Talk:List of Hungarian monarchs

message: 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)
thread_title: formatting, presidents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I removed it. Alensha 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Béla IV -- the Great 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article title / possible separation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peter and Samuel - which dynasty? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Rulers of the polity. john k 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 193.224.129.230 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:193.224.129.230|193.224.129.230]] 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Zapolya 

message: 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)
thread_title: Formatting question

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about Gábor Bethlen? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The last entry about Otto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  antikings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I was afraid I might have inserted trivia in a bout of senselessness. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descent of Vladislaus I from Bela IV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section of "Heads of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine since 1918" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  co-regents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Hungarian monarchs. 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/20081203150554/http://www.magyarorszag.hu/orszaginfo/adatok/tortenelem/uralkodok.html to http://www.magyarorszag.hu/orszaginfo/adatok/tortenelem/uralkodok.html
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) 23:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Norden1990! I have some remark about your recent edit. 
You renamed "Albert the Habsburg" to "Albert the Magnanimous", honestly I never heard this "Magnanimous" nickname in Hungary, Hungarian wiki and historiography use the "Habsburg Albert"  name, I think you know it. I do not doubt that in Austria or somewhere else this is his nickname, but we list here Hungarian monarchs and I think we should use the Hungarian nicknames for them. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Habsburg Albert is not a nickname, I guess. Majority of works use his name simply as "Albert". --Norden1990 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname