Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary

Active discussions


Removed this bit: "Sigismund and Mary had a daughter named Elisabeth. Elisabeth , wife of Casimir IV named the "mother of the Jagiellos", descended from their daughter Elisabeth."

I believe the first mentioned Elisabeth was daughter of Sigismund and his second wife Barbara of Cilli, not a daughter of Sigismund and his first wife Mary. -- Someone else 21:51 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

You were right to remove that, Elisabeth was from the second marriage, moreover, I don't think anyone was descended from her since her only child died childless.

one more thing: isn't Slovak language called "Slovakian" in English? Alensha 00:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

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. There is a rough consensus to move, and had the unilateral move that is being reversed here been discussed in the first place, it would have had no chance. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maria II of HungaryMary of Hungary — There is no Mary II of Hungary. This woman is the only Mary to have ever been Queen regnant of Hungary or to have claimed to be such. —Michael Sanders 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Comment - This is a clear case of an inappropriate move. Unless the user who carried out the move without consultation can provide a citation for his statements, the move will be reverted in due course. Deb (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This Maria II's great-great-grandmother, Maria of Hungary, Queen Consort of Naples, claimed the Hungarian throne, was crowned as its rightful queen regnant by representative of pope, and was later held by her descendants (such as this Maria here) as having been legitimate queen of Hungary, Maria I. see for example these notes. Marrtel (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The source you give does not name her "Maria I" - it is an unreliable source that at best could source her as a pretender. It does not evidence her as "Maria I". Michael Sanders 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the fact that she is attested as a pretender, led Michaelsanders to remove the Category:Hungarian pretenders, from the biography of that Maria. I have warned Michaelsanders from "blind" edits. Marrtel (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. No evidence that the previous Maria is widely regarded as having reigned, or that this Maria is accepted as being the second. The Hungarian Wikipedia article calls her Mária magyar királynő, no idea what it means but it doesn't sound like the second; Italian calls her Maria d'Ungheria, ie Maria of Hungary. Other Balkan Wikipedias all seem similar. This doesn't automatically mean she isn't called Maria II in English but it makes it seem rather doubtful. Andrewa (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

This is the only Queen regnant of Hungary named Mary. The supposed 'Mary/Maria I' of Hungary is Maria of Hungary (1257-1323), also known as 'Maria Arpad', who was never Queen of Hungary. This article details a person who is never, either by right or choice, called Mary/Maria II. It should be moved. (Incidentally, there is risk of confusion with another woman also well-known as "Mary of Hungary". However, that woman is also known as "Mary of Austria", and there is an acceptable disambiguation notice to that effect at the top of this page. This woman is never known as anything else.) Michael Sanders 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In my assessment, Michaelsanders presents either uninformed or deceitful allegation when he alleges that there never were any earlier queen Maria who claimed the Hungarian throne in her own right. It was specifically this Maria II's great-great-grandmother, Maria of Hungary, Queen Consort of Naples, who was the first Maria to claim to be Queen Regnant of Hungary, by laying her claim to the Hungarian throne, becoming crowned as its rightful queen regnant through papal sanction, was further recognized as rightful holder of the Hungarian kingship, and was later held by her descendants (such as this Maria II here) as having been legitimate queen of Hungary, Maria I. see for example these notes. (King Charles of Naples married at "Naples [May/Jun] 1270 Maria of Hungary, daughter of ISTVÁN V King of Hungary & Elisabeth of the Kumans. She claimed the throne of Hungary 21 Sep 1290, following the death of her brother King Laszlo IV. She was crowned Queen by a Papal legate in Naples 1291, but transferred her rights to her son Charles Martel. The Pope confirmed her sole rights in Hungary 30 Aug 1295".) It is not important that Maria I of Hungary highly probably never actually was able to rule Hungary, but remained a pretender, a claimant. Regnal numberings within a dynasty commonly count pretenders in the numbering, compare for example with cases of regnal numbers of Napoleon III and Louis XVIII, who both were real rulers. Accordingly, this was Maria II. We have, according to naming conventions, the possibility to utilize regnal numbers precisely for disambiguation purposes, which is needed here. Marrtel (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Michaelsanders for some reason calls the so-called Maria I as "Maria Arpad". Any scholar of the field would know that Arpad was never a surname nor a byname of any person. Arpad was the legendary progenitor of said medieval dynasty, which much later, after the fact, has led historiography to call it as the Arpad dynasty. But that is no sign of its use as surname. All in all, contrary to what Michaelsanders alleges, there never existed someone called "Maria Arpad". Even that lack of knowledge of the relevant history demonstrates how misguided this naming proposal would be. Marrtel (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You have presented an unreliable source stating that Maria the Arpad claimed the throne. You have presented no evidence that she was ever actually called "Maria I", or that 'King' Mary would or did acknowledge her ancestress's claim. Napoleon III and Louis XVIII exist as ordinals because they are used. This is a case of fiction-making by wiki-editors. Michael Sanders 12:05, 6 January 2008 (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.


