Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) → Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) – 1538 as a starting date cannot be substantiated by reliable sources. Please also comment on Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538) Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As we discussed it here Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1000–1538)#Why_1538?. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, Hungarian historiography markes the year of 1526 as a dividing line. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Austrian Empire 1804-1867

The article states that "The kingdom was only formally part of Empire of Austria. It was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript, thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch.". The source quoted (Laszlo) however is grossly misinterpreted. Take in mind that there was no Empire of Austria before 1804. Laszlo actually writes on page six of the quoted source: "From the perspective of the Court, since 1723 regnum Hungariae had been a hereditary province of the dynasty’s three main branches on both Lines. From the perspective of the orstzág, Hungary was a regnum independens, a seperate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Hungary was connected to the other lands of the Empire largely through the monarch. The Imperial matters- foreign policy, defence and state finance- were handled by the monarch as a reservata exercized by him as the king of Hungary. In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of of the Empire of Austria. The Court reassured the diet , however, that the assumption of the monarch’s new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary." It seems that statements by Laszlo that are in the article have nothing to say about the period 1804-1867, but pertain mostly to the situation as it existed before 1804. I will attempt a rewrite of the fragment in the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Laszlo clearly says that after 1804 the Hungarian kingdom was joined to Austria "largely" through the monarch. "After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript, thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch." Fakirbakir (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Laszlo doesn't say that. Try reading the fragment better. Laszlo talks about the pre 1804 situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What? No, Laszlo talks about the situation around 1804. It was me who inserted Laszlo's opinion into the article. I know well what he wrote. The Francis I proclaimed the rescript after the announcement of Empire of Austria because he wanted to calm down the Hungarian diet. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

When Laszlo says that the Hungarian kingdom was joined to Austria "largely" through the monarch" he is in a discourse about the pre 1804 situation. He then goes on to say that after 1804, Hungary formally became part of the Empire, which is a step further. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Fakirbakir, You do realize I hope that the text you tried to restore here, differs quite substantially from the text you and Keingir tried to restore at Austrian Empire? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the paragraph (in the book). Laszlo says in the first sentence that "the empire wasn't a unified state but a monarchic union of Lands". Laszlo analyses the legal framework of the kingdom from the perspective of 1804. If my understanding is correct the rescript of 1804 reaffirmed the stipulation of Article X of 1790, therefore according to Laszlo during the period (before and after 1804) the kingdom was connected to the empire largely through the monarch.... Fakirbakir (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely the way I read it. The moment he mentions 1804 seems like a transfer to a new situation to me, in which "largely through the monarch" must get a different meaning. Also the "monarchic union of Lands" seems to pertain to the Habsburg Monarchy more than the Empire of Austria. As in "just a personal union <1804" versus "more than just a personal union >1804", although other pre 1804 notions remain largely unchanged afterwards. The present text in the article does not deny that. Empire is a word with more than one meaning. It's not just pertaining to an Imperial state. I feel Laszlo is using it to describe the Habsburg Monarchy rather than the Imperial state. Here's what. I wrote something. For THIS article mind you. If you can live with that I can as well:

"As article X of ……….. (whatever it was, I forgot) of 1790 stipulated, Hungary was a regnum independens, a separate Land . After the proclamation of the Empire of Austria in 1804, which came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor (including Hungary) this did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript .,"

And then there's the quotes of course.... You should read it in the editing mode. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

