Talk:Holy Crown of Hungary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location of the Crown[edit]

In 2005 I saw the Holy Crown in Matthias Church, however, the article claims the crown has been in the Hungarian Parliament building since 2000.

The crown in Matthias Church is an exact copy of the Holy Crown. /Joseph
Yes, the Parliament building has all the original regalia (except the all too delicate Mantle remained in the National Museum glass vault). There are several copies of the Holy Crown, of various quality. They are required by law to be of slightly different size to prevent frauds. A golden copy of the Holy Crown was prominently featured this august 20 during the pompous sworning-in ceremony of young military officers at the Budapest Hero's Square.
The governing ex-communist and ultra-liberal coalition was much enraged about this and scorned its own defence minister. They are very hostile towards the role of the Holy Crown, sometimes informally call it "clown's hat" or "dirt crown" and wish to send it back to the museum. 91.83.19.70 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the our communist prime minister spits on the crown each time he passes by in the parliament. lol. 81.182.236.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Bent cross[edit]

I was wondering how the cross came to be bent, but some quick googling seems to show the matter is subject to some controversy, eg. http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/hu)1.html Still it seems to be a question that has interested more than just myself, and it is even officially depicted this way on the coat-of-arms, so perhaps some knowledgeable person could at least canvas the theories? -- Securiger 11:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found that it is bent because of an accident on February 14, 1638, when the crowning ceremony of queen Maria Anna (the wife of Ferdinand III) was at hand, but due to the wrong key the seneschal brought, they couldn't open up the chest containing the crown and the other royal insignia, so it was opened up by force. Moreover, the crown got jammed so much into the smaller copper box inside that it could only be taken out from there with a knife. – They tried to straighten again the cross, but it was not possible, since its hole widened out and the cross would have slipped back to the crown. It cannot be welded, either, because the enamel plate would be damaged. (Source in Hungarian: [1].)-- Adam78 14:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I heard from a historian acquaintance of mine that there are several other theories as well, and this above is not more certain than the others.

About the loss of the Holy Crown[edit]

Lajos Csomor, master goldsmith, scholar and member of the scientific group which obtained permission to examine the Holy Crown (1988?) has some interesting facts to give us.

The once held date of 1074-77 was untenable and the loss of the Crown cannot be substantiated. Excavations from the grave of an Avar goldsmith in Kúnszentmárton, Hungary, show us what kind of tools were used to decorate a golden object during the Avar period. The result of the technical examination of the Hungarian Holy Crown shows that its technical goldsmith parallels were all prepared in the Avar age using the tools of Avar goldsmiths. Objects parallel to the Crown, such as the Little Pipin bursa, the Charlemagne vessel, the Charlemagne talisman, Charlemagne's alfa, the St. Fides statue/ St. Fides book-cover all show such a technical relationship with one another, that we have to consider them coming from the very same workshop.

"We have to emphasize the fact that these workshops were situated in the Carpathian basin and the tools employed by the above techniques were also excavated in Hungary. We can surely conclude that all objects that bear a technical relationship to the Crown arrived to Western Europe as a result of the plunderings of Charlemagne's armies and were put to different uses in his court at a later time."

In addition, the examination shows that there is no difference between the top cross section and the bottom band as far as workmanship, material or any other aspect. The whole crown was made in one workshop at the same time.

Please read these very interesting articles!

http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-07/csmrcrwn.html

http://chicagohungarians.com/radics/Origin2f.htm


This is another lost article. It is not "said" that the crown was lost, it is a fact that it got lost. I am not going to correct this article, write any non-sense ("theory") you can find, I already got used to it from Hungarian contributors in this wikipedia...For your information, there is a "theory" for anything you can imagine. Juro 22:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you "Juro" would have read the article, it would have been clear to you that the "loss of the crown" only remains as a theory. My changes contribute to an article about the Holy Crown of Hungary that is simply open to other theories. The loss of the crown CANNOT be substantiated, neither can the theory of the "two" crowns. You must understand that I am open to all kind of theories. I/we can never know if the crown was lost or not. We don´t know if St. Stephen was crowned with "the present crown" or not. What we do "know" is that the crown most probably was manufactured during the Avar period, using Avar technology. It was according to Lajos Csomor made in the same workshop, at the same time. Although, all this still remains as theories.