What happen to her birthdate?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns following a GOCE copy-edit on January 29, 2016Edit

Overall, this article is pretty well written. I just have a few comments:

1) In the lead, it says:

  • Mary's marriage to Sigismund of Luxembourg, a member of the imperial Luxembourg dynasty, was already decided before her first birthday.

I saw "Luxemburg" in association with Sigismund's name several times throughout the article, so I changed the few that were spelled "Luxembourg" to "Luxemburg" for consistency, except not the instances of "Luxembourg" in the lead. I saw that the link at Sigismund of Luxembourg in this sentence leads to an article entitled Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. In the first line of that article, it says, "Sigismund of Luxemburg". If a search is done for "Luxemburg", it leads to the article Luxembourg. I'm just wondering whether "Luxemburg" in the article on Sigismund should be changed to "Luxembourg", or is it because it was more German than French at that time? I'm also wondering whether all the instances of "Luxemburg" should be changed to match the "Sigismund of Luxembourg" in the lead, or vice versa, or just leave it as it is.

The modern-day country is Luxembourg with the u so I think that's how Sig's name should be spelt now. We can assume he is unrelated to Rosa Luxemburg. Rothorpe (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Rothorpe. Did you mean to say "with the o"? Both "Luxemburg" and "Luxembourg" have a "u" in the last syllable. Corinne (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I em su cerelass. Rothorpe (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, thank you for your thorough and comprehensive copyedit. I changed his name "Luxembourg", because the latest monography dedicated to Sigismund's life uses this form ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in "Reign", I added "historian" before the name "Jan Długosz" in this sentence:

  • According to the 15th-century historian Jan Długosz, the Czudar brothers surrendered forts to the Lithuanians, who had "[h]eavily bribed" them.

It has just sounded a little odd to say "according to the 15th-century Jan Długosz". I looked at his article and saw that he was listed as having four roles, or careers. Instead of listing all of them, I chose the one that seemed the most pertinent for this sentence. Hope that was all right.

Absolutely. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

3) Toward the end of the third paragraph in the section Mary, Queen of Hungary#Restoration and capture (1386–1387) is the following sentence:

  • In the same month, Sigismund invaded Slavonia, but could not capture Gomnec Castle.

It's not clear to me why Sigismund would want to capture Gomnec Castle. It sounds like his wife Mary and her mother were no longer imprisoned there. I don't see why this is even mentioned. If it is important, perhaps some hint of the reason could be given.

Thank you. I changed the wording. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's all. Corinne (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I made some minor changes. I would highly appreciate if you could cheque them. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
They're fine; I see you elected to add "the" to the one "historian" phrase that lacked it, which is fine. Regarding these sentences:
  • Louis wanted to bequeath Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence upon his daughters, who thus became desirable spouses for members of the European royal families.
To me, it's a little odd to start a new paragraph with "Louis wanted to..." without giving a clear reason as to why. First, saying that he wanted to bequeath the countries and his claims is not the same as saying he did bequeath them. Second, the way these sentences are worded, the result of his (assumed) bequest – his daughters becoming desirable spouses –  is just that –  a result or consequence (perhaps not even intended or foreseen) of his bequest. If it is true that Louis wanted to bequeath his countries and claims to his daughters so that they would become desirable spouses, it should be expressed that way. If Louis did, in fact, bequeath those countries and claims, you don't even have to use the verb "wanted". Also, usually, "to" follows "bequeath":
  • Louis bequeathed Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence to his daughters so that they would become desirable spouses...
  • Louis bequeathed Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence to his daughters in order to make them desirable spouses...
  • Louis bequeathed Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence to his daughters, making them desirable spouses...
The last one, though not directly saying that his main intention was to make his daughters desirable spouses, is the most concise of the three. Corinne (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I think none of the above sentences shows properly the actual situation: Louis's daughters became desirable spouses because the European royals thought that Louis wanted to bequeath his realms and claims to them. Maybe the new version is clearer. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Borsoka. I see – just the thought, or expectation, by European royal families that Louis would bequeath his lands and claims to his daughters made them desirable spouses. I see you re-worded the sentence; I made a minor change (mostly just punctuation). Let me look at it again in the light of your explanation here. Corinne (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
O.K. I looked at the sentence again. I think it's all right, but the phrase "as possible heirs" is a bit weak and vague in comparison to what you could write. I think the sentence would have a stronger impact if you wrote:
  • Since Louis had fathered no sons, the expectation that he would bequeath...made his daughters desirable spouses...
What do you think? Corinne (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I love this sentence. :) Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I am reviewing some articles now, including this one:


