to strongly doubt the neutrality of the article. If Hungary did indeed indeed invent the basis of modern Western democracy, and that at such an unlikely time, I would expect someone else but Hungarian historians to have noticed that.

The situation is aggravated by many oddities and further inconsistencies. For example, the article acknowledges that the doctrine was "passed on verbally only" until 1517, which suggests that there is no source for its nature or existence before that time and all claims about the doctrine before that date are pure speculation by Hungarian historians. On the other hand, another part of the text claims that the doctrine is indeed "written in the admonitions of Stephen I to Prince Imre" (11th century); it is implied that these written admonitions proclaim that the Holy Crown "symbolizes and is itself" the country, the citizens of the country, the administrative system, the Christian religion, the person of the sovereign, the sovereign's properties and abilities, the judicial institutions, the righteous judicial act, the tolerance for foreigners, and the defence of the country. It is reasonable and indeed trivial that the Crown should symbolize these things in a mediaeval state, but the claim that it somehow is all these things seems absurd. It is in fact oxymoronic: by definition, a symbol is an entity that symbolizes something other than what it is, so it is impossible to both be something and symbolize that something at the same time. The conclusion that this list, whatever its original form or source, implies popular sovereignty, the Crown's status as a living entity and equality of all citizens is very far-fetched; one might as well conclude that the true sovereign of Hungary is "Tolerance for Foreigners", which is also on the list of things that the Holy Crown supposedly "is".

Even the 1517 "codification" doesn't seem to include these popular sovereignty: "the body of the Holy Crown is the territory of the country, its members are the citizens of the country; the source of all the power and rights is the Holy Crown, the sovereign acts only in the Crown's name; in the case of forfeiture of property the estate escheats to the Crown and the king may bestow it again only because the rights of the Holy Crown were assigned to him when he was crowned." The Crown is obviously the State, and while it's admirable that the doctrine distinguishes theoretically between the State and the person of the monarch, the vague statement that citizens are "members" (membra? "limbs"? "organs"?) or part of the "body" of the State does not entail their sovereignty or any form of democratic control over it. The last time I checked, my "members" or organs did not exercise control over me; it's usually vice versa.

Finally, calling this doctrine "the Hungarian approach to political power" is trivially POV, because it suggests that any other approach would be un-Hungarian; also, it is not clear that the majority of Hungarians support or even know about the existence of this doctrine. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not an expert of the theme.


 * "ideas of popular sovereignty and equality of all men in the 11th century, 700 years before these ideas even became widespread in Europe,"


 * Incorrect statement. You confuse the ancient greco-roman civilization (in its heigt) with the dark reality of medieval 11th century. These ideas were a (re)invention at time.


 * " For example, the article acknowledges that the doctrine was "passed on verbally only" until 1517," Wrong again. There were more than 32 royal statue-books before 1517. The codex of 1517 was just a collection of the operative laws statue-books.


 * "On the other hand, another part of the text claims that the doctrine is indeed "written in the admonitions of Stephen I to Prince Imre" (11th century)...... It is reasonable and indeed trivial that the Crown should symbolize these things in a mediaeval state, but the claim that it somehow is all these things seems absurd."
 * Again,these medieval material poofs of laws books or admonitions exist, there are no scholars who denied them. There were two medieval countries where the modern idea and terms of the state were born: Hungary and England. Why? Because both country were less effected by feudalism (in the judiciary term). Feudalism become backward in its first birthday.


 * The "body of Hungary and the H.crown" meant the royal-council in the age of saint Stephen. Later, the crown (the country and nation) meant the medieval parliament, and the parliamental supremacy over the kingship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.156 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Medieval Hungarian State


 * (The Differences between Hungarian Kindom and Feudal Europe)