user:fakirbakir, I'm also trying to write something to better explain myself and what I'm on about (and not on about) in the light of what is and was in the article and in Laszlo's book. That won't be before tomorrow so please bare with me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I read the complete section and Fakirbakir has right, as you read, it is totally wrong! But even if would accept you way of interpreting, it also does not have a sense, because any "assumption" and "formal" thing has no connection with the corresponding legal laws, articles and agreements. I can assume anything, it does not matter, until it is not written or justified legally. You should introduce a contemporary legal document to prove your claims, but such did not exist. Yes, Wikipedia referenced sources can be cited, but the good sense also needed to add only such material that is supporting the facts. Your dubios and far-fetched interpretation anyway fails, assumptions and formality has nothing to do with any legalty! (KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Hello user:Fakirbakir. For some time now I’ve taken issue with the pov of some editors that somehow, the Kingdom of Hungary was not included in the Empire of Austria as it existed from 1804-1848 and from 1849-1867. This goes against all historiographical notions you can think of. Even if much can be said (and it can) to see another perspective as well. Laszlo writes: “From the perspective of the Court, since 1723 regnum Hungariae had been a hereditary province of the dynasty’s three main branches on both Lines. From the perspective of the orstzág, Hungary was a regnum independens, a seperate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Hungary was connected to the other lands of the Empire largely through the monarch.” I think that’s a very important sentence because it highlights the dual nature of the situation as it existed in the 18th century. Not just a personal union between separate states, but also (because of the big clout the monarch had) part of an informal state union. What changed in 1804 was that the Court side of this equation was institutionalised in a more formal way than it had been before. An overarching Imperial state was erected. As Laszlo says: “In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria”. That is what I want to be acknowledged clearly in this article and some others. And ‘formally’ here doesn’t mean ‘just formally’ . It means that a situation on the ground in which the mutual monarch already had substantial overarching power, was formalised. That however doesn’t take away that, and I quote Laszlo: “the assumption of the monarch’s new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary”, which should be clearly reflected as well. After 1804 it wasn’t just “largely through the monarch” anymore (although “just” is a euphemism, the monarch carried great power before and after 1804) but also through a new institution. Nobody says that the Kingdom of Hungary went out of existence after 1804. It did however became one of the countries that came together in an institution that replaced the more informal union that the Habsburg Monarchy was. That institution was the new Imperial State. The perspective of “the orstzág” remained, but there was a change in that perspective as well. I hope that you have noticed that your original text (with which I had some trouble as well) from this article was butchered and stuffed by users Balkony and Prudoncty for use on other articles Austrian Empire and Ausgleich. The original text from this article at least made sense internally, although I have issues with it and with the way it reflected the Laszlo source. The “Status of Hungary” text that Balkony and Prudoncty made for the other articles is internally contradictive and contradicts the sources i.m.o. I hope we can make a good text here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, you think you can distract us? You repeat and copy-paste the same with the totally one-sided and twisted interpretation, so suspicious what is your real goal with this. What is sure, the article will be never good or valid as it would remain as you like, no way! So let's see weher you argumentation fails (again and again):

1. "This goes against all historiographical notions you can think of." -> This is your POW an also other's POW, who are not real experts, anyway showing the forever wish of the Austrian Emperor - and nowadays also some anti-Hungarian nationalists - that he never could achive in any legal terms

2. Was ever changed or ceased "Article X of 1790" ? The dual nature is thing I proposed to mention in the section you want to hide, so the reader can also have this information, but if a country is Regnum Independes, it is Regnum Independens - as the Hungarian Crown was always so precious because it was not a vassal crown unlike in other crownlands

3. "Informal" state union??? Impossible, union, personal union are very different, and also the lazy interpretation of this lead many conflicts in Wikipedia regarding i.e. Romanian and Croatian history - I know because I was involved in this, I even won an ANI incident and since the the factual and correct interpretation is on Wikipedia, one of the biggest victory ever "any secondary source (without proof or factuality)" vs. "historical fact with contemporary documentary evidence". In this case the majority of sources were even against the facts, all of them were secondary and one-sided POW's of some late authors, but it so much spread into the library and the reference contents that the falsified information also by quantity overcome on the reality. Hungary never united with Austria in history. I hope I don't have to explain the "formal" and "informal" notions clearly meaning "not legal".

4. "Court side of this equation was institutionalised in a more formal way than it had been before." -> "more formal" what is that, sorry? Again LEGAL or NOT LEGAL, this is what counts! You repeat again the same quotation I think we all know from our head, but your propagated secondary source are telling us "assumptions" and "formalities" from a certain POW. Nothing legal. As I told, about such assumptions, views, evaluations we accept to write in the Status of the Kingdom of Hungary section just to make more colorful the article, next to the raw facts.

5. again, "formalised"....?? So what? “the assumption of the monarch’s new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary” -> then what was affected? The separate country status was also not affected...so what we are speaking of?

6. "After 1804 it wasn’t just “largely through the monarch” anymore (although “just” is a euphemism, the monarch carried great power before and after 1804) but also through a new institution." -> So what? Did this change Hungary's separate country status? No.

7. "in an institution that replaced the more informal union that the Habsburg Monarchy was. That institution was the new Imperial State." -> and if Hungary's laws, connstitution, etc, Regnum Independens status is still valid, how could Hungary be member of a "new state"?

8. I don't see, and also other's did not see any contradictions on the former content, and already Fakirbakir rendered them just to comply more with your demands. You continously pinpointing own two prespective, that is anyway contradictive, regarding Austrian-Hungarian relations in history it is not surprising. I don't see any reason to hinder one "perspective" on the other based on a source with any clear legal statement. At least you acknowledge Hungary did not disappeared, but other's ignorantly finish the case like "it was part of the Austrian Empire" and off, like a disabled entity confused with a real crownland that was really a forever-hereditary incorporated land in the Austrian Empire. Anyway, just for curiosity, I checked other Wikipedias on the subject (i.e. German/Hungarian obviously) and your supported POW is completely lacking. Two important quotations I would present:

- "...wurde das Königreich Ungarn, das de jure nie verschwunden war.." (..so Kingdom of Hungary that de jure never disappeared..."

