Talk:Hungarian nobility/Archive 2

Slovak Nobility section

 * 1. In: Lukačka, J.: Úloha šľachty slovanského pôvodu pri stabilizácii uhorského včasnofeudálneho štátu (Mission of the nobility of Slavic origin during the stabilization of the Hungarian Kingdom in the early middle ages). Lukacka is an important Slovak historian also a member of Slovak-Hungarian historian commission. He made hypothesis that Hunt-Poznan (Hont-Pazmany) family lines were originally Slavs whose took the place in Hungarian nobility. The main proof is an archival document about the donation to monastery in the Nitra region from this family before the arrival of Hungarians to the region of present Slovakia. So local Slavic leaders were included to the "Natio Hungarica" in the same time as Magyar leaders (so I dont agree with this: "The local Slavic leaders also got into the nobility during the centuries." Lot of Magyar leaders has a Slavic wives (Moravian, Russian, Proto-Slovak) and their descendants were Magyars or Slavs or with mixed identity). 2 I was reading some sources and about the "Slovak nobility" (of course proud members of natio hungarica) we can talk from the time of Royal Hungary. First time it was used (I mean in historic time) term Slovak nobleman (or Slovak member of natio hungarica) for Juraj Ottlyk (Gyorgy) by proffesor Szarka László and Konya Peter (http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2008_03/cikk.php?id=1652). So from the 16-17th century we can talk about Slovak nobility. Lower Slovak nobility had an important role in Slovak national revival. I would like to add here a rubric about Hungarian Slavic and later Slovak nobility (of course the part of content in the main article and with discussion). Who agree, please write the comment below my comment. --85.216.253.245 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea to give a new section for the Slavic/Slovak nobles because this subject needs clarification. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hont-Pázmány genus had Swabian ancestry your opinion is an alternative research.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am just thinking, If Csak genus had have been autochthonous people in Upper Hungary, why their earliest ancient possessions were located around the Vértes Hills in Transdanubia; Csákvár? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover, 'Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum' is written by  Simon of Kéza (about Csáks),  Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum is another record.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What migration?
The claim that Romanians "migrated" into the territory conquered by Hungarians, especially in Transylvania, is not based on anything, except on the Hungarian ideology of the 19th century. The same ideology unwilling to take into account good sense, science, and the medieval Hungarian historiography itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.115.243 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An idea fully in line with the Romanian tradition on the establishment of Wallachia and Moldavia, referring to their ancestors' migration to the Kingdom of Hungary sometime in the 13th century. The immigration of Romanians into Transylvania and Banat continued up until the 21th century. Medieval Hungarian historiography does not contradict to this picture. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is not right to ignore the theory of the Daco-Roman continuity (no matter how skeptical you personally are about it). The phrase mainly Slavic, German and Romanian colonists who immigrated to the kingdom during the 11th-15th centuries lacks neutrality and wrongly asserts that is a consensus about the fact that Slavs and Romanians reached the kingdom after Hungarians. Cenamol (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The core of the Hungarian nobility was made up of Hungarian tribal leaders. !Later!, of course, this group absorbed "non-Hungarian" elements. Royal records proves that the Hungarian kings gave lands and titles to foreigners (knights, colonists). Your claim is only a theory. I am not even sure that scholarly works mention that "Daco-Romanian" leaders 'melt' into the Hungarian nobility. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * László Makkai writes here about ennobled Romanian families. We can't say for sure when those families arrived in Transylvania, to call them "colonists to the Hungarian land" does not cover the full spectrum of theories about the origin of the Romanians. Cenamol (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Makkai writes that there were no Romanian nobles before the 15th century (in Transylvania). "In the 14th century, there were no Romanians in Transylvania who had full noble status." and the "the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of János Hunyadi". Beside that Makkai also states that there is a recognizable pattern of Romanian migration to Kingdom of Hungary. (e.g. "There is no doubt that this dynamic pattern, accompanied by frequent changes in toponyms, owed to a massive influx of Romanians. In one Romanian district of the Severin Province, five villages were recorded in 1365, and thirteen in 1404, with only one appearing in both lists. The process of migration did not end there, for in 1510, the district encompassed 36 villages, of which only two had existed in 1404. The appearance of new toponyms confirms that Romanian settlements became stabilized only at the end of the Middle Ages."). Fakirbakir (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My impression was that you are contesting the fact that there existed nobles of Romanian origin who were absorbed into the Hungarian nobility. Makkai is a supporter of the immigrationist theory and his toponymic observations are certainly interesting. But it is a fact that, according to a non-negligible historical view, Romanians did live in Transylvania much before the 15th-century ennoblements (and they were not colonists to Hungary). Cenamol (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Lesser nobility (Kingdom of Hungary) be merged into Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. I think the content in the "Lesser nobility (Kingdom of Hungary)" article can easily be explained in the context of this article. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to do the merge because nobody disagreed with my proposal. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary → Hungarian nobility – The subject refers to the noble families of the Kingdom of Hungary. Beside the legal history of the nobility [post-WW1 and post-WW2 issues also belong to the subject (+ after the Second World War we can't even talk about "kingdom")], I think, due to the living descendants of the Hungarian nobles, it is a current topic too. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to be the general way of doing things in categories. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the topic of the "Transylvanian" nobility also belongs to this subject. After the collapse of the medieval kingdom, Transylvania became an Ottoman tributary state for 150 years (I know sometimes it had dual vassalage), even if it was regarded as an inalienable part of the Hungarian kingdom by the vassal princes. The history of the former landowner nobles in Ottoman Hungary would also deserve a section in the article. The "age of the principality" (895-1000) is an important part of the subject, however Hungary was not even a kingdom at that time. Between 1918 and 1920 there was no Hungarian kingdom but Hungarian Democratic Republic and Hungarian Soviet Republic. The subject refers to the period from 895 until 2014, therefore, the use of the word "kingdom" may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. More concise without losing anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead
, what about my below suggestions?


