Talk:House of Koháry

palatines of Hungary, family of Clotilde of Kohary
memo for another thing:

Habsburg Palatines of Hungary:

1) Palatine, Archduke Joseph of Austria, 1776-1847, third wife M.Dorothea of Wurttemberg

2) Palatine, Archduke Stephen of Austria, 1817-67, only son of second wife, Hermine of Anhalt, unmarried, no leg issue

2) Palatine, younger half-brother Archduke Joseph of Austria, Palatine of Hungary, 1833-1905, m Clotilde of Kohary, 1846-1927, daughter of August and Clementine of Orleans (no Hung names yet to issue)

3) general (and emperor's grandson-in-law), Archduke Joseph August of Austria, 1872-1962, m Augusta of Bavaria, dg Leopold (son of regent Luitpold and Augusta of Tscany) and Archduchess Gisela of Austria (dg Emp FJ and Emp Elisabeth) (gave some H names to issue)

4) Archduke Joseph Francis of Austria, 1895-1957 (emperor FJ's great-grandson), m Anna of Saxony, daughter of F A III and Ludovica of Tuscany (their children bear Hungarian ethnic names)

5) Archduke Joseph Arpad of Austria, 1933-, m Maria of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg

6) Archduke Joseph, 1960-, m Margaret of Hohenberg

7) Archduke Joseph 1994-

First Palatine's daughters were Henriette to Belgium and Elisabeth, to Este and to Teschen two marriages

Third Palatine's and Kohary lady's daughters were Dorothea (Dorotya?) to claimant Orleans, and Margaret (Margit?) to Thurn-Taxis. The latter has wide descent: current Prince T-T, Saxony's royals, some Urach duke, some Liechtenstein, and others

the hyp fifth Palatine's (J Francis) one daughter Archduchess Ilona of Austria m Carlow Mecklenburg. current George Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg is their son.

