Talk:List of Hungarian monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of rulers of Hungary)
Jump to: navigation, search

formatting, presidents[edit]

Oy. Can somebody fix this format? I don't have the time to do it right now. -- Zoe

Is there any reason to keep presidents (post 19th sentury) in messed-up non-tabular format? Can I fix them? --grin 09:45 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Uhm Vancouverguy, please keep kings and presidents separately. And don't drop informations, either include them (IMHO better) or save them if they're valid. Or if you only make formatting changes do not change the content. Thanks. --grin 19:14, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vatha, Thökölys[edit]

I have just finished the table of all rulers before 1918 but still need the original poster of the untabluated format to provide some in depth information on the following, which Google search didn't provide any relevant idea:

  • Vatha pagan rising 1046-1047 ? (please explain)
    • Vata or Vatha, leader of Borsod, the leader of the revolt against christian leadership in 1046. He cut his hair the pagan way (only 3 horsetail left hanging) and with a big army started to hail the pagan gods and ways of religion. He was expecting prince András and Levente back from Russia, and fighted for them and the pagan beliefs of the Elders. After the capture of Péter (?) and the death of Levente he was pushed away by King András, and he was living in the background with his pagan followers without being harmed. -- The Great Encyclopedia of Pallas (now in public domain) -- grin 09:22 23 May 2003 (UTC)
(original article:) v. Vatha, több magyar úr és főpap neve. - 1. Vata - alkalmasint borsodvármegyei - főember, 1046. a Péter király s a kereszténység ellen kitört forradalomnak egyik vezére, ki Abaújvár vidékén már pogánymódra leborotvált, csak három csimbókban meghagyott hajjal, nagy fölkelő sereggel, a magyarok istenének régi módra áldozva várta az Oroszországból visszatérő András és Levente herceget. Kijelentette, hogy csak ugy harcol értök, ha visszatérhetnek őseik hitére, ha elkergethetik, vagy meg is ölhetik a püspököket és a papokat, s leronthatják a templomokat. Péter elfogatása és a pogányságra visszatért Levente halála után András király rövid idő alatt helyre állította a keresztény egyházat és társadalmat. Vatát egészen mellőzte, ha talán tűrte is, hogy Borsodban, hol még ma is áll Vatta helység, Bélháromkút vidékén, az Áldozó- és Hamukő táján pogánymódra éljen a hozzá ragaszkodó töredékkel. - 2. Vata fia, János, l. János. - 3. Vata, 1073-ban a bihari (váradi) püspökkel együtt Géza herceg követe volt, kit azonban Salamon király az ő követei Vid és Ernye elfogatásának hirére börtönbe vetett; csakhamar azonban szabadon bocsátotta őt s 1073 novemberében fegyverszünetre lépett Gézával. - 4. Vata, talán a Miskolc-nemzetségből, tehát az egykori pogány vezérek sarjadéka, 1186-89. váradi püspök volt. Ő várad első ismert választott püspöke.
  • Emeric Tokolli's role as a ruler? Is he a prince, king or any sort of prominent figure?
    • Thököli Imre was the counselor of ruling prince Apafi Mihály, elected as King of Hungary in 1682 by Ibrahim Pasha, elected in 1690 as ruling prince of transylvania (Erdélyi Fejedelem). I'm not sure about the official translation of fejedelem, means a monarch, one who is the king of a smaller territory than a whole country. I found xlation ruling prince which I like. --grin 09:22 23 May 2003 (UTC)


Also all links of Ladislas are changed to Ladislaus since

  • the 1911 EB uses the later spelling but the current EB uses the fomer.
  • first ten Google search results of the later spelling (Ladislaus of Hungary) are all pages of King Ladislaus of Hungary, some of which are encyclopedic entries; whereas the former spelling only yields some links to genealogical tables and some relevant data to Hungarian kings.