- "A Habsburg Birodalom így két nagy egységre redukálódott: az Osztrák Császárságra és a Magyar Királyságra." (The Habsburg Empire has been reducated to two large entities: The Kaisertum Österreich and the Kingdom of Hungary) Please note, this is stated after 1804, and the "Habsburg Empire" is an unofficial apellation, and Osztrák-Császárság/Kaisertum Österreich is meaning Austrian Empire

So you cannot make acknowledged something that is not valid, or legal, or just one side of the "dual perspective", because you simply reduce and propagate one unofficial and illegal perspective - as an introduced highlight -, on the other hand you want almost completely ignore the other perpective, that is fully legal. Please accept the most fair and objective proposition:

a:- We obviously modify the current lead you introduced:

     "In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor."

b:- after we restore the former content revised by Fakirbakir

c:- after we can add both quotations from the "dual perspective":

      “In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria. The assumption of the monarch’s new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary. From the perspective of the "ország" (= Kingdom of Hungary), Hungary was a regnum independens, a seperate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Hungary was connected to the other lands of the Empire largely through the monarch."

I think it would resolve all claims, think about it! The similar is proposed - as I offered - in the Austrian Empire article

- we change the same way the initial of the Foundation section (a:)

- we restore the Status of the Kingdom of Hungary section revised by me (thus your additional content at the end of the Creation period section bugfixed (= d:) is attached in a chronological order

- we insert c: before d:

(KIENGIR (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

1. If something is formally X, it implies clearly that it is also legally X

2. The problems concerning the two articles, though related, are different and should be addressed separately.

3. Taking snippets from the Laszlo text and pasting them in reverse order is, for several reasons, not a viable solution.

4. Discourse about the situation before 1804, should not be applied to a description of the situation after 1804, unless that is clearly appropriate. This has been one of the main problems concerning this issue from when it started back in 2009.

5. About: "...wurde das Königreich Ungarn, das de jure nie verschwunden war.."… Nobody ever said it was “verschwunden”. Beside the point.

6. About: “The Habsburg Empire has been reducated to two large entities: The Kaisertum Österreich and the Kingdom of Hungary”. This is obviously a description of the post 1867 situation and not within the scope of the article.

7. Please be more specific. Indicate what text you want and where you want it and what text where should be removed. I can make head nor tails of this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1. False. If something was X and after an event still remained X, it cannot be overriden or ceased with any formality, since the meaning of the word implies it is just a formality, not legalty - a self-definitive imply. Croatia was never part of Hungary. They had a personal union for a long time. Non-experts and non-professional still thinking the opposite, similarly this case.

2. I addressed a clear separate solution, but just for "formal reasons" from now on I will only post solution offers directly to the Austrian Empire article's corresponding talk page, not here.

3. Ok I will work it out.

4. It is clearly appropriate, since the laws regarding Kingdom of Hungary were not affected, they remained in action.

5. Yes, you did not, but the way as you pasted and shortened the article and the corresponding pharagraph, hides this information from the average, non-expert reader. They finish it with "Hungary became part of Austria", and from "...the laws were unaffected.." they do not know anything what it means. You even hide the "formal" word, that was indicated on the pharagraph you removed.

6. It is obviously NOT. How do you think I would commit such mistake?? Sorry, I am an expert, do not regard me as a stupid! It is CLEARLY referring to the post 1804 situation. The pre 1867 and even the post 1867 situation is with much more pharapraph later:

"1867-ben a kiegyezés keretében intézményesítették a két birodalomfél perszonáluniónál szorosabb kapcsolatát: megszületett az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia." -> (By the Ausgleich, in 1867 the two subject's closer relation than personal union was institutionalized: Austria-Hungary came to birth."

7. OK.

8. The consensus proposal for Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 (now I ignore the obvious sources just for easier connotation, but reflecting on old and new material):

"In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria.[LASZLO SOURCE] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript[ZACHAR SOURCE] Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated, thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary.[LASZLO SOURCE]"

Please note - and I refer back to your 4. point: "Discourse about the situation before 1804, should not be applied to a description of the situation after 1804, unless that is clearly appropriate." -> HERE IS CATCH! You could now say after the [ZACHAR SOURCE] is coming is in the source earlier mentioned that is indicated in the proposal before...BUT, did you noticed LASZLO SOURCE current pharapraph - unlike your assumption - is telling us ONLY after the 1804 situation, as it is started: "THE EMPIRE was not a unified state...." This proves my point and the historical truth! The Empire was only created after 1804! All the pharagraph is telling us about the situation and perspectives from each sides after this event, mentioning in the end "THE ASSUMPTION OF THE MONARCH'S NEW TITLE DID NOT IN ANY SENSE AFFECT THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY" -> Article X 1790 remained unharmed, Hungary remained Regnum Independens, etc.! -> If it would not be like so, there would NOT occur any dual/contradictive perpective!