/Joseph

Looks like we lost the crown (again) - then got a different one (again) ;-) It seems the previous image's poster (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) is involved in some alleged copyvio issues and the bots are out to take down everything he's posted. (the old image is still up on the Hungarian site) I pulled the new one from the German site - admittedly its not as nice as the previous one, so lets consider it a placeholder until someone either reformats this one (Im no good at that) or if you can find a better one, please put it up- kalappal! Istvan 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal personhood[edit]

"Szent Korona Állameszmény" is a phrase that doesn't show up in the hu.wp article, and indeed only occurs three times on the Internet - once in a translation of this article and once in a mirror. It strikes me as a very elegant idea, but also one that seems a little implausibly elegant - do we have a cite for it? It was addeed back in 2005, before we were strict on sourcing... Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it exists. "Szent Korona Állameszmény = Holy Crown Ideal of Statehood. Also known as "Szentkorona tan" = Doctrine of the Holy Crown, which may be a more often mentioned form on the net or Google.
The need for this theoretical construction emerged when late medieval Kingdom of Hungary was under ottoman occupation for 150 years and the remaining little unconquered land was diveded between two or three rulers (austrian Habsburg emperors, polih-hungarian princes and the Duchy of Transylvania). Even if there was no living king or there were several competing self-styled kings, the heavenly authority of the Holy Crown still kept the country in one, or at least the hungarian people could believe so.
According to ancient hungarian legend, Pope Sylvester in A.D. 999 / 1000 had seen an angel of God in his dream, which instructed him to send a king's crown to a recently baptised young "barbaric" prince, whose messengers arrive the next day. It was Stephen of Hungary and so hungarians believed this Holy Crown was direct gift from the Holy Trinity to the hungarians. It is easy to understand how this led to seeing the materially existing Holy Crown also as an immaterial source of heavenly authority on statehood.
(Had the Pope refused or neglected to send a crown direct to Istvan, the country of Hungary could not be recognized fully independent under european feudalism era rules, rather become, at best, a vassal or even an outright colony of the neighbouring and very mighty Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of todays' German and Austrian territory. By the time King Stephen I died and the holy roman empire marched on Hungary, the young country had grown strong enough to repel their attack.) 91.83.19.70 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is absolutely not true. Pls check your sources before writing.
1., The Doctrine of the Holy Crown was existing before King I. Stephan, as some roots were coming from this period, however, the doctrine was compiled by Stephan. There is no connection with Ottoman period.
2., The gift from Pope Sylvester II was written in Hartwick's legend, and recompiled in XVIII century so it is not authentic. Secondly, if a Pope is giving a "holy" crown, then surely there should be a document in Vatican, but did you see any relating document on this? The truth is we do not know where the crown is from.
it is well-known that the original crown of St. Stephan was returned to the Vatican after his death in 1038. The currently venerated "Holy Crown" of the hungarians is not I. Stephan's crown, it is a later creation, possibly made using parts from a queen's crown (possibly of Gizella, I. Istvan's wife) and some byzantine additions.
It is not well known! pls cite your sources!
3., Hungarians were not "barbaric", but Christians before 10th century, although not Judeo-Christians. This is a fact you can see from tombs before 10th century in Carpathian Basin, they all hold a (double) cross on their chest.
Totally false. Hungarians who invaded the carpathian basin in 895-896 AD were pagans. They sacrifed horses, prayed to boulders and streams and participated in uralic shaman-drumming rituals. They venerated the "Boldogasszony" (Blessed Lady, a kind of nature goddess) and "Ukko" (the male deity), who is also known as "Hadur" (Warlord God). A small minority of hungarians were on jewish faith and a few of the top leadership (like warchief Geza, father of King Istvan I.) had taken on byzantine christianity nominally. The mass conversion of commoneer hungarian to christianity was a forced one after King Istvan I. used german knights' help to defeat and execute pagan warlord Koppany's army. After I. Istvan died in 1038 there were pagan widespread uprisings, for example bishop St. Gellert was captured by insurgent pagans in 1046 and martyred by rolling him down a hillside in a nail-studded barrel. Even in the 1080's new laws had to be made about punishing pagan tree-worshippers.
Same here, where are your sources? Sacrificed horse is pagan? they did it in funerals, but its not pagan, it is ancient heritage. Uralic drumming rituals? You mean táltos rituals? We know very small on these rituals, so pls do not state it is pagan. "Boldogasszony" is the Holy Virgin, what are you talking about? This is one proof that Hungarians were pre-Christian. I know nothing about veneration of "Hadur"- let me know details, I am interested! Forcing of Christianity does not mean repelling paganism, but mean forcing of Pre-Christianity (based on teachings of bishop Mani) to Judeo-Christianity we know today. Please admit you get your sources from 1980 history book, wkae up, there are new findings! There is no evidence Koppany was pagan, or maybe you have??
Even today, after a 1000 years, catholic priests in Hungary openly admit that church-going villagers are pretty much "pagans" if we take the Vatican's definition strictly. The veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus is so excessive, that it is indistinguishable from veneration of the Trinity. This is heresy, since veneration levels of saints ( called "dulia"), veneration of Mary (hyperdulia) and adoration of the Holy Trinity (latria) are strictly differentiated. Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus has taken the place of the "Boldogasszony" nature goddess in the hungarians' minds. In fact there is official church feast for "Gyumolcsolto Boldogasszony" (Fruit-grafting Blessed Lady), which is quite obvious replacement for a pagan fertility ritual.
Yes this is what I read in history books, but I would argue on Holy Virgin = Boldogasszony, which one was first? The egg or the hen? Gyumolcsolto Boldogasszony is a heritage of our Pre-Christian religion! What about points 4-5? you have nothing to criticize? Before writing, pls see some pictures of tombs from the time of "ingressus" (incoming, entering, "honfoglalas"), you will see some crosses on the bodies. Interesting, how could they get there? Why it is not propagated by Academy of Science? Maybe they need to revise their vision? (I am not insisting on theories to destroy...) Abdulka (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4., It is also fake to think that the gift of crown was to accept Hungarian statehood. Kingdom of Hungary was "apostolic" meaning higher in hierarchy than "holy". This meant that there are no feudal relation between Hungary and Vatican (unlike Vatican with German-Roman Empire). The King could make somebody saint without approval from Vatican, the king could choose bishops without approval. This was the main reason why Habsburgs like Maria Theresa wanted to have the crown for herself.
5., You need to understand that the most important act of King St Stephen was to set the base of Kingdom of Hungary, and not the preservation of the nation. The nation was one of the most powerful at that time, it needed not to be preserved.Abdulka (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The icons on the crown[edit]