the las links will be redirected to laus -- User:kt2

Hungarians refer them as Ladislaus. --grin
Hungarians actually refer to them as "Laszlo", I believe. Furthermore, that is irrelevant, given the conventions employed for other rulers on Wikipedia. Germans refer to Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III as Friedrich III. The French call their King Henry IV Henri IV. The spanish call Philip II Felipe II. The Danes call their Kings Frederick Frederik. But none of these make it onto Wikipedia because we, for whatever reason, have chosen to go with anglicised names of rulers, except when the ruler is never called that in English (e.g. Juan Carlos, Carol I of Romania, etc.) So, the proper question is what these rulers are referred to in English. john 17:46 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Well depends, I'd call all of them "László", but "las" sounds slavic while neither the persons in question nor the country is slavic; OTOH -laus sounds of german origins.
Actually, -laus sounds more Slavic to me than -las, because we say (V)Ladislav, Władysław — notice the "v" and "w", relatively similar to "u". --Shallot 23:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Apart from this, I'm inserting the Hungarian names where I can to help those who search for the names with the original spelling, but I don't change the english links, so the articles are titled English. This way hardcore wikipedians stay happy while users are happy because they are able to find the informations they're looking for! :-)
I still don't know what to do with links completely misspelled - I can't tell whether English are so "stupid" to call Thököly "Tokolli" or the original author of the article didn't have a clue. I'm not that familiar with English... --grin 11:18 25 May 2003 (UTC)
As far as naming conventions go, I generally am dubious about the "all names Anglicised, except for those that aren't". I think it would be better to just name them all in the native language, with redirects from the anglicised names. But that's not the convention that was arrived at, so I figure I may as well let it be. A native language convention would also be confusing for some historical figures - Emperor Charles V, for instance. He would have called himself Charles, as French was his native language. He was king of Spain as "Carlos" and Emperor as "Karl". So, in this instance, the English name seems appropriate. As for "Tokolli", I'm not sure about that specific case, but I've definitely seen Hungarian names written in that manner in older English histories... john 18:58 25 May 2003 (UTC)
I try to list all kinds of spelling at least once on a page, making it possible to websearch for the name. In your Charles case I'd list Charles (Carlos [spain], Karl [german]) (naturally a bit more detailed). For example I listed the alternative spelling Szapolyai [hungarian] next to Zápolya [transylvanian?] once. (Well it should probably be listed at every instance but I didn't have time to do it.) This way if someone looks hor the hungarian spelling he can find the page. (I noticed that they convinced you about the names when you started wikipedia. :-)) ) --grin 08:54 26 May 2003 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not fully convinced of the names. There is something to be said for using the forms most frequently used in English. "Philip II of Spain" is found far more commonly than "Felipe II of Spain", and so forth. It's much easier, though, for languages I don't know, like Spanish. I have a great deal of trouble having to say "King Philip of France" or "King Henry of France", or, especially "King Francis of France", and even with my limited German "Frederick William of Prussia" and "Louis I of Bavaria" start to, in conclusion, I'm ambivalent. I do think that if a standard is agreed to, it ought to be followed. I agree that all forms of the name should be mentioned at least once, although, I think, not more than once, as it can become confusing. I'm not sure about "Zapolya". I do know that every English source I've ever seen calls it "Zapolya" or "Zápolya"... john 09:06 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm sure it's a great advantage for me that I read history in Hungarian. I tried to check all links to Hungary and add native names where appropriate. Sometimes it's pretty hard to know from the English name who's that and I have to check the birth/death dates to be sure. But Wikipedia should serve international value so I accept the common form (english).
One of my problems - not really related - is opening new articles, because I cannot guess the English "misspelling" of some names. These are those you've dreamed about: national spellings with english redirects to them. :-) (After someone native English speaker creates them, that's it.) --grin 09:45 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Is Ladislaus Posthumus the same person as Vladislas II (or Wladislaw II) and Ulászló II (not to mention: Ladislaus V of Hungary, Ladislaus V Posthumus of Bohemia, Ladislas V Posthumus of Bohemia which redirect to Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary)? I'm confused. I read a mention in the article Gjergj Kastriot Skanderbeg that I am editing and I wasn't sure which one to link. Dori 06:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I just happened to notice a triplication problem with Ladislaus/Vladislas/Wladislaw/Ulaszlo II on my own, and fixed it. I'll look into the other one if nobody gets to it before me. --Shallot 17:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Posthumus is separate. I reverted one broken change to one of the non-redirects and it should all be consistent now. --Shallot
hmm.. the ones that redirect to Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary, Ladislaus Posthumus of Bohemia and Hungary, and Ladislaus Posthumus are all the same person. Link to the one that the main article is located at. I'm not sure about Vladislas II, Wladislaw II, and Ulaszlo II. They may be the King of Poland and Hungary who was about contemporary with Ladislas Posthumus (and I'm too lazy to actually look at the links right now). john 06:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
See Kings of Hungary; Ladislaus Posthoumus is Ladislaus/Ulászló V [of Bohemia, of Hungary or both, redirecting the same place]; Ladislaus II (Vladislas, Wladislaw, Ulászló) is a different person. Numbering is messy due to different "primary kingdoms", I suppose: 5th was before 2nd.