This was the problem that you mixed. Anyway there is no contradiction legally. The monarch title is The Emperor of Austria, but the Emperor of Austria is also the King of Hungary. So FORMALLY he is ruling both lands, his ASSUMPTION may be a consequence of his new title, but LEGALLY Hungary as before - since now laws or constitution or status were NOT affected - remained a separate country.

This is also in this and other sources that was presented, and this is the historical fact, like also the mentioned Wikipedias. Nothing more than a personal union.

You should accept the form proposed, since it is logically and consequently accurate, with a proper grammar and sequence telling us about the non-conventonal situation, with all the necesary deatils, so the average reader will not have the chance to be mislead! At the same time, all perspectives are included next to the legal terms.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

This can be shorter, basically without losing information. I'm still not in agreement with the "largely through the monarch" description when it comes to the period after 1804. I made this proposal:

“When the Empire of Austria was created in 1804, it included al lands ruled by the Habsburg primogeniture within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire but these did not lose their status and existence. This included Hungary which became part of the Empire, although it did not affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary, which in Art. X declared that Hungary was a separate land, ruled by it's own Constitution. ,"

Additional info is in the references. Perhaps it is better read in the "edit source" mode. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The proposal you presented has these problems:

- in the first sentence you state "included all lands" that is false, since Hungary was not included

- in the second sentence you spared the most important info, that only by the Emperor's ASSUMPTION became Hungary FORMALLY part of the Empire, but not legally

- I feel you are playing with words, it seems you don't want to accept something that should be accepted, and I do not agree with such serious shortening, since you shorten mostly the most relevant information

If this is your wish to spare the sentence with the "monarch", we may work it out, but better we should remain by the original quotations since it does not have the controversy. So I would propose this:

"In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria.[LASZLO SOURCE] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript[ZACHAR SOURCE] Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary.[LASZLO SOURCE]"(KIENGIR (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Listen, if you write to me: “in the first sentence you state "included all lands" that is false, since Hungary was not included”, and then propose to put: “Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria” in the text of the article, I don’t know in what universe you’re living. I could go on, but I’m done here. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, I wrote to you this, since if all land is included (if you don't eplicit formally) it means legally, but it if would be done legally, than the second part would be contradicted that no laws were changed, etc., although for a legal incorporation of Hungary the Regnum Independens had to be abolished!

What you proposed it is already included in my proposal, watch:

"In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria.[LASZLO SOURCE] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript[ZACHAR SOURCE] Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary.[LASZLO SOURCE]"

Hebel I am "living in a world" where I met to many inaccuaricies, and turning out de jure things not just the articles releated to Hungary. I do no suggest you have a necessary bad aim, but I can also imagine you really believe it is fair as you are trying to interpret the case. Decide if the version showed now and highlighted what you told now you agree or not! Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

I know this isn't the way it's supposed to go, but I'm now referring you to the text I just posted on the talkpage of "Austrian Empire". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight I paste what I said about User:KIENGIR's comments on the "Austrian Empire" talkpage here as well. It's better to do that:

On Wikipedia we follow what the sources say, but we don’t get to add interpretations about what that means or doesn’t mean if the source doesn’t clearly and literally lead us there. Now, the texts you have been proposing are mostly verbatim out of the source. Which is also a problem, because I don’t think we’re supposed to do that for reasons that pertain to copyright and stuff like that. I had included in my proposal, text about Art. X pertaining to the situation after 1804, since it was clearly still on the books. We do not get to decide what that text means however. Not versus the Anglo-Saxon or whatever other models, since Laszlo doesn’t speak about it clearly and literally. We get to read the text and get to conclude that Laszlo clearly and literally includes the Kingdom of Hungary in the Austrian Imperial State. He also clearly and literally states that this didn’t affect the Hungarian constitution and laws. He described what’s in there in an earlier paragraph and that’s added as well and then we as editors are done! Especially in somewhat ambiguous situations. Also this article is not about the Constitution. We don’t need language about the reserve rights of the King. And we don’t need language about the HRE. They’re beside the point (unless it’s somehow a point we’re not supposed to make, but I really have no idea why you would want that in there) Your remarks about Formally and Assumption are honestly beyond my grasp. Also beyond my grasp is how a sentence like "formal inclusion never meant legal/lawful inclusion" makes any sense whatsoever. How can something be formal if it's not legal? And in that light, again, we don't get to interpret what the wider consequences of Art. X's contents are. We're editors, not lawyers. We just get to describe what actually happened if the sources lead us there, but we are not judges about the question whether what actually happened is against some law or not. Further I object to adding “formally” to the article text for other reasons, because (as the recent history of this article has shown) it’s ambiguous even in Laszlo’s text. According to you (if I interpret you right) it means that the whole thing was 'just' a formality. (And I say it again, even then a formality cannot be formal unless it's legal). I think he could very well have meant that the already existing facts on the ground (Habsburg Monarchy as it was until 1804) was now also formalized by the erection of new institutions, but he doesn't say one way or the other, so we don't get to judge that. Remember how someone made that "only formally"? Better left out then. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, then I will ract here and also the other page, since the root cause is related, but we could easier finish this article's problem since it is much more easier and it could conclude other solutions to the other article as well.