 * "Medieval Hungarian constitutional development made the power of Hungarian Kings the most efficient one of medieval age, and that reason was the absence of feudalism. No doubt, infiltrations of feudalism, as prevalent through-out Europe, are to be found in old Hungarian institutions, but as an accidental inter-mixture only, not as their essence and chief feature. That blending of public prerogative with rights belonging to the sphere of private law, which is the essence of feudalism never prevailed in the organisation of Hungarian public powers, never broke their action on the nation as a whole. To this early prevalence of public law in the government of the country do Hungary owe not only a superior efficiency not detrimental to liberty of Hungarian public powers, but in connection with it an early growth of conscious national unity, of patriotism on broad lines, at a time when tribal feeling and feudal allegiance sub-divided all European nations into small units which paralysed each other, and into a corresponding fractional mentality adverse to the very idea of State and to inchoate national feeling." ( Count Albert Apponyi: "The juridical nature of the relations between Austria and Hungary" Arts and Science Congress, held at United States St. Louis in 1904 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.156 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on the theme, but I'm not a Hungarian nationalist either. As for Greece, you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. As for mediaeval law books proving the doctrine's validity, the article not only doesn't mention them, but indeed its phrasing explicitly excludes such a thing. All in all, your claim of Hungarian uniqueness, supported by your nationalistically and politically motivated 19th century Count, should be sourced with something else than Hungarian sources.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

( Are you Bulgarian? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.78.186 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand all concerns of POV, but you shouldn't flame, the constitution was not AGAINST anybody (ie. the Hungarian kings were coronated with "I will defend my country" while the German/Austrian kings as "I will grow my country"). The article is not nationalistic, but is based on FACTS. Even Hungarians are now trying to recover this constitution, as during Austro-Hungarian and Communist regime, this was biased or even deleted. What is fact is that it is not "written to the stone", it is an "organic" constitution, so this is why it is flexible, more flexible than any system we know about today. It can even work outside of Monarchy in the frame of Republic. in Miklos Horty time Hungary had no king, but was a monarchy! Can any other monarchy be stable like this? No. On the other hand the system quite paradox, as it is both simple and complicated (depends on how you look at it).
 * "This article asserts that Hungary invented, among other things, the ideas of popular sovereignty and equality of all men in the 11th century, 700 years before these ideas even became widespread in Europe, and established them and maintained them all that time as the basis of its statehood."
 * If you checked the origin of Holy Crown of Hungary you could have seen that the origin of the crown is not known, It is also not known that why it is called "Holy" (but it was called like that for a millenium...). The complete system is based on the crown so the Doctrine should come after it. In this regard, we don't know where the system is coming from, but is sure the offspring of several thoughts. It is FACT that this kingdom (system) is absolutely not following the traditional West European political system. It is not saying it "invented" popular sovereignty and equality of all men, it is saying it was FOLLOWING this rule AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (this is an important distinction). Pls note that the it is widely known that the first constitution was in Iceland, the second is from Hungary. The Golden Bull was just few years later than the Magna Charta.
 * "there is no source for its nature or existence before that time and all claims about the doctrine before that date are pure speculation by Hungarian historians."
 * The first written constitution was by Apponyi, true, but the constitution is consise with the complete legal system, the the general ownership; and the state administration is also managed by this constitution! This is the role of consitution!


 * "in the case of forfeiture of property the estate escheats to the Crown and the king may bestow it again only because the rights of the Holy Crown were assigned to him when he was crowned"
 * It was the case for several cases that some people were trying to forfeit it, but the mere fact is that it is assembled in a way that it is highly impossible to forfeit it (translucent enamel technology). A better and more easier job is to put another crown in the place of the original, claiming to be the "Holy", but it was never working (ie king Vladislav(Ulaszlo)) when the crown was "kidnapped"). Again a mistery, we don't know why this crown is such of importance, but it is the Holy Crown only which is capable of supporting the complete system.


 * "Finally, calling this doctrine "the Hungarian approach to political power" is trivially POV, because it suggests that any other approach would be un-Hungarian; also, it is not clear that the majority of Hungarians support or even know about the existence of this doctrine"
 * Show us another example, I assure you that - so far - there is none another. If this is unique, we have the right to call it this way. To answer to your last question, I believe majority of the Hungarians doesn't know what this is. This is becasue of the biasing I referred to in the beginning.

Severe Issues
Maybe the whole article should be simply deleted. All the sources that are meant to support the main claims of the article are inadequate. No academic publications or encyclopedic sources are used. I highly doubt that most of the content is anything more than a collection of myths, as there is no evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente Frindt (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to http://verfassungsblog.de/verfassungsbarbarei-budapest-2, the draft of the new constitution for Hungary contains a reference to the Holy Crown ... --JensMueller (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * so? What has this factoid got to do with the bizarre and confused piece on this page? --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)