Béla IV -- the Great[edit]

Was Béla IV really widely nicknamed "the Great"? Nagy? --Joy [shallot]

Bela IV played an important role in the history of the Kingdom, being commonly regarded as the "second founder" of the nation in the same way Abe Lincoln is in this country. After the Mongol invasion of 1241, he strengthened the national defences (most importantly, he helped establish a network of stone castles throughout the country and improved the army) and laid the foundation for a stable state that was able to resist a second major Mongol invasion, under Nogai Khan, in c. 1284. InFairness
Off-topic, but what country are you talking about in regards to Lincoln? In the USA, no president is called a 'founder of the country' and the "Founding Fathers" are the framers of the United States constitution. Your outlook - such as comparing America with, say for example, the Roman Emperor Vespasian as the '2nd founder of the Principate" does not make any sense in this context - the cases are very, very different.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm Hungarian, I love history, and this is the first time I hear him being mentioned as "the Great", so I don't think he is widely called that, although he deserves it. As far as I know the only king who is often called Great is Louis I. (Some other kings have other epithets, like Matthias the Just, Coloman the Wise/Bookish). Alensha 21:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As Alensha pointed out correctly, the name "Bela (IV) the Great" does not exist not only in Hungary, but in the whole of Europe (at least). It is irrelevant, how you judge him personally. Juro 00:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed it. Alensha 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It was Béla III. who was refered as the Great in the medieval period. Though modern historiography do not use this epithet. Laszlo

Michael Karolyi[edit]

Isn't Károlyi Mihály called Michael Károlyi in alot of English language history books? PMA 15:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It makes no difference, you can rename him.

Also, some kings' Hungarian names are mentioned in parentheses, and some of them are mentioned by their anglicized name only. Why? Alensha 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, that should be fixed. Hungarian names should be mandatory, although put in parenthesis if there exists a commonly-used anglicized version. --BluePlatypus 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Article title / possible separation[edit]

We should either separate this list into several smaller lists or rename it. Right now it has tribal leaders, mediaeval kings, Transylvanian princes, Fascist and Communist leaders, revolutioners and 21st century presidents all in one article. It makes an interesting history but a messy WP article. At least we should rename it because no one would classify László Sólyom as a "ruler of Hungary" (the power of the president is only formal.) Alensha 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely support its separation into several smaller lists. I don't like it in this form, either, and I always find it disturbing whenever I visit this page. – I think we should take into consideration the customs of similar pages about rulers of other countries. Adam78 17:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
What would be the best solution in your opinion? I think there should be at least a pre-1918 and a post-1918 list. Alensha 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's enough, but a separate List of Presidents of Hungary page should be created, as well, since it now redirects to this page (which is bad). – I wonder what relation the post-1918 list could have with the list of presidents. I think the list of regents and presidents and the list of heads of state page plus the template of presidents could be used as a basis for creating the list of presidents and maybe the post-1918 page. – See the category French heads of state as an example: there is a French monarchs and a Presidents of France category, each with its own list of office-holders. And, of course, remember to see the category Heads of state of Hungary, with its three subcategories (which are probably okay). -- Adam78 23:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Compared with other articles in the en wikipedia, this article is unsystematic, of course. In my opinion, there should be a list for princes and kings, for presidents, and for prime ministers. And, please, put the rulers of Transylvania (after 1526) into a separate article, too. Transylvania was politically a separate state, and this list confuses it with Hungary. I have been planning to do this for months, but I never "find the time" when I see the huge table (that's the big disadvantage of tables). Juro 01:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, Transylvania should definitely be in a separate article. I'm going to separate the articles in the near future (if no one beats me to it :) Alensha 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that already exists the article List of Transylvanian rulers. -- Adam78 01:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh...Then, maybe, the missing data from this table should be shifted there, so that we do not lose information. Juro 01:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

See the articles Heads of state of Hungary and List of Transylvanian rulers now. Corrections are welcomed. Alensha 11:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Adam78 21:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter and Samuel - which dynasty?[edit]

Well, Juro deleted again one of my edits without any explain.