The icons should be discussed also, as they all have a meaning. This may also lead to dispute, as if we take the icons, then the Byzantine Duchas picture (and the two next to them) do not fit, which means they were inserted later (probably when it was lost), also, means that the complete crown was created as one, it is complete entity, and therefore, it is not coming from Byzantine but from much earlier times. Even though I agree the majority of historians believe that it was made from two parts, it makes sence to put it into the article, as this is not finished dispute. Abdulka 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people agree that the three pictures on the back are of Michael VII Doukas, Constantine Doukas, and Geza I. They all lived after Saint Stephen was given the crown by the Pope. Maybe they were added later or they replaced pictures of previous people or maybe we simply identified them inaccurately. 70.59.7.216 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before destroying, please ask / comment[edit]

Dear Lastochka! 1. "Sacred" is better than "holy" as this crown is always written "sacra corona" in the chronicles. In fact, it is apostolic, which is higher in hierarchy, but never mind. 2. Please check your latin: "corona" can also mean "border", and is ALWAYS meaning Carpathian basin. 3. The crown is NOT ASSEMBLED from two parts! I ALREADY put refernces into the article, why you are asking? The people mentioned have published their findings. I am really sorry that Hungarian authorities are not taking this and they are still teaching "old scrap"! The time has changed, we need to be updated! One example of Hungarian tradition of being dualistic Greco-Latin is the name Ladislau, which is half Greek half Latin! Yet in one word! 4. Don't forget this is the only surviving imparting (beavató korona) on earth, don't delete this, this is important.

I will revert (except the last Hun section on the bottom of page, I do not have refernce on that, true) I have more surprises for this crown, so you can delete, but I will revert, sorry, c'est la vie.

I was testing Wikipedia, it failed! I am putting something recently found, let's be up to date. Abdulka 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, sorry. I wasn't intending to "destroy" anything. I'm not going to bother arguing about "Holy" vs. "Sacred" or anything like that because I have neither the time nor the patience--however, you need to cite your references properly. See WP:CITE for how to do that. K. Lásztocska 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Socks[edit]

