Talk:Holy Crown of Hungary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Location of the Crown 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bent cross 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the loss of the Holy Crown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The icons on the crown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Before destroying, please ask / comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  30 years after 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abdulka, please.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vague 

message: Why do Michael VII and Constantine Doukas have halos? 65.102.255.100 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What's important about those kings though? Especially to the Habsburgs? 184.96.238.72 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do Michael VII and Constantine Doukas have halos? 

message: As it has been mentioned above:
*Google.com
**"Holy Crown of Hungary"    Result : 34,900 
**"Holy crown of Hungary"  Result : 34,900 
**"Crown of Hungary"    Result : 412,000 
**"crown of Hungary"    Result : 412,000 
**"Crown of St. Stephen" -lands   Result : 104,000
**"Crown of Saint Stephen" -lands  Result : 20,200 
 
 
*Google books
**"Holy Crown of Hungary"  Result:849
**"Holy crown of Hungary"  Result:849
**"Crown of Hungary"  Result:1,040
**"crown of Hungary"  Result:1,040
**"Crown of St. Stephen" Result: 894
**"Crown of Saint Stephen"  Result:662 
--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Established by whom??Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Google searches

message: Some of the original edits of the IP, 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.  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)
thread_title:  IP sockpuppetry ? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lead paragraph problems

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why do they call Géza a Turk? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Move - comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: Doctrine of the Holy Crown

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consistent measuring system?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction Needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Holy Crown of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thegulyaspot.com/site/?q=node/148
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060403170223/http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50217849 to http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50217849
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028093910/http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50283816 to http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50283816
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624004443/http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50283774 to http://kep.tar.hu/mollach/50283774
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Randomly occuring Holy Crown in a victorian painting about an african legend.