Talk:Royal Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

I stick to my former version because

• not only the nortwestern part of Transdanubia belonged to the Royal Hungary but all the western half of it (the historical counties of Zala, Vas, Sopron, Moson, Győr, Komárom, Veszprém)
  • I do not know what you are talking about, any map you look at clearly shows that it was the northwestern part, not the western - unless you are considering Burgenland part of Transdanubia, but than the text has to be changed

• almost all the present Northern-Hungary region was part of Royal Hungary ie. Borsod, Abaúj, Zemplén, Heves, Nógrád counties + Szabolcs, Szatmár and Bereg
  • it is very weird to use the very modern term "Northern Hungary" without any addition in this context and since this is so evident, I see this as a deliberate attempt of deception, actually

• the Royal Hungary had its own parliament, the Hungarian Diet and institutions, the Habsburg kings were elected by the Diet and they should take on oath on the constitution of the Kingdom of Hungary - this is more than enough to say that the Royal Hungary wasn't a province but a de iure independet kingdon in personal (and partly real) union with the Habsburg Monarchy. Zello 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And what do you think the situation was say in Bohemia and other "provinces" (that's what the word is supposed to mean and it does not stem from me) of the Habsburg Empire??? Which other "provinces" do you think are meant by the sentence??? "Autonomy" is a wrong term, because it implies some "technical" arrangement. And, irrespective of this, the degree of "autonomy" (in your sense) was by far the lowest out of the "provinces" of the Empire, because the territory was very small and because it was in constant conflict with the Turks. Juro 08:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bohemia had the same degree of independence until the Czech Uprising in 1620 when it was abolished. Hungary wasn't part of the "hereditary lands", and theoretically only the person of the King connected it to the provinces. Of course in the 16-17th centuries personal union always meant real union in some degree. Zello 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The point was: Bohemia, just like (I assume: any) other land ("province") of the monarchy had its own diet and its own authorities, even if some powers were repealed in 1627. What you are talking about are formalities of the royal title arrangement, the real situation is or rather should be what matters in retrospect. The Hungarian throne was de-facto also "hereditary" after 1526. Juro 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Habsburgs thought when they tried to put away the obligations of the Hungarian constitution. There were several attempt to do this but every time an uprising followed (Bocskai, Bethlen, Rákóczi György, Thököly, Rákóczi Ferenc) and they should accept the former status quo. This is really different than the fate of the other provinces that never resisted to the Absolutist intentions of the Habsburgs or they had a catastrophal defeat as the Czech Uprising. Of course the relative success of the Hungarians were mainly due to the help of the Transylvanian Princes in the 16-17th century. Zello 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, but technically this was not topic. The issue was not to what extent the individual parts of the monarchy resisted or tried to resist Habsburg centralism. Juro 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)