![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. @ Borsoka: 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)
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.
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.
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. @ Borsoka: 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)
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.
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.
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)