The bit about the King's socks being burnt has to be vandalism, hasn't it? It's been in the article so long that I didn't dare change it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se16teddy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Crown and the accompanying regalia were buried in marsh for months on at least two different occasions, in 1849 (loss of hungarian independence war against Austria) and 1945 (collapse of WWII nazi hungarian state). The textiles rot away due to ground water, the socks were a total mess of pulp and were indeed burned. (What else respectful could you do with them? If I understand correctly it is common habit to burn badly degraded flags in the US, the scouts do that, ain't?)
The big coronation mantle was still in one, but lost almost all red colour due to groundwater, yet it was too important to destroy. Today it is still preserved in the National Museum at Budapest, in a low-light room inside a neutral gas vault. It is so degraded that in year 2000 it was not possible to move it to the building of Parliament alongside the rest of the regalia. 91.83.19.70 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The name of the crown accepted in the English language publications of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference is: Holy Crown (of Hungary). This name is however occupied by previous naming. When trying to rename it now, I committed a spelling error (capital U in Hungarian). So the renaming was accepted, but now it has a spelling mistake in it.--Szilas 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This page should be moved to "Crown of St. Stephen", the name most frequently used for it in English-language scholarship. Here are the results from a Google books search:
"Crown of St. Stephen" 714 results
"Crown of Saint Stephen" 269 results
"Holy Crown of Hungary" 434 results
The usage of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference doesn't overrule the usage by others. Noel S McFerran 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these above differences are not so great as to justify the use of an obviously mistaken definition.--Szilas 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By describing the common English name (used twice as frequently as the other name) as "mistaken" and then purposefully not using it, you are trying to CHANGE scholarship. Wikipedia summarizes what has been written; it doesn't "correct" it. Noel S McFerran 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename for typographic error. As for Crown of St. Stephen, that can be another move request. 132.205.99.122 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noel S McFerran. Whatever the Hungarian Academy calls it (or Hungarians in Hungarian for that matter) is a direct translation. In English it is the "Crown of Saint Stephen" or a similar version to it, see also Britannica. Gryffindor 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image speaks more than a thousand words[edit]

There is a photo we could add at the top of this article, please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Istvan.jpg

Energy[edit]

Re 'the function of the pendants is to "ground" the energy which the crown body transferred', am I the only one to see a problem with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.162.195 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the cross as antenna and the pendants as grounding are just some of the traces of the widespread Hungarian obscurantist cult of the crown that should not show up in an encyclopedia. Since there are no mainstream references for that whatsoever, I shall just remove them. I expect some of the believers to revert though... varbal (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your views. Pls do not revert it yet! Even if it is a view of "obsurantist cult" it is still in the chronicles!I am checking in my references, ie. "The crown for the Hungarians is like the Lost Arc for the Jews" (I forgot who wrote it, when, I suppose Peter Revay in 16th century, but need to check). Also there are some references where the crown "killed" somebody, as he was not treating it. I understand that this is weird to put it to an encyclopedia, but it should be mentioned!

Let me also add reference from Gabor Pap, Tibor Varga and others (all professors). Abdulka (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 years after[edit]

There is a specific anniversary for the Holy Crown, as it was returned from the USA (Fort Knox) exactly 30 years ago during the Carter presidency. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Edits of Abdulka[edit]

Abdulka confesses openly on his user page that he has missionary feelings. Obviously it is his right, but the Wikipedia is not the place to develop own theories.

He has completely ruined this article, deleted the scientifically accepted facts in the name of his private convictions. If he does not accept the opinion of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference, he can write a new story about this subject somewhere else, but the Wikipedia is not the place for that in my humble opinion.--Szilas (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szilas, you have the right to criticize, however, my edits were not totally reverted, so some parts should be true, hm? Just wait till I compile some facts and MTA can do me a favour. Szilas, MTA is washing your brain, driven by political interests. Just one example: have you ever seen a reliable picture on the cross? If you did, you could see it was not drilled inside. This picture is quite difficult to get. The holy crown is the key to ancient Hungarian heritage, so it is quite crucial in the history of Carpathian basin.
One more: of course these ideas are not coming from my mind, but I took it from some authors.
Last: I am open to any arguement in the future!
Abdulka (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulka, the Wikipedia is the place for the generally accepted, mainstream scientific results. Of course you can find sources in such widely debated issues for everything, and for the contrary of everything, but we have to stick to the main lines. You can't have better source than the official publication for the 1000. anniversary of the Hungarian statehood, created on the basis of consensus of many Hungarian scientists, officially presented by the Hungarian Prime Minister for a great exhibition in the Vatican.--Szilas (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I didn't revert all your edits because I couldn't yet check the validity of all your facts, and I didn't want to be too harsh. But I don't think that they are all up to scientific standards. I sincerely propose to you to turn to the Metapedia [2] with your creative ideas.--Szilas (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Crown of Hungary VS Holy Crown of Thorns[edit]

