This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of this article is quite strange...For example, Emperor / King / Prince are no noble titles, actually... Juro 00:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Initially, I compiled the following list, from dictionaries. Not all of the terms are explained in the current version of the article.
Prince:
Duke:
Earl, count: gróf
Baron: báró
King: király
Emperor, kaiser: császár
Mikkalai 06:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- pls provide reference to a source containing the title of fejedelem before 1000 -- Criztu 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- pls provide reference to which centuries and which princes bore the title of fejedelem of Transylvania. -- Criztu 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I guess "everyone knows it in Hungary" wouldn't be a credible reference...)
I think for pre-1000 rulers the original Hungarian term was vezér (leader). The most important leaders were the gyula and the kündü. I think it was kündü that was translated to Latin as "princeps" thus in later ages they were called fejedelem.
For Transylvanian princes the title "fejedelem" was used not only in later ages but in their lifetime too. The example I can think of right now is Kelemen Mikes who was the notary of Prince Francis II Rákóczi to whom he always referred to as "fejedelem".
– Alensha 17:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These families appear in Wikipedia in Croatian though they were not Croatian families. The Lackfis came from Transylvania (as Wikipedia states too) the Garay was a branch of the Dorozsma clan. 84.2.210.61 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Should I give the Croatian name of the Zápolyas? Zapolje (Szapolya) is in Croatia and the origin of the family is dubious. They might be Croatian. Does anybody know what is the opinion of Croatian historians? 81.183.150.196 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The section on the titles of nobility is -rather- strange. I am talking about the 'duke' title. I am aware that in the middle ages princes of royal blood were called 'dux' in Latin texts - but this was simply a general name for 'prince', ie an autonomous ruler. So the (later) Markgraf of Moravia was a 'dux', and so was any autonmous ruler. But specifically in a Hungarian context, there were NO duke titles given by the Hapsburgs. That is nonsense. The title in discussion (I presume) is in fact Prince, Furst, Princeps, etc etc. This is very obvious, it suffices to look at old engravings, grants of arms or what have you. In any case only a handful of families received the title of Furst: Esterhazy, Palffy, Grassalkovich, Kohary. No more. I am going to change this paragraph. Any opposition? -- Levomir 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
However, I am not completely sure as to what Prince of the Austrian Empire was called in Hungarian - fejedelem, herceg or uraldok? It would be nice for a Hungarian speaker to add that it, meanwhile I shall put all the thee possible translations in.-- Levomir 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The 8th Law of 1886. created the category of "Hungarian" princes. Many members of the list are nationalized foreign princely families.
I am afraid I am not in a position to give a source on that at the moment - and accept my apologies for missing out the princes Batthyany. The argument, however, still stands, that only a handful of *Hungarian* families were invested with the title - you mention a very recent law that simply naturalises, in the process of unifying the Empire, noblemen with estates and/or positions in Hungary. This naturally happened in many other countries in Europe, with a notable comparison being with Russia, in which many German and French noblement within the administration were naturalised. The two (I think) Rakoczis were Princes of Transylvania, an infinitely higher title than the subsequent Rohmische Furst, as it meant the leadership of a real principality. I any case it would be naive to think that the Hapsburgs would elevate their arch-enemies into princely rank.
Also - the article does not mention the important division between magnates and the gentry,a crucial distinction with Hungarian nobility. I will add that if there are no objections. This applies to the comment that 'noblemen were usually wealthy landowners' which, in the case of Hungary, is misleading. Hungary, like Poland to a certain extent, was peculiar by its high number of landless nobles, elevated into the rank for service in the army for instance, like the thousand hajduks given the same coat-of-arms by Stephen Bocskai, Prince of Transylvania.-- 80.176.91.55 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of this article is quite strange...For example, Emperor / King / Prince are no noble titles, actually... Juro 00:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Initially, I compiled the following list, from dictionaries. Not all of the terms are explained in the current version of the article.
Prince:
Duke:
Earl, count: gróf
Baron: báró
King: király
Emperor, kaiser: császár
Mikkalai 06:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- pls provide reference to a source containing the title of fejedelem before 1000 -- Criztu 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- pls provide reference to which centuries and which princes bore the title of fejedelem of Transylvania. -- Criztu 21:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I guess "everyone knows it in Hungary" wouldn't be a credible reference...)
I think for pre-1000 rulers the original Hungarian term was vezér (leader). The most important leaders were the gyula and the kündü. I think it was kündü that was translated to Latin as "princeps" thus in later ages they were called fejedelem.
For Transylvanian princes the title "fejedelem" was used not only in later ages but in their lifetime too. The example I can think of right now is Kelemen Mikes who was the notary of Prince Francis II Rákóczi to whom he always referred to as "fejedelem".
– Alensha 17:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These families appear in Wikipedia in Croatian though they were not Croatian families. The Lackfis came from Transylvania (as Wikipedia states too) the Garay was a branch of the Dorozsma clan. 84.2.210.61 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Should I give the Croatian name of the Zápolyas? Zapolje (Szapolya) is in Croatia and the origin of the family is dubious. They might be Croatian. Does anybody know what is the opinion of Croatian historians? 81.183.150.196 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The section on the titles of nobility is -rather- strange. I am talking about the 'duke' title. I am aware that in the middle ages princes of royal blood were called 'dux' in Latin texts - but this was simply a general name for 'prince', ie an autonomous ruler. So the (later) Markgraf of Moravia was a 'dux', and so was any autonmous ruler. But specifically in a Hungarian context, there were NO duke titles given by the Hapsburgs. That is nonsense. The title in discussion (I presume) is in fact Prince, Furst, Princeps, etc etc. This is very obvious, it suffices to look at old engravings, grants of arms or what have you. In any case only a handful of families received the title of Furst: Esterhazy, Palffy, Grassalkovich, Kohary. No more. I am going to change this paragraph. Any opposition? -- Levomir 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
However, I am not completely sure as to what Prince of the Austrian Empire was called in Hungarian - fejedelem, herceg or uraldok? It would be nice for a Hungarian speaker to add that it, meanwhile I shall put all the thee possible translations in.-- Levomir 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The 8th Law of 1886. created the category of "Hungarian" princes. Many members of the list are nationalized foreign princely families.
I am afraid I am not in a position to give a source on that at the moment - and accept my apologies for missing out the princes Batthyany. The argument, however, still stands, that only a handful of *Hungarian* families were invested with the title - you mention a very recent law that simply naturalises, in the process of unifying the Empire, noblemen with estates and/or positions in Hungary. This naturally happened in many other countries in Europe, with a notable comparison being with Russia, in which many German and French noblement within the administration were naturalised. The two (I think) Rakoczis were Princes of Transylvania, an infinitely higher title than the subsequent Rohmische Furst, as it meant the leadership of a real principality. I any case it would be naive to think that the Hapsburgs would elevate their arch-enemies into princely rank.
Also - the article does not mention the important division between magnates and the gentry,a crucial distinction with Hungarian nobility. I will add that if there are no objections. This applies to the comment that 'noblemen were usually wealthy landowners' which, in the case of Hungary, is misleading. Hungary, like Poland to a certain extent, was peculiar by its high number of landless nobles, elevated into the rank for service in the army for instance, like the thousand hajduks given the same coat-of-arms by Stephen Bocskai, Prince of Transylvania.-- 80.176.91.55 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)