Czabrag is now Čabrad, and Szitnya is Sitno, both in today's Slovakia. --Vladko 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Principality
Sorry, but what is the evidence that there ever was any principality of Koháry (or that it followed the Semi-Salic succession order)? AFAIK the title was standard Austrian princely title with no territorial possession being formed into principality Regards, Pavel --80.95.254.1 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there was no territorial principality, but the title was not Austrian, but of the Holy Empire recognised in Hungary. The last heiress who got married to a Coburg prince was "fiúsított", that is considered male by the Monarch in order to be able inherit the estates and preserve the family name. Her descendants bore the name Coburg-Koháry. WE should mention rather Princes Koháry (de Szitnya et Csábrág), and not Princes of Koháry. --Koppany 14:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. How can the title be an imperial one, bearing in mind that it was given some 8 years after the dissolution of the Empire? Also, how and when the name change occured? I am aware of the fact that they were sometimes commonly called S-C-Koháry, but would love to know if they legally bore such name (I believe that in his 1827 Hungarian naturalisation the husband was called only Ferdinánd Szász-Koburg-Gotha herczeg and am curious about name change/addition alluded to in this connection). Finally I do not think that simple adoption of name (if there was one in the first place) is accompanied by transition of title as well - it is stated in various related Wikipedia articles that so-and-so assumed the title of the Kohary family and took the name of X, Prince of Kohary or Saxe-Coburg-Kohary etc., but did subsequent owners of former Koháry estates really legally used Koháry princely title or name? I do not know about any formal approval of such title transition and therefore these mentions should be deleted. Pavel --80.95.254.1 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was wrong, I checked and the princely title was really a Austrian one. I am going to check other sources and answer you. --Koppany 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mária Antónia Koháry was "fiúsított" by the Monarch. "Fiúsítás" (in Latin: praefectio) was a special legal title in Hungarian nobility law: the daughter of the last male member of the noble family was declared de iure male by the King and thus her children could inherit the mother's noble estates, surname and title. The title Prince Koháry was, however, not attached to the estates (because there was no territorial principality), so the descendants can bear the title without being in possession of those estates. Hungarian genalogist Zoltán Ferenczy lists Coburg-Koháry family among princely familes in Hungary. Baron Gudenus writes under Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha: "The naturalized line took the surname Coburg-Koháry, but they dont use it anymore." Unfortunately I was not able to find anything about formal approval, but I have only Hungarian Royal Books and not Austrian ones, since the title itself was Austrian. My opinion is that by the act of "fiúsítás" of Mária Antónia Koháry her children ipso iure have had the right to bear the mother's name and titles. So, maybe the descendants currently dont bear the surname Koháry, but they do the title Prince Koháry. As they also hold a lot of other titles of count and baron. --Koppany 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining fiúsítás to me (is there any work on this topic? English, German, French, Russian, Slovak, Czech, Polish languages preferred, sorry), but I do not think that it could be used for transmission of non-Hungarian titles - surely its use was limited to the Hungarian ones only. Could you per chance tell me if the S-C-G Hungarian naturalisation (Law Article XLI of 1827, I believe. BTW what was the Hungarian designation of Indigenat?) included Hungarian recognition of this Austrian title?
 * I am not very familiar with Mr Ferenczy's work - I think I have seen some lists of Hungarian nobility prepared by him that included e.g. UK Baron or French Duke without any mention why they should be considered members of Hungarian nobility, which looked to me quite … ummm … interesting decision. Now Mr Gudenus appears to be quite good and meticulous scholar with well-researched publications and as even he does not give any detail I am inclined to be more cautious with the “surname change” assumption. No information on this can be found in Gothaischer Hofkalender, which would surely include such title and/or name in the relevant Saxon entry. Hmmmm. It seems that I should broaden my original query: is there any evidence that the Koháry princely title survived extinction of princely Kohárys? Pavel --80.95.254.1 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pavel! Ingigenat is a form of naturalisation of noble persons, that is official acceptance of a foreign noble as member of Hungarian nobility. If this person already bore a title this fact always was mentioned in the relevant article. Sometimes foreign nobles were indigenatised and entitled at the same time. Unfortunately I found only Hungarian sources about "fiúsítás" eg. Fiúsítás. For me it is evident that by fiúsítás Koháry surname and Hungarian titles were inherited by Antónia Koháry's son. However, because the princely title was Austrian, your query and doubts seem to be justified. Should we consider the prince Koháry title as a courtesy title? --Koppany 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what does Indigenat mean, I just wanted to know how is it called in Hungarian - is the term "Indigenat" used as well?
 * I am somewhat uneasy about Koháry princely title being considered simply a courtesy one. Why? Is there any evidence that S-C-G use(d) it for themselves and/or that it is/was given to them by their peers? If not, it should be deleted as non-existent. I see that User:Maed who brought the information into this Article did not post since December 2006, but User:Aldebaran69, who propagated this title into various biographies is still active. Maybe s/he knows something we don't?
 * BTW at what date was Mária Antónia Koháry "fiúsított" by the King? Does fiúítás mean residual right to request the mother's name and titles (ie. if the descendants ask, their request was automatically accepted) or was it kinda more (actual legal transmission of name and titles that should be observed by anyone - even the descendants themselves - since the date of fiúítás)? Regards, Pavel --193.85.23.1 09:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indigenat in Hungarian is indigenátus or honfiúsítás. Yes, it is evident that S-C-G or maybe more correctly S-C-Saalfeld used it. I don't know the exact date of "fiúsítás" but I found the following: Koháry Ferenc Antal halála (1826) után egy évvel - a megfelelő törvények kihírdetése után - Ferdinánd Sachen-Coburg-Gotha herceg fölvette a Koháry nevet is that is: One year after the death of Ferenc Antal Koháry (1826) - after the announcement of the relevant laws - Prince Ferdinand S-C-G took the name Koháry. (Citation from the book: Alexander Gjurov: "Évszázadok öröksége. A magyarok nyomai bolgár földön" Magyar Kultúrális Intézet, Gutenberg Kiadó, Szófia, 2003). --Koppany 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I rermember well, Iván Nagy, who was the most known Hungarian genealogist also refer them as Coburg-Koháry and they was called so during at least a century in Hungarian publications and also in some Slovak ones. Even SCG Family Archive uses Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry name: http://www.archivinformationssystem.at/Detail.aspx?ID=1256 --Koppany 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we can conclude the legality of the existence of the S-C-G-K name, thanks for that. Now what are we going to do about the claimed Prince of Koháry title/principality? Pavel --80.95.254.1 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pavel. To talk about Prince or Principality of Koháry is completely wrong. Nevertheless, I guees, but have no proofs, that the primogeniture title Prince Koháry also exists. --Koppany 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But nothing indicates that the Austrian title "Prince Koháry" or "Prince von Koháry" could descend in the female line. The fact that Hungarian law allowed the surname and property to descend in the female line should be mentioned, but that is a different matter. We have found no evidence that the heirs or descendants of Princess Antonia Koháry de Szitnya et Csábrág by Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were either Fürsten or Prinzen Koháry: Their only verified princely title derived from the fact that they were cadets of the sovereign Saxon dynasty. Reference to any Coburg "Prince of Koháry" and to any "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry" princes should be removed, unless someone provides a proper source for these titles.Lethiere 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of titles Princes of Koháry, but insist on the use of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry surname where applicable. --Koppany 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, would you agree with this rather abriged version of Article?:
 * "Koháry was a Hungarian noble family and was a magnate of Hungary with its seat at Csábrág, now Čabrad within Slovakia."