I was searching wikipedia about the Holy Crown and I ended up here in this page. There is a line in here saying that "Crown of Saint Stephen, is the only crown known today with 'holy' attribute." I believe that the Holy Crown of Thorns is also another crown with the "holy" attribute and it would be holier than this one because only one King worn it and no king can ever wear it but Him "The King of all Kings." The Holy Crown of Thorns would be incomparable against this crown. CrusaderJohnael (talk)

First, in Hungarian the crown is referred to usually as "the Holy Crown" (a Szent Korona), and besides, this is an encyclopedia. Which means: please stay objective. CoolKoon (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarians are (mostly) Catholics, so they know about the Thorn Crown! You can not decide which one is "holier", as by tradition the crown has "flown" from the heaven, sent by God. For the Hungarians, the "Sacra Corona" is the same as the "Lost Arc" for the Jews, the only difference is that the crown is in Hungary and is still existing, while the Lost Arc is (as it's in its name) lost, and the Thorn Crown is also not existing.
Another point is that you have to consider what is "holy". Holy is something or somebody (in this case, the crown is always referred as a person), with divine link, or with divine characteristics. The divine link for this crown is estabilished by two main ways: 1. according to all ancient sources, the crown's origin is mysterious, stating it was built by God and God has sent it below. 2. During the coronation ceremony of St. Stephen offered the country to Holy Virgin (Nagyboldogasszony), so she became the "regina" of Hungary. This means that the highest authority, the sovereign in Hungary was not the king, but the crown itself, (as the queen of the country is Holy Virgin), which is linking the country to heaven. More information you could read on this mystery at the Doctrine of the Holy Crown. Abdulka (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Move[edit]

Gyriffindor requests that the long established current title, "Holy Crown of Hungary" be moved. However his proposed title "Crown of Saint Stephen" is less common in English. As evidenced by any rudimentary google search done on "Holy Crown" vs other titles.


Oppose the move to less known title, Support the current title "Holy Crown of Hungary" because it's more common in English, and more correct Saint Stephen never having wore the current crown. Hobartimus (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the move as well. Frankly speaking I wouldn't rely on google for stuff like this since on many ocassions the incorrect spelling (or name in this case) can yield more results than a correct one. I don't know whether Saint Stephen has actually wore the Holy Crown (I didn't know him in person :P), and this fact is a source of dispute even amongst Hungarian historicians. Anyway the "Holy Crown of Hungary" should stay because it is derived from its Hungarian name (Szent Korona - (the) Holy Crown) and it describes the crown much better than the proposed "Crown of Saint Stephen". That said, I support the original name despite being an atheist. CoolKoon (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulka, please....[edit]

stop this vandalism. Write your own theories in a separate part, as a different theory, but don't delete the generally accepted scientific positions. The studies of the Hungarian Academy of Science are more convincing than your dreams.--Szilas (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed the picture with the icons? This is Vandalism. Did the MTA follow any investigation why those icons are on the crown? BTW, did YOU know the icons? I will come back with more interesting stuff --- ah, yes, in a seperate block, not to disturb the SCIENTIFIC (ha-ha) approach. Abdulka (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vague[edit]

Could someone pls explain this sentence to me?

This also meant that the Kingdom of Hungary was a special state: they were not looking for a crown to inaugurate a king, but rather, they were looking for a king for the crown; this is unique in Europe.

The kingdom of Hungary was a special state because its kings were formally crowned with the same crown and not some random crown?! Is this what is meant?--Bizso (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming from the Doctrine of the Holy Crown, namely, the only soveriegn is the crown itself, and NOT the king himself. This means there is a higher political power than the king, and this is the crown itself. In other nations, the aristocracy (or whoever) named the king, prepared a gold crown for him, and inaugurated the king. In the early days in Hungary, when the Hungarians were looking for a new ruler, there was the Holy Crown, and the aristocracy was looking for a king for the crown (who should have physical and mental capabilities, also the minimum age was fixed; this was unfortunately not always followed). Later, in the Habsburg times, this was abused by Austrians, but in Horthy's time, it was clear and it was/is normal to have a kingdom without a king (which is also included in the Doctrine of Holy Crown), this case is also representing that the highest sovereign is the crown; this is special in the world. Abdulka (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The icons at the back[edit]

