Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

The Holy Sees Intervention

in the Struggle for the Occupation


of the Hungarian Throne (12901310)
Robert-Marius Mihalache

s suggested by the title, this study attempts to present the major changes that
occurred in the history of the Hungarian royal institution between 1290 and 1310.
Why has this twenty-year span been chosen? After the death of King Ladislaus IV,
who was also known as the Cuman and had no successor, the Hungarian royalty experienced a rather difficult period. Several heirs on the maternal side expressed their
desire to ascend the throne of Hungary. The pope followed closely the situation
in this kingdom, since he was the head of the Pontifical Monarchy, an institution
known as Christianitas1 or Societas Christiana, to which Hungary also belonged. The
pope made his presence felt through his legates, special envoys sent there to resolve
the matter of the continuity of the Hungarian throne. In this segment of time, four
legates de latere were dispatched to Hungary, which attests the extremely acute character of the Hungarian question.
In the Hungarian historiography, the theme of the continuity of the Hungarian
dynasty has been studied by several important historians; foremost amongst them
are Sndor Szilgyi and Pl Engel. As for the Romanian historiography, this topic
has scarcely been approached, which is why this article aims to present how the
transfer of royal power was made from the Arpadian to the Angevin dynasty and
how the Holy See intervened in settling the issue of monarchic continuity.
Hungary entered the sphere of influence of the Holy Roman Empire, as well
as of Christianitas, by the rules of any continental kingdom at the end of the tenth
century, that is through the full agreement between the secular power, represented
by Emperor Otto III, and the spiritual power,2 headed by Pope Sylvester II.
The late thirteenth-century crisis between the kingdoms of Bohemia, Poland and
Hungary extended into the first decade of the fourteenth century,3 so there were
several pontiffs who contributed to defusing the tense situations in these kingdoms,
such as Nicholas IV (12881292), Boniface VIII4 (12941303) and Clement V
(13051314).

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 155

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

156 Transylvanian Review Vol. XX, Supplement No. 2:1 (2011)

In 1290 King Ladislaus IV, also called the Cuman,5 died; since he had no heirs,
the situation of the Arpadian kingdom was complicated. Soon after his death, there
appeared struggles between the supporters of different factions that were eager to
seize the throne of Hungary. Eventually, the aforementioned continuity was maintained by bringing Andrew III (1290-1301), known as the Venetian, to the throne.
Andrew was the illegitimate son of Duke Stephen,6 who was the posthumous son
of the Hungarian King Andrew II and of Tommasina Morosini, the niece of Doge
Marino Morosini.
The Neapolitan kingdom also intervened in the struggle for the throne; in Naples, Queen Mary, the wife of King Charles II and also sister to the murdered King
Ladislaus the Cuman,7 claimed the Hungarian throne by her right of inheritance.
She wanted to bestow the royal dignity on her son, Charles Martel.8 The rather tense
situation was defused through an agreement that included the participation of the
Holy See. Rome certainly did not want the Hungarian kingdom to disappear in the
aftermath of these conflicts, so the compromise method was the last viable option.
How was this alternative reached? In fact, ever since the time of Pope Innocent
III (11981216), the influence of the Roman Curia on the internal matters of the
Hungarian Kingdom had increased considerably, which is demonstrated by the numerous papal bulls and letters that have been preserved in the archives of Hungary.9
It appears that Andrew III fulfilled a few prerequisites before being crowned; one
necessary requirement was that the Hungarian nobility should elect and accept him
as king. On 23 July 1290, he was crowned in Szkesfehrvr (Alba Regia) by the
Hungarian Primate and also born legate (legatus natus), the Archbishop of Esztergom. He wore the crown of St. Stephen, as tradition demanded; all Rome had to
do was to accept the compromise.
The Holy See acknowledged the coronation through the solemn letters issued by
Pope Nicholas IV in 1291, under the pretext that the kingdom belonged, ab antiquo
ex causa multiplici, to the Roman Church.10 Although the pope recognised the coronation, he tried to maintain the Hungarian royalty under his control. Papal control
was exercised through the legates dispatched from Rome.
After the death of King Ladislaus IV, the Roman Curia sent two legates to Hungary, by virtue of the ministry of royalty, a role that was fulfilled by the Arpadian
king. Bishops Benvenuto di Gubbio and Giovanni di Jesi, the two legates de latere,
ascertained the situation in the kingdom and attempted to redress it. Interestingly,
in the reports they submitted to Rome, they mentioned the fact that amongst those
who delayed solving the problems of the kingdom there were a few noblemen, but
also several clerics. Although the Church agreed that Andrew III should be king, as
the Hungarian nobles desired, the latter were not willing to accept a redimensioning of their right to freely elect their king, in accordance with the claims made by
the Roman Curia. Since Hungary was a vassal to the Pontifical Monarchy, the pope
was entitled to oversee the evolution of the Hungarian royalty; the local nobles had
no such right. However, none of Pope Nicholas IVs letters explicitly mentioned the
clear subordination of the Hungarian kingdom to Rome. This circumstance clearly