So discuss what is the problem!

Peter (Orseolo) and Samuel (Aba) are traditionaly considered part of the Arpad dinasty by Hungarian historiography. (Even if in the strict senese they were not.) It is a fact. What is the problem with it?

Bye, Laszlo

Laszlo, you are completely right! I have never heard about "Orseolo" or "Aba" dynasty, rather Arpads only. Please see the list of English monarchs. There King Stephen of Blois had a same relation to the House of Normandy (son of the sister of the previous ruler) as Peter Orseolo had to the Arpads. Still, he is always mentioned as a member of the House of Normandy, rather than House of Blois.
All the best!
Peter Vamos (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I wonder whether it would not be better to change the template "Politics of Hungary" to "History of Hungary". The list of rulers ends in 1918, so the History template would be more appropriate. The Politics template is more suitable for Heads of state of Hungary.


Does this list refer, or is supposed to be reffering, to the rulers of an ethnie (i.e. Hungarian), or to the rulers of a polity (i.e. K.o.H.)? Avaring 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rulers of the polity. john k 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the use of adjectives in most such lists is problematic. I'd much rather have "List of kings of Hungary," "List of kings and emperors of France", and so forth, but that doesn't seem to be what we have. john k 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. You`re right, the current name, "Hungarian rulers" is very ambiguous. It would be better to have an article called "Rulers of Hungary", and in it to have links to other articles called "Magyar chieftains", "Kings of Hungary", "Presidents of Hungary", "Prime ministers of Hungary", etc. Avaring 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there currently anything preventing us from moving it to "List of Kings of Hungary" or "List of rulers of Hungary"? Str1977 (smile back) 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Zapolya[edit] 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Srácok, az nem Zápolya, hanem Zapolya! Azért az ilyesmire odafigyelhetnétek, irgum-burgum!

Formatting question[edit]

Why do some sections end with a period, some with a semicolon, and others with nothing at all? This is an honest question; perhaps there is something I am missing. Contrarrevolucionario 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) I have no idea, probably b/c the whole page is in this weird table format- Hobartimus 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Let me explain the changes I made:

  • I changed the format of several notes to extend to the entire table (four columns wide) as this seems to looks better.
  • I tried to give the content of the fourth column a more uniform look, avoiding brackets, smoothing the language. I made the titles uniform (King of Bohemia instead of Bohemian King etc.), moved alternative names to the name column
  • likened the "Ferdinand vs. Zapolya" line to similar ones
  • I am not sure what is meant by "Movements of Hungarian liberation" and have therefore tagged it
  • I have retained the notes about German colonisaton even though I think that this is out of place in a list of Hungarian rulers

Str1977 (smile back) 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman-German king title constant mentioning is not necessary in my opinion, it's better explained in the main articles of the rulers. If we look at the Sigismund article (to which you wrote German king for some reason don't know if it was intentional) only a very short paragraph is titled to him being Roman-German king (which is not a real king but heir to the title of Holy roman emperor, correct me if I'm wrong), which also talks about his election being disputed, reelection in 1411 and coronation in 1414 so the date is problematic also. Seems to me that Holy roman emperors wore this titulary title so stating that they were HRE-s, also implies that they were RGK-s, before so only the dates are new information there. Of course i could be wrong in all this, but the main articles of the rulers suggest to me that the importance of this title is not enough to mention it when the notes are only a couple of words long. Hobartimus 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but what is the real title anyway, is it Roman-German king, German king or, King of the Romans wikipedia has the article titled King of the Romans. Hobartimus 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure it is not necessary but neither is the mentioning of any other non-Hungarian title for that mtter. Not necessary but useful.
The Roman-German King (actual title is King of the Romans, but that's confusing) was the ruler of an actual Kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire. The Imperial title didn't add much to it. Also, consider Albert who was King of Bohemia, King of Hungary and Roman-German King but not Emperor.
The "King of the Romans" was the King ruling over Germany. If the ruler was also Emperor, he could have his heair elected during his lifetime (remember: the monarchy always was elected) and then the heir would bear the title "King of the Romans". After 1508, when the Kings were always called Emperors even without an Imperial coronoation (and technically were only Emperor elects) the title "King of the Romans" always signified the heir apparent.
The German king section in Sigismuns was renamed by me, and shortened by me. It now covers his election to the Kingship and not all actions as King.
Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Once gain re the tile. It is confusing, but I will try:#
First, we have the "German Kingdom" or "Kingdom of Germany" within the HRE.
Then, the ruler of that Kingdom since the 11th century bears the title of "King of the Romans" (but the Kingdom is not the Roman Kingdom).
Later, "King of Germany" appears among the lists of titles of Emperors. An Emperor never used the title "King of the Romans" but some did use "King of Germany". Str1977 (smile back) 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Gábor Bethlen?[edit]