http://noooooor.freeblog.hu/files/Korona/szent%20korona%20h%C3%A1tul.jpg Most people agree that the three pictures on the back are of Michael VII Doukas, Constantine Doukas, and Géza I. They all lived after Saint Stephen was given the crown by the Pope so people often use this as proof that Hungarian nationalists are lying and that their crown does not date back to 1000. Maybe those icons were added later or they replaced previous icons or maybe we simply misidentified who they are. The one with the text "ΓΕΩΒΙΤZΑC ΠΙΣΤΟC ΚΡΑΛΗC ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑC" commonly believed to be Geza I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_I_of_Hungary could very well actually be Géza the father of István http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_of_Hungary. There is just as much evidence pointing to Chief Géza being the man in this icon than a king that lived 50 years later. Also the word kralj that appears in that Greek text doesn't even mean "king" it would have a similar meaning as "fejedelem" in Hungarian which is what the rulers before King Stephen were called. The Greek text also refers to him as being from "Turkey". This would match Chief Geza of the little known country of Hungary a lot better than King Geza of the well established Kingdom of Hungary. Can someone give me the exact Greek text in unicode that appears on Dukasz Michael and Dukasz Constantine's icons? 70.59.7.216 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important?
  • These icons were mounted much after the building of the crown. This can be proven easily if you observe that the artistic value of the icons in the front are much higher than these three (just look at the elbows!) It is adding that the size of icons do not match to the frame. Moreover, M. Duchas was barbarically drilled on the gold stripe and the icon behind, Thomas.
  • Deriving the fact of origin from these icons are not following any reason
  • Geobitsas = Géza was never called like this, also "King of Turkia" is misleading as Hungary was never called "Turkia" (in fact, Hungarians were sometimes called "Turks", but Hungary was never "Turkia")
  • Michael Duchas was a king with very small power, he was defeated by the Ottomans and fled from Byzantine

Abdulka (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Michael VII and Constantine Doukas have halos?[edit]

Why do Michael VII and Constantine Doukas have halos? 65.102.255.100 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good question, if you observe carefully, the icons' artistic quality are inferior to the other icons. To add, it is not difficult to see that the 3 icons on the back are addendums of later times (17th century, probably). So they are not original. One theory is that they were changed during the times when the crown was stolen by Habsburgs. There is no factual evidence why/who/when removed them but just looking on the artisitc value and the barbaric removal it is for sure this was not original. By knowing this, I suppose the question has no meaning...Abdulka (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's important about those kings though? Especially to the Habsburgs? 184.96.238.72 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Crown of Hungary → Crown of St. Stephen — Crown of St. Stephen is most common name in English language sources Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support as the nominator per given evidences.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already discussed quite a lot before and rejected in favour of the current stable title. Hobartimus (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see a significant difference between the two regarding English hits at Google Books + the average English reader might get confused because of Saint Stephen/Stephen I of Hungary. Squash Racket (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody who can read English is not supposed to be confused. Just and example.Aleksa Šantić-everybody can distinguish person and city--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as conventional usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as Google searches show "Crown of Hungary" is actually the conventional usage, and has overwhelmingly the most use with over 400 000 hits[3]. As such I'm fine with any variation that contains the "Crown of Hungary" formulae. Hobartimus (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whaaaat?! First, the present name is by far the most widely used one, second, there are more than one saints with the name "Stephen". Oh, and third, the Holy Crown which you can inspect in the building of the Hungarian Parliament in Budapest has actually never been on the head of St. Stephen. It has been made later. Last but not least the whole proposal is absolute hogwash. CoolKoon (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in English it isn't; and England has plenty of relics of St. Edward which Edward the Confessor never saw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the average English person sees the name Saint Stephen, he most commonly thinks of a completely different person who is first in Google and first in Wikipedia under that article. To compound the problem, our own wiki article on the unrelated person states, "Stephen means "wreath" or "crown" in Greek.", associating this different Saint Stephen with the word crown. And, our wiki article about the related Saint Stephen is not even under Saint Stephen, its under Stephen I... Hobartimus (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • True enough, but irrelevant; when he sees "Crown of Saint Stephen", there is only one referent, the subject of this article. On the other hand, the present title will mean nothing to most anglophone readers - unless they speak Magyar, an assumption this wikipedia is not entitled to make. The Hungarian Wikipedia is, and is right to use this name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absurd suggestion on it's face. And as a side note it was just proven how Saint Stephen means nothing to most Anglophone readers so his crown can only mean even less to them. Hobartimus (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • And "holy crown of Hungary" means a lot??? Your word taken as granted. LOL Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not a question of the frequency of the naming of this object. According to the mainstream scientific results, including the researchers of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and also the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference, the crown was created long time after the death of (the Hungarian) Saint Stephen. The connection between the crown and the saint king belongs to the realm of the legends. The Wikipedia should support the scientific truth and not the legends, however nice and widespread they be.--Szilas (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not encyclopedia of Hungarians or Hungary.In outer space "Crown of St. Stephen " is much more used name, so does even Hungarian source says.[4] So , your citing of Hungarian instituitions is completely irrelevant.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of nationality, it is a question of science. St. Stephen was a Hungarian king, so I would not oppose naming the crown after him because of national reasons. But he has not touched it, why call it after him? It is a general misunderstanding, and naming it after him in the enwiki would only deepen this mistaken perception.--Szilas (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Google searches[edit]