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 156

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

Robert-Marius Mihalache The Intervention of the Holy See 157

highlights that the pope was aware, at least formally, that he had no document evincing the Holy Sees feudal sovereignty over Hungary, in any way that was reminiscent
of the expression ius antiquum. As mentioned above, the pontifical letters contained
the expression ab antiquo ex causa multiplici.11
The situation seemed to have normalized. The upper classes expected12 from
the new king, above all, an acknowledgement of the newly forged power relations,
while the Church awaited the restoration of public order. There were several noblemen who did not recognise Andrew III as king, the most important of whom were
those from the Kszegi family. Another nobleman, Matthew, the son of Peter Csk,
who had gathered a patrimony in the North-Western counties, even rebelled in 1297
and successfully withstood the kings attacks.
Meanwhile the Neapolitan house was engaged in a conflict with the Kingdom
of Aragon, which weakened the intensity of the Angevin interest in the Hungarian
matter. The Neapolitan King, who was also Prince of Salerno, was taken prisoner by
the King of Aragon, being released later in return for a colossal amount.13
To be sure of winning, Charles Martel, the son of Mary Queen of Sicily, had the
audacity to assume the title of King of Hungary.14 This action was unnecessary because a legal coronation had already been performed in accordance with the customs
of the kingdom. To some extent, the death15 of Charles Martel in 129516 reassured
King Andrew III, who had meanwhile waged war against the local barons.
After her sons death, in 1299, Queen Mary of Sicily appointed her grandson
and, implicitly, the son of Charles Martel,17 as successor to the Hungarian throne.18
Pope Boniface VIII (12941303) recognised Charles Robert as king, but he acted as
cautiously as his predecessors had. It is interesting that most of the Hungarian clergy
were faithful to King Andrew III; this is not surprising since the king granted the
archbishops of Hungary a key role in the kingdoms governing apparatus. The links
between the two partiesthe royalty and the local clergybecame solid, which
meant that Romes interventions in the Hungarian kingdom were purely formal.
Although he had acknowledged Charles Robert as king, the pope could do nothing else in his favour. Charles Roberts waiting ended on 14 January 1301, when
Andrew III died, leaving no male heir. It seemed that the grievous situation that
had afflicted Hungary on the death of Ladislaus IV had relapsed with the demise of
Andrew III.19
The critical moment of 130120 meant the collapse of the Arpadian edifice. With
the death of the last king in this dynasty, the country had entered a crisis once again.
Several kings directly expressed their willingness to occupy the throne that had remained vacant, on the grounds of their matrilineal kinship with the Arpadian monarchs. Foreign kings were not the only threat to the stability of the kingdom, since
the countrys barons had isolated themselves on their properties, where they played
the roles of would-be kinglings.
Queen Mary sent her grandson, Charles Robert,21 to Hungary. The latter arrived
in Zagreb, where he was welcomed by the Archbishop Primate, Gregory Bicskei.22
Together with their suite, they proceeded to Esztergom, where Charles Robert was

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 157

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

158 Transylvanian Review Vol. XX, Supplement No. 2:1 (2011)

crowned with an occasional crown, probably made specially for this event. Although
the coronation had taken place, the new king was disregarded by the countrys barons. The Holy See became aware of the noblemens gesture: that very year, on 13
May 1301,23 Pope Boniface VIII24 sent there the Bishop of Ostia, Nicholas Boccasini, as legate de latere. The Bishop of Ostia was the third legate de latere in only
ten years.
Led by the Archbishop of Kalocsa, Gyimesi Janos,25 and supported by the local barons from various historical families such as Nmetujvri, Csk, Amadeus,
Kachich and others, the countrys great prelatesthe bishopsaddressed the Czech
king from the Premysl dynasty, inviting him to occupy the throne that had remained
vacant again. The Czech king would have accepted the offer but he raised several
objections, such as the fact that he was already at an age when he could no longer
learn Hungarian, which was essential for the future kings of Hungary. Another comment the king made was that he already had twoCzech and Moraviancrowns; a
third crown would have destabilised the situation, so he suggested that the Hungarian party should accept his son, Venceslaus, aged only twelve.26 The chroniclers of
the time claimed that after hearing the refusal of the Czech king and his alternative
offer, the Hungarian party wavered; however, this sign of doubt was remedied by
large amounts of money and jewellery from the treasury of the Czech kingdom, a
fact also confirmed by Charles Robert.27 Assuming that King Charles Robert might
occupy the throne, the barons accepted Venceslaus s III28 (13011305) as King of
Hungary. He was led to Buda, where he was presented to the country. To consecrate
this moment, Venceslaus III29 was taken from Buda to Szkesfehrvr, where, this
time, the Archbishop of Kalocsa crowned him with the royal insignia under the
name of Ladislaus, without specifying the ordinal.
Several issues should be highlighted. In 1301, two kings were crowned by the
two Hungarian archbishops, though only the one in Esztergom had this coronation right by virtue of his primacy and his position of legatus natus. Charles Robert
was crowned by the one entrusted by the pope with this taskthe Archbishop of
Esztergomwith a crown that had been specially blessed for this event. Venceslaus
was crowned by the other archbishop (who did had not have this prerogative), with
the royal insignia and in the place tradition demanded, that is in Szkesfehrvr. The
question is which of the two crowned kings could occupy the throne? Theoretically
both, but practically Venceslaus was the one who did so because he had the crown
of St. Stephen.
Pope Boniface VIII sent a letter30 to the Czech King Venceslaus II (12781305)
Premysl to hold him accountable for his actions. The letter resorted to a rather harsh
manner of address against the Czech king, reminding him that he was not entitled
to intervene in such matters, especially without notifying the Apostolic See.
With the arrival of the new legate de latere, Boccasini,31 the Hungarians found
that the Holy See did not treat this matter with indifference, but with concern;
hence, after the death of the Archbishop of Kalocsa, the barons began to concede