I think, in Wikipedia we cannot be robots and just copy-pasting from a source, we are more than machines, we have to interpret, summarize, deduct and have coherence. You were told pretty much good examples when if you'd just copy paste from the sources, INVALID information would be presented in the page, but here you even want to spare the most important word that is in the original source, "FORMALLY" that is the key!

You tell in one sentence what is "clearly still on the books". We do not get to decide what that text means however.", a bit later you make your conclusion from the written text....Don't you feel you are contradicting yourself? Laszlo clearly tell's us about the situation!

Your conclusion is wrong since Laszlo clearly and literally tell us the Austrian Imperial State DOES NOT and CAN NOT include Kingdom of Hungary LEGALLY, since no laws changed and the Regnum Independes - separate country article also remained in action, moreover it is stated by the Diet nothing changed, just the monarch/King remained the same of both countries, thus he used the world "FORMALLY" = IN A SYMBOLIC WAY, because this is the appearance, there is one boss he rules what he has....but still he has two different titles, if it would be as you conclude, the King of Hungary title would not exist anymore, because the Emperor of Austria would be enough! Anyway, with a jurisdictional and mathematical precisity I proved you wrong, more times, with an undebatable right logic that you not any case want to accept and this is very disturbing, since Wikipedia cannot be a false propaganda site. And every exprienced, well-educated person knows clearly what means "formally" in any context, regarding which language you use. It NEVER meant legal or lawful in such context, where the LEGAL TERMS ARE REASSURED OFFICIALLY TO REMAIN IN ACTION THE SAME SOURCE YOU ARE REFERRING, THUS FORMALLY IN THIS CONTEXT CAN NEVER MEAN LEGALLY BECAUSE IF IT WOULD BE LIKE SO LASZLO WOULD NOT NEED TO USE THIS EXPRESSION THAT IS REALLY AN "EUPHEMISM". Laszlo is not stupid, clearly refers on the Austrian desires that never came to reality! There is not any serious event or historical things were "formally" would mean something legal or lawful. Facts are facts. When in 1944 German occupied Hungary, you could say the Germans ruled formally, but legally not, since admiral Horthy's signature and the government official operation was needed i.e. to appoint Szálasi, Hungary officially/legally still remamined a separate, sovereign country. Not any historical context such thing can be misunderstood, since always that counts that is official! It is such an evidential thing, like in Wikipedia you do no reference that "the sun is shining". What is legal or lawful, that is the fact, the official, and that's that. Formailites are other concepts, but interesting additions to discuss.

So not any means I can agree about leaving out "formally" and I explained and proved so many times, as also in this recent asnwer. That is the catch, and if any legal inclusion would occur, neither the Austrian, nor the Hungarian history writing would silence about it, and we would have also a contemporary originals source. I do not explain again why formally cannot mean legally, since I proved it in this case regarding all facts, variables, etc. Similar to a conrete mathematics equation-solution, that uses that clear and fair logic every intelligent person understand, regardless they are lawyers or not. I think you also understand for sure, but for a reason it is very important for you incorporate Hungary into Austria thas was never the case, you want to hinder even the most important word and all other sources that prove the same. If no laws or any change were affected - CLEARLY WRITTEN THEN Regnum Independens - separate country is still valid - AND it is CLEARLY WRITTEN the new title did not change the relation THEN the common monarch (that you also don't like and treat like an "euphemism") is the relation between them AS IT WAS. -> HUNGARY LAWFULLY/LEGALLY remained a separate state as it was! CLEAR, like the sun is shining. Moreover, since 2011, when Laszlo wrote his book or before even Wikipedia came to exist, we know the Habsburgs/Austrian could never legally incporporate Hungary to their empire, since all original and contemporary documents are researchable! We also know, the average, not-expert public knowledge or opinion is SUPERFICIAL, so the primitive conclusion also for earlier times the "Habsburg Lands" or similar would be a super-state or a common country where the King/Emperor is the boss...they do not care on legalties, and that's why such clear mistakes arisen in Wikipedia even from learned persons that "Austro-Hungarian citizenship" -> NEVER EXISTED, Michael the Brave united the the three principalities -> NEVER EXISTED, but the latter is so much mistaken that the majority of sources contain this information and in spread all over the world in the secondary sources by a nationalistic view's by production in the 19th-20th century. Although there are original documents, even more other sources/evidence it cannot be true, even we have original native sources by high level historians who clearly tell us the truth, despite this mistake happened. That's why we are more than robot-editors, and we idetify such infromation that is VALID, TRUTHFUL and COHERENT. The GOOD FAITH behavior by editing is an essential expectation in Wikipedia. Thus "formally" cannot be ignored, because then a clearly false and fake information would be highlighted, and there is a great responsibility since Wikipedia is the 5th(?) more viewed site by the humanity! We are responsible for valid and truthful content, if this is not the goal, then everything is lost!