 * The sentence "The nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary concerns the noble families of the Kingdom of Hungary." says nothing ("men in the house are men who are in the house"). Instead, I suggest the following sentence: "The nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary consisted of a privileged group of laymen, most of whom owned inheritable landed property, between around 1250 and 1946."
 * The above sentence could be followed by the next sentence: "However, late 12th-century charters only mentioned the highest dignitaries of the royal court and the heads, or ispáns, of the counties as "noblemen"." We should make it clear that the meaning of the word "nobleman" changed: initially it only referred to the highest officials.
 * The sentence "The core of the medieval nobility were native lords, who traced the origins of their families back to Hungarian tribal chiefs who had lived at the time of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895; their claim can rarely be proven." is misleading and contains OR. Actually, there were only about 20 noble families who traced back their origins to the time of the Conquest. Instead, I suggest the following "Most of them were native lords, who traced the origins of their families back to Hungarian tribal chiefs who had lived at the time of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895; their claim can rarely be proven. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Now I understand why the "ispan" is so important in the lead. However a native English speaker may find it confusing (IMO, I am not native ES). I would suggest to feature your explanation in the lead, somehow. I wanted to emphasize the "core" because, as opposed to the events after the Ottoman Wars, the medieval nobility consisted of mainly native lords. I mean regarding the ancestry of the nobles, there is a big difference between the medieval and the post-Ottoman periods. I agree "native lords" is far better wording, however I am not sure we should mention this "tribal chief genealogy", the first part of the sentence "The core of the medieval nobility were native lords" would be enough IMHO. The point is that the "majority" were natives regardless of their relations to the "tribal chiefs" (these natives can be ethnic Hungarians too even if they do not have tribal chief ancestors). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand. Alszom rá egyet (=I will think of it). :) Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yurts
Answering to the question "which?", the author does not specify which source mentions the useage of Yurts. Cited (p.209): "A magyar szakirodalomban jelentős helyet kapott a kerek nemezsátor, azaz a jurta régészeti kimutatásának kérdése, de eddig ilyen objektumnak még nem sikerült egyértelmű régészeti nyomát találni, pedig még a 12. századból is ismerünk rá vonatkozó írott adatot." Fakirbakir (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that there are quite lot of records which mention "tents" (e.g. works of Muslim travellers). However I am not sure about "Yurts". Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, why do we need to write this. Is there any reliable source which says that Muslims wrote of Hungarian noblemen living in tents? If there is no positiv statement about the jurts, why do we state that there is no evidence of their existence? Should we write in an article of Queen Elizabeth that there is no evidence that she can sing operas or make pancakes, and nobody says that she is a mass murderer??? Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the article the nobles didn't live in castles in the 10th century. It is just weird to mention where nobles didn't live. Where did they live? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A reliable source stated that they obviously did not live in fortified places, because there are no (for instance, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian) fortified places that can be dated to the 10th century. Is there a WP policy which forbids negative statements if they are based on reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Multi-roomed houses
, is there a reference in the source cited to a connection between the multi-roomed houses and Hungarian notabilities or noblemen or tribal chiefs? Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No there isn't. However, it may be important, we get some information crumbs about the castle warriors' houses in Ballassa's book (p 292, Hungarian ethnography) " Némi építészeti eltérés azonban már Szent István törvényeiben megfigyelhető a népesség közép- és alsó rétegei körében is. A király dekrétumainak második könyvében olvasható a különbség a vitézek (miles) udvarát, házát (domus) és a közemberek kunyhóját (mansiunculas) megtámadók büntetése között, ami talán nemcsak az érintettek társadalmi helyzetére, hanem az építmények eltérő értékére is utal." Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a relevant piece of information, so we should add this piece of info. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2
There is a two years old merger proposal. I support it. Nobility and royalty of the Kingdom of Hungary is an unsourced, badly written article. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done it. The redundant, unsourced and duplicated parts should be deleted. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