  • seven days after Louis I's death Is this the same as Louis the Great? We should stick to any one name throughout the article.
  • Link regency as done in the main text


  • Mary was born in the second half of 1371 Better write the "latter half"
  • her paternal grandmother, Elizabeth Give her full name so that she is not confused with Elizabeth of Bosnia.

Restoration and capture (1386–1387)Edit

  • Can "knighted" be linked?

Her husband's co-ruler (1387–1395)Edit

  • The injuries the queen sustained were fatal --> The queen succumbed to the fatal injuries
  • The lead does not mention how Mary died

Images: It is incredible that we do not have an image of Sigismund of Luxembourg in this article.

That should be all. An enjoyable read. Good luck! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC) @Sainsf:, I highly appreciate your review. Thank you for it. I hope I fixed the above problems. Please contact me if further actions were needed. I think there is an image of Sigismund (I refer to his seal, which is the last picture). Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe this article is ready to be a GA. I am happy to promote this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Title of the articleEdit

I had to force myself to bring this up, but the subject of this article is not the primary topic for "Mary, Queen of Hungary". It is most evident when one searches for Queen Mary of Hungary.[2] Virtually all hits refer to Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands). I think this is something that should be considered. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not need to force yourself. :) She was the only reigning queen of Hungary named Mary. Consequently, we should use the present title. As far as I remember, the other Queen Mary of Hungary is frequently mentioned as Mary of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this Mary was a queen regnant and the other was a queen consort, but does it really change the fact that the latter is the one historians refer to when they say "Queen Mary of Hungary"? The present title makes sense per one guideline (WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)) but is against another (WP:Primary topic). I ignored this problem until I went about creating the redirect Queen Mary of Hungary for this article, only to realize that "Queen Mary of Hungary" always refers to another woman. What makes sense for us, who are used to Wiki guidelines, does not necessarily make sense for readers. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


The names of 29 people in the ancestry chart include the territorial designation. That's how it's always been. Why should one of them be an exception? Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

1) This is not good solution and this not an argument that it's always been. 2) Władysław I of Poland could be Władysław I Herman. 3) You still did not argument your whole revert, so I am sure that you reverting my edition blindly. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I did explain the whole revert. I argued for consistency. Władysław I of Poland could theoretically be Władysław I Herman but it never refers to him. That's why Władysław I of Poland redirects to Władysław I the Elbow-high. Also, please read WP:BRD for once. If somebody reverts your edit, it's up to you to explain on the talk page why the edit should be made, not up to the reverter to explain why it should be reverted. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
You clearly revert my editions without reading, what I should explain? Some weeks ago you reverted my edition and restored false information in one article [3]. I wrote several times: read carefully what you reverted. You reverted more than you write here about. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
And I explained everything I reverted, in the edit summaries and here. When somebody reverts your edit, you are supposed to go the talk page to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you do not explained everything. I asked you several time to read carefully. Now, I see that you clearly blindly reverted my editions. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I did explain each and every edit. There are very detailed edit summaries in the page history for everyone to see. Denying that makes you, to call a spade a spade, a liar. Asking me to "read carefully" does not explain your edits but serves to merely patronize those who disagree with you. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No, because you did not write about Jadwiga of Poland and Jadwiga of Kalisz. There is three possibilities: you do not read carefully (as I suppose), or you are lying, or this is a some kind of trolling. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I responded to your argument, citing the WP:Primary topic guideline. I made an argument in favor of the original wording and you did not respond to that at all. I don't think you have the right to claim that "no serious argument for other name" has been made. Surtsicna (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond to any of my arguments? Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Władysław I of Poland could be Władysław I Herman, who was not father of Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary, eg. John Freed, Frederick Barbarossa: The Prince and the Myth, Yale University Press, 2016. I understand that Surtsicna and Borsoka invanted their own system of genealogical tables, but it their POV. I removed unclear information from article. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Władysław I of Poland almost always refers to the King of Poland. That is why Władysław I of Poland redirects there. Poland is relevant in the table. Mary was meant to rule it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Why you want put unclear information into article, that could mislead readers? Swetoniusz (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:Primary meaning. I have asked you to do that several times already. Sometimes a name commonly refers to a single individual even though it might apply to others as well. Thus we have Queen Victoria, Maria Theresa, Charles X, Władysław I of Poland, etc. Władysław I of Poland commonly refers to the King of Poland. Hence the redirect. Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I see that you constantly putting unclear information into articles, which mislead readers. I think this need an administrator intervention, because this is disturbing behaviour. Swetoniusz (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do seek an intervention. You have no intention to ever learn how to build this encyclopaedia, so I give up explaining it to you. Surtsicna (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