Please mind this, since our debate will be never ending, since I proved the point by all manners (logic,validity,legalty,lawfullness,Wikipedia goals and good faith over simple rules), but still try to debate those things that cannot be debated. Please decide for now - regarding this article, that the proposal I made yesterday is acceptable for you or not. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

Again, if a source clearly states something to be the case, we don’t get to rationalise, with legalistic arguments and opinions or otherwise, about how it wouldn’t be. If Laszlo says the K. of Hungary was included in the structure of the Empire of Austria, which is clearly his conclusion, then that’s it. Of course Wikipedia isn’t written by robots, but in matters that are particularly contentious we tread with extreme care and follow the guidelines that are laid out. We don’t get to judge what Laszlo means when he uses the term “formal”. You talk about the “primitive conclusion also for earlier times the "Habsburg Lands" or similar would be a super-state or a common country where the King/Emperor is the boss...they do not care on legalties.” Well, facts on the ground are that in the pre and post 1804 situation the King Emperor for the most part was the boss, and had very different feelings about the consequences of the legalities than some of his subjects had. You yourself mentioned an “Anglo-Saxon model” of interpreting what’s going on in this situation, thereby implying that different thought about the consequences of the legalities is at least possible. That you or I may not agree with this or that interpretation is another matter altogether, but then we tread into the murky realm of OR, so that’s better left at home. Especially in a case like this. Laszlo speaks of art. X but he doesn’t anywhere clearly and literally conclude that therefore Hungary wasn’t included in the Imperial state of 1804. Any rationalisations from our part about how that must be so, doesn’t make it so and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if we would argue that Laszlo clearly and literally does. To answer your final question; No I don’t agree with your text. If you want you’re welcome to try again and I will read it and comment but quite frankly I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. About the word formal(ly) and it’s meaning in this context. I have been looking for a bit and found equivalents pertaining to law situations like : accepted, affected, approved, ceremonial, confirmed, fixed, and some other. I also found that “while formally X, in practice other stuff also happens” is a way to use that word. I didn’t find any meaning of the word that meant “not really so”, which is basically what KIENGIR seems to want it to mean. I’ve already explained why I don’t like the term in this context, but I also think we’re not at power to use the word “formally” in the Hungarian situation and leave it out in, let’s say, the Bohemian one. I also wonder how art. X prevented Hungary from being a participant in the Imperial State, while it was apparently no impediment to becoming a part of a Real Union (Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) with Austria. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you turn everything from your viewpoint, it is obvious what means formally, but as I see since 2009 your goal is coup these articles with your claim. You are the only one who sees formally different as it is obvius I proved also why. Also in Hungarian, or a Hungarian author written in English there is no doubt of the meaning of the word. It's not about liking or not liking, for this I already agreed to leave "through the common monarch", you want to corrupt the original source and distort it! Jesus Christ, Bohemia was incorporated as a cronwland in the Austrian Empire, legally! How to mix this case here? Seems you read but you do not want to get, that is obvious for everybody, how many times I explained, it's impossible still not understanding the case! I explained also more times Austria-Hungary, but you still do not get that also by Austria-Hungary Hungary still remained a separate state as before always! As also Austria was a separate state, with his own citizenship, Diet, laws, constitution, etc. Nothing common between them! Only the Kaiser und König are the same, there are some joint ministries, but that's all, officially they are Austria-Hungary, a union of two states by the Emperor brought on more ties as before, but still remaining separate states. The difference was the Austrians allegedly regarded Hungarians as equal part with lawful joint personal union where the two countries remained separate. So article X was not harmed. The only plus was some joint ministries for international affairs. That's why there was never an Austro-Hungarian citizenship, and never even a dual citizenship between the two countries. It was not a union like West-Germany or East-Germany to join in in one country, but the two countries formed an union where they act together for international affairs but they remain separate. Croatia or Hungary had also never common citizenship, two separate countries on personal union! It is useless to continue since everything is crystal clear, but for a reason you pretend not to understand, andI am very much sorry for that. Let's wait for what user:Fakirbakir has to say, as you said a few days earlier, and after we will go on!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC))

We should use and cite our sources properly. We must show all substantial views even if they are different. I think we must emphasize that the Austrian emperors ruled Hungary as "kings" not as emperors, it is very important. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I must mention that the Grand Principality of Transylvania which used to be an integral part of the medieval Hungarian kingdom and after the Ottoman era was controlled by imperial governors, was still part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. The Habsburgs acknowledged that it was part of the Hungarian kingdom, although, it wasn't incorporated into Hungary proper (but were promised). According to the Art. 1741 XVIII, 1.§, "She,, her heirs will possess and rule Transylvania -which belongs to the Holy Crown of Hungary- as Kings of Hungary." Fakirbakir (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you write: "I think we must emphasize that the Austrian emperors ruled Hungary as "kings" not as emperors, it is very important." When it comes to the rule over Hungary as such, I fully agree (the Emperors obviously ruled over the whole Empire but could not act as such in matters pertaining to Hungary), and I think language to the effect that Hungarian matters were ruled by its king, can and should be added to the article. For the moment I suggest awaiting further developments because at the moment I don't feel at privilege to add any earlier proposals made in this discussion. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between the pre-1867 and the post-1867 status of the K. of Hungary?