 * "In 1815, the head of the house, the then imperial chancellor Francis Joseph (1760-1826), was given Austrian princely title, with domains of Čabrad and Sitno, both in modern-day Slovakia (Csabrag, Szitnya). Only one child, daughter named Antonia (1797-1862), was born from his marriage to Maria Antonia Countess of Waldstein-Wartenberg. Antonia was proclaimed heiress of the name (fíúsítót) and subsequently her husband Ferdinand, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha took name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry."
 * Pavel--80.95.254.1 06:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, only suggest a small change regarding place names. That time Hungarian names were officials, now Slovak ones:

"Koháry was a Hungarian noble family and was a magnate of Hungary with its seat at Csábrág, now Čabrad within Slovakia."
 * "In 1815, the head of the house, the then imperial chancellor Ferenc József (1760-1826), was given Austrian princely title, with domains of Csábrág and Szitnya, both in modern-day Slovakia (Čabrad, Sitno). Only one child, daughter named Antónia (1797-1862), was born from his marriage to Countess Maria Antonia von Waldstein-Wartenberg. Antónia was proclaimed heiress of the name (fíúsított) and subsequently her husband Ferdinand, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha took name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry." --Koppany 10:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, one more problem: Csábrág and Szitnya had been already in possession of Kohárys when the princely title was granted. --Koppany 10:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I always thought it was Latin that was official, not Hungarian. Nevertheless it seems we are nearing the final version, whaddya think?:
 * "Koháry was a Hungarian noble family and was a magnate of Hungary with its seat at Csábrág and Szitnya, now Čabrad and Sitno within Slovakia."