duplicated text
Could you please express your opinion on this issue, here: Fakirbakir (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My main concern that it is OR (a study on a decree based on the decree). Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Regency
I added a section for Horthy's regency. It needs to be filled in. I will do so if I have time, or someone else can if they get to it first. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Patent of nobility example
Hi everybody, it could be to get an example of Hungarian patent of nobility. I mean, the original picture (I can provide one) and the translation in english. However, it is written in latin. Does someone get an english traduction of it (that's all the time the same modele used)? Laszlo (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hont-Pázmány
Lukacka's interesting theory about the identification of two Swabian knights as Slovak nobles is mentioned in the article. For this is not the article dedicated to the Hont-Pázmány kindred, why do you think that Lukacka's theory should be described here? Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian nobility. 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/20120320235306/http://www.orszaghaz.com/t1954-az-egyes-cimek-es-rangok-megszunteteserol-szolo-1947-evi-iv-torveny-modositasarol/ to http://www.orszaghaz.com/t1954-az-egyes-cimek-es-rangok-megszunteteserol-szolo-1947-evi-iv-torveny-modositasarol/

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) 12:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Slovak and Romanian POV
, first of all Happy New Year. Secondly, why do you think that the two theories about the survival of local aristocracy should not be mentioned in the lead. Yes, I agree, that they are obviously politically driven theories, with little actual support, but they are widely accepted in two countries (Slovakia and Romania) which are situated in significant part of the one-time kingdom? Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not universally accepted highly dubious theories therefore they do not belong to the first paragraph in the lead. Also, if we mention the Slovak POV in the appropriate section we MUST refer to the main theory as well. A Wiki link to the page of the Hont-Pazmany family is not enough because without proper explanation the whole section will be misleading (e.g. "The Hont-Pazmany was of German stock, however there are other theories...). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! Fakirbakir (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If some theory is supported by recognized scholars and it is published in up-to-date sources, we cannot assume that it is "highly dubious". It is logically incorrect to say that some theory has a little actual support and (in the same sentence?!) that it is "widely accepted" in some countries.
 * It is also not clear who decided what is "a main theory". We can say (at the best) that the question is open and then we can present different views.
 * The statement that "Hont-Pazmany were of German stock and there are other theories" is only a conclusion of the editor and it violates NPOV, because this discussion has not been sufficiently resolved. We can also assume the "they were not of German stock and there are other theories" and some historians uncritically adopted the medieval legend as a fact. However, none of these statement is neutral and such assumptions cannot be used as a serious basis for writing the article. --Ditinili (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Titles of nobility in Hungarian
Could somebody please add which titles of nobility existed in the Hungarian nobility, and what they were called, please? I know that e.g. count is "gróf", but my knowledge ends there. Thanks Adelshaus (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the most important titles were the following:

There were special titles for the Székely noblemen (for instance, lófő, primor). Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * duke/prince = herceg
 * perpetual count/ispán = örökös főispán
 * marquess = őrgróf
 * count = gróf
 * baron = báró

Involved in the war
, the expression "Horthy declared a war on the Soviet Union" is neutral description of the fact. On the other hand, the expression "involved in the war" is quite enigmatic. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree, however the current form has a message like the war with the Soviet Union would be just and only Horthy's intention or declaration, however this was not the case, as the traditional circumstances and protocol of the "declaration of war"/"involvment of war" was totally weird and did not happen in an pure "official" form. A rephrasing should be made made, please go on if you have a better solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC))
 * How about this?


 * "Hungary participated in the German invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and joined to the war against the Soviet Union after the bombing of Kassa in late June."(KIENGIR (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC))
 * It's OK. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

How name nobleman depending of his noble rank ?
Hello,

As contributor of french wikipedia, I'm wondering how hungarian noblemen are named as we can talk to an english nobleman calling him "sir", or "Lord" for scottish nobleman. What about hungarian nobility ? Laszlo (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)