I found an interesting material referring to the status of Hungary in that times. I recomend you to read these chapters:

• THE FIRST ADDRESS OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY", TO H. L M. THE EMPEROR FRANCIS JOSEPH DURING THE SESSION OF 1861
• THE RESCRIPT OF H. I. M. THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA TO THE FIRST ADDRESS OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY OF 1861.

The material above was published in the 19th century.95.141.32.160 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR, where did "Article X of 1790 belong? Was it an article from a law, or an article from a diploma? How do we know that it was in effect after 1804? Please give more details 123Steller (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It was a special Act, the 10th of 1790. The Diet passed it. So if we have to choose between your "offers", it is a law. We know it was in effect, becase there was not any Act/law/Diploma/etc. that would repeal or nullify it, moreover the new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

User:KIENGIR, according to your view, what's the difference between the pre-1867 and the post-1867 status of the K. of Hungary? According to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 article:

"The Compromise re-established partially the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from, and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Under the Compromise, the lands of the House of Habsburg were reorganized as a real union between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) regions of the state were governed by separate parliaments and prime ministers. Unity was maintained through rule of a single head of state, reigning as both the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, and common monarchy-wide ministries of foreign affairs, defence and finance under his direct authority. The armed forces were combined with the Emperor-King as commander-in-chief." 123Steller (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It re-established the sovereignty of the KOH, of course, because after 1849 the Hungarian kingdom lost all its privileges.The differences between pre-(prior to 1848) and post- KOH (after 1867) are represented well by the 12 points of 1848 12_points_of_the_Hungarian_Revolutionaries_of_1848. The points were mostly granted after 1867. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand the points. For example, even before 1848 there was a kind of "national army". The KUK (Kaiserlich-königliche Armee) "Imperial and Royal Army", was born in the 18th century and consisted of separate Hungarian units. The word "konig" referred to the Hungarian kingdom, however the army was controlled almost entirely by the Habsburgs. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

123Steller,

I know the text from the article, it is considered fair. The difference is, before the Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary had the same ruler, this was the main connection, after 1867 the Austrians allegedly recognized all rights of the Hungary, and the personal union was developed to a more tight union, i.e. joint-institutions and appearance to the external affairs as Austria-Hungary meanwhile the two countries remain separate inside.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

I'm proposing to add this text to the body article somewhere and then make one reference to it in the lead. I've not added the references yet, but it is language that is not WP:COPYVIO and also not overtly legalistic. It reflects what the secondary sources say anyway without relying on interpretation from our side:

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the King of Hungary and ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic lands were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. The workings of the overarching structure and the status of the new “Kaiserthum’s” component lands at first stayed much as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm. In the new situation there were therefore no Imperial institutions involved in it’s internal government.”

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your text proposal is good and would not mind adding it to the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just because of Fakirbakir, I would accept Gerard von Hebel's proposal, if:

1. The following addition (bold) would be in this sentence: "This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary that was a regnum Independens, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm."

2. The proposition should replace this in the lead -> "In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor (including Hungary), largely without changing the status quo that existed between them before 1804." and the article's body should remain unchanged.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

Well, we can't go on about this forever. I'm against point 1. It's 18th century primary source legal language of which the meaning is (apparently) unclear or under some contention and which therefore invites OR interpretation. We should follow the secondary sources. The secondary source involved, (Laszlo) makes it "seperate realm". So should we.

I'm afraid that for technical reasons, I'm also against point two. If something is not in the body article, it has no place in the lead as well. The lead is supposed to summarize what's in the body article. I'm willing however to make new suggestions (or listen to other suggestions) for the summarisation in the lead. Having read my own text back it says "they" where it should have been "it" at some points. And of course the references still need to be added as well. I realise that the part where Laszlo quotes "Regnum Independens" should be added to the verbatim quote that is in one of the references. Simply because it's in there on the same page and because we refer to it in the text. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do some additional work on this tonight and / or tomorrow. Happy New Year everybody! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it....What about this at the end of the text I proposed earlier: ".....as it had been under the composite monarchy, in which it had always been considered a separate Realm. Article X of 1790, that was added to Hungary's constitution during the phase of the composite monarchy uses the Latin phrase "Regnum Independens". In the new situation therefore, no Imperial institutions were involved in it’s internal government.” Without the bolding of course. That would be fine with me, as it mentions the term but does not describe or interprets it and makes no suggestions of what it would or would not mean in 21st century language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use the German term Kaiserthum? As far as I know, it has the same meaning as the English word Empire. 123Steller (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel,

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the King of Hungary and ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic lands were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. The workings of the overarching structure and the status of the new “Kaiserthum’s” component lands at first stayed much as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm. Article X of 1790, that was added to Hungary's constitution during the phase of the composite monarchy uses the Latin phrase "Regnum Independens". In the new situation there were therefore no Imperial institutions involved in it’s internal government.” -> If this you proposed, it is accepted.