 * "In 1815, the head of the house, the then imperial chancellor Ferenc József (1760-1826), was given Austrian princely title. Only one child, daughter named Antónia (1797-1862), was born from his marriage to Maria Antonia Countess of Waldstein-Wartenberg. Antónia was proclaimed heiress of the name (fíúsított) and subsequently her husband Ferdinand, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha took name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry."
 * Pavel--193.85.23.1 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this version is fine. I wrote Hungarian names were official not Hungarian language. Indeed, till 1844 Latin was the official language, but place names even in Latin texts and official registers if there was no Latin name for the town or village in question Hungarian names were used officially with very rare exceptions. --Koppany 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agree to this compromise version, corrected with insertions of grammatical articles (e.g. "was given an Austrian princely title" and "took the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry"). Good work, guys! Lethiere 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian Koháry
Concerning my deletion on Bulgarian title holders - as ascertained previously (see above), the Austrian princely title did not descend through women and therefore only one Prince Koháry existed (Francis Joseph). Geneall.net is not reliable source. Regarding Simeon's "cession" of the title, a) he cannot cede what he does not hold; b) Austrian titles were abolished in 1919; c) even if he did hold this title, Austrian titles could not have been "ceded" in such a way. Regards --Poko (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What may be concluded from the discussion above is only that there are doubts about the passing of the title Furst Kohary to the descendants of MAK and FSCG because it was not used since. What I can add is that according to jurisprudence in the transmission of titles of european nobility where a female last member of a given family is declared "heiress of the name", the husband takes the name of the heiress, the arms, the domains and also the titles(see Princes of Monaco and Dukes of Northumberland as examples). so : 1- Several Almanachs de Gotha, refer the name change of Prince Ferdinand. 2 - That the Koháry domains (in Hungary but also in Austria - Walterskirchen and Ebenthal) were inherited is a fact, and the austrian ones are still the property of members of the S-C-G family. 3 - So it can only be concluded that the title was also transmitted and "de iure" kept being so. The fact that it was not used may be explained with the fact that a much more important title was used by the descendants of Marie Antonie - Dukes in Saxe and Princes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. As for the valid argument of Poko that austrian titles can not be ceded this way, it is not the role of administrators to decide on such matters, but to inform on what is the use, in this case on royal families, especially on a matter decided by the undisputed head of this branch of the Saxe-Coburg family. That austrian titles have been abolished since 1919, also a valid argument, but the wikipedia articles on descendants of austrian noble families mention their titles. It would be very polemic in name of coherence, to change all those articles. So the title is used now,and was ceded, but someone doesn't agree with the king of bulgaria's decision, I ask should it not be published? Also the sites geneall.net and online gotha are used as reference in many other articles on wikipedia, they are reliable and a extensive source of information to genealogists. Castera (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. There is no jurisprudence in the transmission of titles of european nobility, quite the contrary - there are independent systems of different states that might have certain aspects in common, but must nevertheless be always taken separately. Also, while the sites geneall.net and online gotha are used as reference in many other articles on wikipedia, they still remain self-published sources and do not conform to requirement of reliability as established by the relevant Wikipedia policy. Austrian sources with quite different level of reliability confirm only the adoption of the name and not the title; your conclusion on the transmission of the title thus lacks any factual basis. Note also that the above-mentioned policy contains the following sentence: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. - incidentally, there is no mention of the alleged ″cession″ of this title on the official website of Mr Sakskoburggotski. Regards --Poko (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * for your information the declaration of an "heiress of the name" follows a certain logic and procedure that is common to every independent system - I guess genealogical and legal background are necessary to understand it. At least try to read carefully and impartially what has been discussed above concerning the Kohary title. As for the austrian sources you mention, if reliable in your opinion, they are lacking in content.
 * Anyway no matter how much it despleases you that "mr sakscoburgotski" has a right to the kohary title, and has ceded it, it is done and is accepted by whoever matters. Obviously when it is published on "mr sakscoburggotski" site or any other source it will probably be considered self-published by people like you. It has been a very illustrative talk on the level of those intervening in wikipedia in terms of reliability and imparciallity, for that thank you. On the other hand that same level is enough to prevent me from loosing anymore time or ever returning to this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castera (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the genealogical and legal background are necessary to understand this issue, particularly the fact that Hungarian internal matters were completely separated from other Hapsburg-Lorraine hereditary lands in the first half of 19th century and that this independence was fiercely guarded by Hungarian magnates. As such, there is nothing that would suggest that a declaration of an “heiress of the name” in one land could have had any effect on the status of the same person within another jurisdiction; note in this connection that the declaration originated in Hungary, while the title was an Austrian one. Concerning the alleged “lack in content” in Austrian sources referred above, the Biographisches Lexikon des Kaisertums Österreich explicitly calls Francis Joseph (†1826) the “first and only”/“first and also the last” Prince - I fail to see how you could describe such a definite statement as a lack in content. I also note that you have not addressed the last objection from my post of 26 April. Nevertheless, because of your decision not to lose anymore time or ever return to this talk, I cannot but bid you farewell. Yours sincerely --Poko (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koháry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927171146/http://www.msa.sk/en/museum/history.html to http://www.msa.sk/en/museum/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish?
The idea was around in the nineteenth century that the family was Jewish, and that ‘Kohary’ was a Hungarianization of the Jewish name ‘Cohen’. See here:

Evening Telegram, February 25th, 1897

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=35&dat=18970225&id=3QFMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7zoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4414,6138839&hl=en

The article should state definitely, with proper sources, the religion of the family. If this notion is false, some account of how it got started, and how it was used at the time would also be helpful. Even false notions are part of the history of a subject. 88.84.2.117 (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)