Why do you think that the form "Władysław I the Elbow-high" is better in the context than the stable form "Władysław I of Poland" which is fully in line with the forms otherwise used in the ahnetapfel "First name (Number) of Country". Please remember that, for instance, Britannica calls him simply Władysław I (king of Poland) ([4]), so we cannot say that the stable form cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also remember that the discussion under the above subtitle shows that Surtsicna also prefer the form "Władysław I of Poland" and you ignored Surtsicna's concern when making unilateral change. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This not an argument that Surtsicna prefer version that mislead readers. Please, use real arguments and stop edit wars. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The present version does not mislead leaders. You have not answered my first question. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You could not compare academic publication with popular encyclopedia. I clearly show that this version mislead version. You said: The present version does not mislead leaders. Please, use real arguments. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You have not proved anything. You have been making empty declarations and you have not answered my first question. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I show academic publications and clearly proofed that Władysław I of Poland mislead readers. I do not who on Wikipedia invented this form in tables of ancestries, but please see some academic publications. Nobody use this form. Please, stop edit war and mislead readers. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please show them. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Read carefully this talk page. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You have not referred to a single academic work which states (or implies) that Władysław I the Elbow-high cannot be mentioned as Władysław I of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
But I did note claim that thing. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If you did not claim that thing, why have you been reverting our edits? We say that in this context the physical features of Wladislaus are less relevant than the fact that he was a ruler of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please again, read talk page carefully. 1) Władysław I of Poland mislead readers, because could be either Władysław I Herman, either Władysław I the Elbow-high. 2) Using "First name (Number) of Country" is an invention of some Wikipedians. I see no reason for not using more proper version. See any academic publications about medieval genealogy, eg. Wdowiszewski, Wywód przodków Kazimierza Wielkiego [5], p. 130. This is ahnentafeln of son of Władysław I the Elbow-high. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
(1) There is a wikilink to Władysław I the Elbow-high, consequently nobody is mislead. Furthermore, nobody who have whenever read about Władysław I Herman would think that he could have been Mary's grandfather, because Władysław I Herman died in 1102 and Mary was born in 1371. (2) Oscar Halecki's work cited in the article also contains an ahnentafeln, which is more relevant in the context of this article, because it was published in English and it shows the ancestors of Mary's sister, Jadwiga. This ahnentafeln mentions "Władysław I Łokietek x1260 +1333 King of Poland 1320-1333". Consequently, it also suggests that an ahnentafeln should mention Poland in connection with Wladislaw. Since there is a wikilink to Władysław I the Elbow-high, we do not need to mention all information about this monarch here. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Two ahnentafeln in academic publications use Władysław I Łokietek. The answer is clear, but Borsoka knows better. Lol. Swetoniusz (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
And at least one of them, the one published in English, also refers to Poland. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This "read carefully" thing is starting to crack me up :D Surtsicna (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Queens of HungaryEdit

The problem with Category:Queens of Hungary is that it should include both consorts and female monarchs. The consorts were just as much queens as the monarchs were. One might even argue that the consorts belong to that category more than the female monarchs do because the latter were officially titled kings. Either way, Mary and Maria Theresa ought to be grouped with the other Hungarian monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

What about Category:Queens regnant of Hungary to avoid confusion? If you agree, I will create it. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be much clearer! I suppose it would be a non-diffusing category and would be included along with Category:Hungarian monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Mary, Queen of Hungary" page.