Point 2. -> Since it is an article about Hungary, and the body - thank's God - were undebated and unaltered, not any chance of further "flame" should be provoked, since anyway more articles should be fixed. The lead gives a short overview of the timeline, and this is totally fitting in it, no further mention or details are necesarry here, better the Austrian Empire article needs more special details about this.

Many times the Anglo-Saxon terminology used is not the proper translation because such term did not even existed or interpreted there, or the distinction was not (historically) apparent to have a more detailed trace in sources. I.e. Kaiserthum = Császárság, Empire = Birodalom in Hungarian, and not necessarily used as an identical designation, although they are very similar. It has also a historical ground in older sources which term was used or interpreted. I.e. the evolution is caeasar = császár = Kaiser császárság -> "entity ruled by the császár". An Empire is also can be identical, since one person is ruling all over. I.e. regarding the Holy Roman Empire, both Hungarian names are accepted or used: Német-Római Császárság / Német-Római Birodalom. But regarding some other entities, only one term is used - Római Birodalom / Roman Empire although Caesar is deriving from it - / - Német Birodalom (Deutsches Kaiserreich) better than Német Császárság. Anyway, I have no opposition to Kaiserthum, since the original German expression is the most unambigous designation. Schönes neues Jahr für Alle!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC))

Good, thanks all. Basically English has the same problem with the wordt Empire. It can denote an Imperial State (Empire of Austria, Empire of Russia), but also a political territory with a vast domain (Portuguese Empire or British Empire). Although I don't think Birodalom and "Kaiserthum" are in any way equivalent. I'm still in favour of putting the text proposed (with references) in the body article). If it proves to difficult to put text in the lead, we don't have to mention it there at all. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I left only this in the lead, slightly reworded: "The Kingdom of Hungary between 1526 and 1867 was, while outside the Holy Roman Empire, part of the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, that became the Empire of Austria in 1804." The second part has gone from the lead. The other text with references I put on a (hopefully appropriate spot) in the article). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, shall it be, this issue has been resolved! The article will be added to the watchlist with a top importance to avoid such escalation in the future!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC))

I created the red link Kaiserthum. If it is a distinct concept, it should be defined in its own article. 123Steller (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 123Steller. I created a very short article on the concept. So the link isn't red anymore. I don't think it's different from Empire (in the sense of a state ruled by an Emperor) and I personally wouldn't mind changing it to Empire or Imperial State. But that might prove difficult. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

References

False classification of the article

Hungary is/was in Central-Europe, not Eastern-Europe, Jesus, what a mistake! thus the "B-Class Eastern Europe articles", "Mid-importance Eastern Europe articles", "WikiProject Eastern Europe articles" categories should be removed! Even Wikiproject Eastern-Europe has the same mistake and falsely containing Hungary along with more Central-European countries, they will be notified also!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

During the soviet era, central europe effectively disappeared and the east/west split is probably the most useful classification. Of course, this article relates to earlier history. There is no agreed definition of what central-europe is/was and, indeed, parts of the Kingdom of Hungary during this period are now often regarded as being in eastern europe while other, like modern Hungary, are often put in central-europe. Nigej (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nigej, Wikipedia or any party should not support the communist division in Europe with full of illegalities! The definiton of Central-Europe is geographically totally agreed and undebated. Becuase the iron curtain the false classification became widespreadly distributed and are still heavily under cristicism and it became the symbol of ignorance, although even the Unites States knows that Hungary is a Central-European country, although we know the Americans are traditionally not the experts of geographical situation of little countries on different continents. The borders have been changed, that's why the confusion is you are speaking about, but also Kingdom of Hungary belonged in all manners to Central-Europe, since Transylvania delimited with the Carpathian mountains is also historical part of the region. Since today's Romania's bigger part of her territory - as the historical Romania - belongs/belonged to already Eastern-Europe, that's why today it is also classified there despite of the Transylvanian+other regions part of Central Europe. Anyway, modern border's cannot rewrite geographical borders. So we will never accept a false classification as we heavily oppose to commemorate in such a way the communist occupation!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC))

Motto

It should be Regnum Mariae Patronae Hungariae. The current phrase means "Mary's realm, patroness of Hungary", as if the realm was the patroness, not Mary. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)