As it has been mentioned above:

  • Google.com
    • "Holy Crown of Hungary" [5] Result : 34,900
    • "Holy crown of Hungary" [6] Result : 34,900
    • "Crown of Hungary" [7] Result : 412,000
    • "crown of Hungary" [8] Result : 412,000
    • "Crown of St. Stephen" -lands [9] Result : 104,000
    • "Crown of Saint Stephen" -lands [10] Result : 20,200


  • Google books
    • "Holy Crown of Hungary" [11] Result:849
    • "Holy crown of Hungary" [12] Result:849
    • "Crown of Hungary" [13] Result:1,040
    • "crown of Hungary" [14] Result:1,040
    • "Crown of St. Stephen"[15] Result: 894
    • "Crown of Saint Stephen" [16] Result:662

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources:[17] from Hungary:

Perhaps the most recognized medieval object from Hungary is the Holy Crown of Hungary, commonly known as the Crown of Saint Stephen.

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is IP sockpuppetry going on here or not, but the above data is definitely false as I already told the IP. Seems that an IP or a sockpuppeteer tried to falsify the data here, and someone else now added different data. Hobartimus (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



the previous title (Crown of St. Stephen) is more common.it was moved to the current title illegally by User:Hobartimuswithout consensus or any discussion. there was 1 short discussion but Hobartimus has decided to move the article before result.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was called "Holy Crown of Hungary" in 2007 too, and in 2008 and 2009 and what you link is from 2008. In 2008 it's established name was Holy Crown as well. Please check your facts better next time. Hobartimus (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Established by whom??Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Established by the community, it is the name of the article for years now, all editors who ever checked read the article and left the name in place. For example if I go to the Croatia article and angrily want to move it to "Republic of Croatia", others might point out that now for years the article was at "Croatia" apart from short periods of vandalism or disruption and they would be right. Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this research at the domains "google.com" and "books.google.com" with English as target language-with English as target language. Everybody can verify that!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These results are still misleading as there are several Saint Stephen's in fact the name Stephen is very common. And a different article completely mixes up the results with the terminology using "lands of" to NOT refer to the CROWN the subject of the article but another thing completely. And in a setting for example writing a book about Hungary it is more acceptable to use a phrasing without "of Hungary". However Wikipedia is a setting where the names HAVE to be informative, for example even "Napoleon I of France" is used (that might be even much but it is standard wikipedia practice to be informative). Hobartimus (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

IP sockpuppetry ?[edit]

Some of the original edits of the IP[18][19], please note that it is a dynamic IP making unsigned edits, exactly the type that "avoids scrutiny" and since it's a dynamic IP it makes following the contributions a lot harder. It seems the edits of the IP for example adding "portal Croatia" to the article a little weird. [20] Does the "portal Croatia" cover the crown, does it or Croatia articles have pictures of the Crown or discussing it, as other articles have pictures of it as one of the most important, key symbols of Hungary? Anyway this IP activity will need to be investigated. Hobartimus (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"key symbols of Hungary"-What is that???

Also:

Therefore it is related to Croatia,Portal:Croatia and History of Croatia--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph problems[edit]

The lead paragraph currently contains a seemingly confused and meandering discussion of subsidiary side-issues, and currently really doesn't do what a lead paragraph needs to do. AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they call Géza a Turk?[edit]

Why exactly did the maker of his icon call him one. I take offense to that. 216.160.137.99 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The icon was inserted in later times, in 16-17th century, most probably when the Crown was stolen. The icon is not following the other iconographies. It simply doesn't matter what is on it.Abdulka (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Move - comments[edit]

What is the special reason to move this article to "Crown of St Stephen"? I strongly oppose. This is simply the desacralisation of the crown, on the grounds that today nobody outside of Hungary understands why it is "sacred". We are living in a materialistic world now (are you listening, Szilas? - I believe in traditions and not in MTA) but it doesn't mean that we have to cut out our "legendary" past. Materialism is in direct opposition to theology and one should not analyse a "Holy" object through the glasses of strict materialism.

