Talk:Hungarian nobility

There seems to be a confusion between singular and plurals. For example, "Initially, a diverse body of people were described as noblemen..." "A diverse body of people" is a singular entity, therefore it "was described". Similarly, in the first sentence of the precis on the front page today, "The Hungarian nobility were initially a diverse body of people..." is also a singularity, so the verb should be "was".

This is a very common occurrence - even the BBC does it. It often talks about a football team in the plural ("Manchester United are... etc), which grates as much as if I had written "...even the BBC do it..." in the first sentence of this paragraph. 81.102.20.141 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The BBC do it because that is grammatically correct in British English, where teams, groups, etc. are described in plural form instead of in singular form. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The BBC _does_ it.... 81.102.20.141 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

In British English the BBC would be "they", not "it". My point is that this isn't actually a grammar error but a WP:ENGVAR issue. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been British all my life and it most certainly is a grammatical error. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. 81.102.20.141 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

81.102.20.141, hi. It's a shame that you don't have a user name.

I've been dying to figure this out ever since I encountered it, also with the BBC. I'm fluent in a Latin and a Germanic language, and both apply the rule you are claiming for English, too. However, the BBC staff, largely Oxbridge educated or inspired, does quite consistently apply the variant cited by Epicgenius. I know that, unlike Romanian or German, English has no central body making authoritative decisions about what's right and wrong, so I'm confused. Is this apparent dissonance

• the primary rule
• an allowed variant
• a mistake, but widely used and well-accepted
• a mistake which somewhat disqualifies you as an educated English-speaker?
• Maybe there are BE vs AE differences on top of a possible common approach?

Thanks. Arminden (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd find it very useful. I'm familiar with about a dozen aristocratic families from Transylvania, but have no idea how many there were in total, where some originated from, and even which of these important families were considered as part of the upper echelon and which not. A list would be a good starting base for further research and articles. Anyone? Maybe Hung. Wiki does have one already? Köszönöm! Arminden (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your note. Yes, there is a list which is linked in section "See also": List of titled noble families in the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The article suggests that nobles with hereditary titles had higher prestige than nobles without hereditary titles. I am not clear on what a "hereditary title" is. Some questions:

1. Maybe a noble with a hereditary title would be "Baron Foo" whereas a noble without hereditary title would simply be "Baron" (i.e. "Foo" is the title)? Alternatively, maybe a noble with a hereditary title would be "Baron" whereas a noble without hereditary title would just have an ordinary name (i.e. "Baron" is the title)? Or is it a title to land as opposed to a style or rank? Or something else?
2. Could a noble without a hereditary title pass on their noble status to legitimate offspring? (Maybe the answer to the preceding question will make the answer to this one obvious.)
3. Did prefection apply only to lands or also to titles?

A more general question: Was heredity of noble status/title by male primogeniture, or to all in the male line? In the latter case, did it extend to daughters? I'm thinking Baroness Orczy was a baroness but her son John Montagu Orczy Barstow was AFAIK not a baron. jnestorius ^(talk) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you for your question. I slightly expanded the lead to make it clearer. (1) Hereditary title means an aristocratic title, such as baron and count. (2) Yes. (3) Yes, but in practice it rarely mattered (for instance, Princess Maria Antonia Koháry married Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so her hereditary title did not raised her husband's social status). (4) The article makes it clear that a noble's children inherited his status. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]