Well, I don't want to mess up with the article, but there John II Sigismund Zápolya, the posthumus son of John I Zápolya is mentioned as Hungarian king elected. In 1620 Gabriel Bethlen was elected as well at the Diet in Besztercebánya. In 1621 in the Treaty of Nikolsburg he finally renounced the title, which actually he had never used, to the favor of Ferdinand II in exchange to grant full liberty of worship to the Hungarian protestants and other privileges to Transylvania and Upper Hungary. Maybe his name should be included as well.Vamos (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The last entry about Otto[edit]

Is nonsense. Otto was never the head of state of Hungary. He was the Crownprince, no more. ~Why are the post 1918 Regents and Presidents not mentioned here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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 move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of rulers of HungaryList of Hungarian monarchs, per List of English monarchs, List of French monarchs, List of German monarchs, List of Spanish monarchs, List of Polish monarchs, List of Swedish monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs, List of Norwegian monarchs, List of Danish monarchs etc. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Uncontroversial move, the argument is clear (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposal makes perfect sense. I would argue that this could have gone without discussion, as an uncontroversial request. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably the reason is that the destination page is not empty and has to be deleted by an admin before the move (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (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.


Gabriel Bethlen is missing from the list, again. If we acknowledge John Sigismund as a Hungarian king we will definitely have to mention Bethlen in this article. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Descent of Vladislaus I from Bela IV[edit]

The table notes that Vladislaus I (aka Władysław III of Poland) is a "Fourth great-grandson of Béla IV". I've been poking around his genealogy a bit and don't see any obvious lines of descent from Bela to him -- it all seems to be Jagellions and Rurikids and even though I know the Arpads and Rurikids intermarried I can't find a direct link. Does anyone know what this refers to? --Jfruh (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Jfruh:, please contact with Surtsicna. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladislaus I's grandmother Uliana of Tver was a granddaughter of Yuri I of Galicia, a grandson of Béla IV of Hungary. The relationship is trivial and distant, however, and definitely had nothing to do with his acquisition of the Hungarian crown. Why contact me, though? Did I insert it? Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggested Jfruh to contact with you, because when I re-edited completely this article two years ago, you could help me regarding the various degrees of kinship. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was afraid I might have inserted trivia in a bout of senselessness. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Section of "Heads of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine since 1918"[edit]

Is this really needed? Do they still officially claim the throne? I doubt it. It looks like unimportant trivia. They were never Hungarian monarchs and this is a "List of Hungarian monarchs". I'll be bold and take them out for now. Qorilla (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Hungary was officially a Kingdom from 1920 to 1946. Charles IV and his son were never formally recognized as monarchs, but certainly there was an informal sense that Horthy was holding the throne and ruling on their behalf. If not for World War II, it's certainly conceivable that Otto would have returned to the throne after Horthy's death in the same manner that Juan Carlos succeeded Franco. After 1946, the Habsburgs are irrelevant, but I think it's arguably reasonable to mention them (though not of course as monarchs) for the interwar period. Certainly Charles continued to claim the throne until his death, and many Hungarians viewed Otto as their de jure king during the regency period. john k (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Why don't we list co-regents? Ferdinand III, for instance, became king in 1625, and was primarily known as "the King of Hungary" for the next twelve years. These co-regencies ought to be listed, I think, especially since the individuals' own pages do so. john k (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been bold and added in the ones I could find. john k (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)