  • all codexes call it "Sacra Corona" = Holy Crown
  • the kings of Hungary were "sacralic" kings till King Matthias (even István Széchenyi writes this in his Diaries)
  • we have no clear knowledge nowadays what this meant exactly
  • sacread means connected to God! => this crown had some connections to God which was passed by tradition (St Stephen "offered" Hungary to Holy Virgin, with this crown -- not really possible to translate to English, as it was not exactly Holy Virgin, but "Nagyboldogasszony").
  • the people outside of Hungary were not following this tradition, this is why it is simply "Crown of ST Stephen"
  • this doesn't mean that you need to humiliate a 1000 year-old national tradition
  • Sacra Corona is as important as the "Lost Arc" to Jewish - what would the Jews say if we move the "Lost Ark" to "Lost Box"?

If you want to humiliate a pride of a nation, with Google hitrate then go on, I would reconsider. Abdulka (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

originaly title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.24.95 (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1526[edit]

There is an interesting anectode about this crown. During the Mohach campaign of Suleyman I of the Ottoman Empire in 1526, Louis II of Hungary fell and a group of nobles tried to present the crown to Ferdinand II, the arcduke of Austria. But on way to Vienna, a team of Akıncı let by Bali Bey, attacked them and brought the crown back to Buda. Then Ottomans crowned John Zapolya as the new king of Hungary. If sourced properly, this anecdote may be an interesting addition to the article.


Doctrine of the Holy Crown[edit]

Some wiki troll deleted the "Doctrine of the Holy Crown" article, which is a constitution like the Constitution of Sweden or the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and confused it with the "Holiness of the crown" belief. It is a constitutional legal topic (similar to the British and Swedish article) and it is not about religious beliefs of the crown. Please restore the independent "Doctrine of the Holy Crown" article.

I do not really see your problem. We have an article "Constitution of Hungary", as well. We may also write about the "Doctrine of the Holy Crown" in the "History" section of that article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the troll didn't only deleted the article, but redirected it to the "Holiness doctrine" of the Holy - Crown article (which is religious nelief and which hasn't links with the law history.

I agree. There is basicly no link between the Stalinist Constitution which was amended and re-written recently, and the "Doctrine of the Holy Crown" which is a full constitutional system, totally different than the methodology used in feudal West Europe. We have to restore it it is important to have it to understand 1848 revolution, the Ausgleich, the Horthy era and even politics of today. Restore it, if others will not do it I will do myself. Hétszűnyű Kapanyányi Monyók (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent measuring system?[edit]

"A reliable consistent measurement system can be found which is true for almost all the parts of the Crown. ref Beöthy et al.: Eppur si ..., Fizikai Szemle, 1984/2. /ref" -- What is this supposed to mean? I have removed it for now. if someone understands what is intended by it, then it should be added back in in a more clear way. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means the various measurements for the design of the crown are multiples of some base unit. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Needed[edit]

Under the heading "Specifications of the crown" it reads:

The Crown’s shape is elliptic (the width is 203.9 mm, the length is 215.9 mm) and is larger than a (healthy) human’s head.

It should read:

The Crown’s shape is elliptic (the width is 203.9 mm, the length is 215.9 mm) and is larger than a (healthy) pinhead’s head.

I see that neither Matthias II of Hungary (on the coin), nor Francis Joseph I are cranially chalanged... 67.206.184.242 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holy Crown of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holy Crown of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

198.71.29.39 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)== Structure of the crown and its icons ==[reply]

"There are four hanging pendants (pendilia) dangling from chains on each side of the diadem and one in the back. There is no monde." Thor helped me to have the crown designed and he insisted that one of the pendilia is to dangle in front of the nose when worn. This is the proper method of wearing, other than, only Christ is to wear the crown. The purpose is to aid in seeing two worlds, one with each eye. Stephen.198.71.29.39 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly occuring Holy Crown in a victorian painting about an african legend.[edit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Leighton-The_King_and_the_Beggar-maid.jpg 94.21.160.141 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Crown_of_Hungary&oldid=1207630725"