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 158

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

Robert-Marius Mihalache The Intervention of the Holy See 159

that bringing Venceslaus to the throne had not been a good solution. To attract
more supporters amongst the sceptical barons, the king donated various territories
in exchange for their loyalty. Those who received such benefits included Matthew
Csk,32 a highly influential nobleman during the reign of Andrew III.
The new papal legate made his presence felt in the kingdom by convening various synods in which he advocated the acceptance of Charles Robert, the king who
had the endorsement of the Roman Curia. Although he used various diplomatic and
religious means, the pontifical legate was not successful in his efforts; consequently,
he swiftly returned to Rome the following year.
Boniface VIII summoned each party involved in this matter to appear before
him: on the one hand, the Czech King Venceslaus II Premysl,33 and on the other
hand, Queen Mary of Sicily, with her grandson, Charles Robert of Anjou. Only the
Angevin party made an appearance. The pope entrusted34 the destiny of the country to Queen Mary, by virtue of her right as the direct descendant of the Arpadian
dynasty. Given the Holy Sees intervention, uncertainties concerning the legitimacy
of Charles Roberts claim to the throne began to vanish, and to further simplify the
situation, the pope decreed that those who support the Czech king shall be punished.35 We may detect in this statement the rigorousness with which the Pontifical
Curia handled any matter inside the Pontifical Monarchy, as was, in our case, the
continuity of the Hungarian dynasty.
We should signal the growing international tension between Rome and the
French kingdom on account of the beneficial reserve and separation policy adopted
by the French King Philip IV, also nicknamed the Fair.36 The tensions led to an
armed conflict in which the French king besieged the city of Anagni,37 where the
pope was captured. This event was criticised by many leaders of the kingdoms of
Europe. After a few days, Pope Boniface VIII died.38 The popes death weakened
once again Charles Roberts legitimate chances to the throne, that is, his odds of being accepted by the people and by the nobles.
The next elected pope was Nicholas Boccasini,39 none other than the former papal legate to Hungary. Boccasini occupied the pontifical throne as Benedict XI.
There followed a series of events that animated the political stage in this area.
The Czech king himself came with his army to Buda to witness his sons coronation.
However, he was forced to return, since alarming news had reached him from the
western part of the Czech kingdom, where the king had a conflict with Emperor Albert, the supporter of Charles Robert to the Hungarian throne. The Czech monarch
had to retreat with his son from Hungary to Prague, not before entrusting the fate
of the country to a great baron, Ivan Nmetujvri. The head of the Czech kingdom
was attacked from two sides: on the one hand, by the armies of Albert, the Roman-German king, on the other, by the armies of Charles Robert, the unrecognised
Hungarian king, who, by that time, had won the support of most noblemen and
prelates.40 In the aftermath of these conflicts, the Czech King Venceslaus II died.
The peace agreement concluded between the Czech party and the Roman-German

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 159

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

160 Transylvanian Review Vol. XX, Supplement No. 2:1 (2011)

emperor included a very important provision, which entailed his relinquishment of


the Hungarian crown.41 The agreement was respected by Venceslaus III, the son of
the king who had died in the war.
With the surrender of the Czech King Venceslaus III before the emperor and his
surrender of the royal insignia, as a result of his defeat, the Hungarian crown was
bestowed upon the Prince of Bavaria,42 Otto of Wittelsbach43 (13051307) rather
than upon Charles Robert, as the peace treatise had envisaged. On the maternal line,
Otto was the grandson of King Bela IV.44
The new king came to Buda with the royal insignia. During his journey through
the kingdom, he met with the local barons and assured them of his good intentions
towards the crown and the kingdom. Thus, in 1305, yet another Hungarian king
was crowned.45 For two years, while he was king, there was no other remarkable
event in the kingdom. Otto ran the country mostly through the local noblemen.
Meanwhile, Charles Robert had conquered city after city, ensuring thus the submission of regions such as northern area of the kingdom, foremost amongst which was
Esztergom.46
At the time47 when the capital of the Hungarian Church was conquered, Otto
was certainly not in Buda, because if he had been in the capital, he would not have
treated the matter with indifference. In fact, he was in Transylvania, another region
where the royal hegemony was much diminished in favour of the local authorities.
Otto came to see the Transylvanian prince in person, demanding his help against
Charles Robert. The Transylvanian Voivode Ladislaus Kn promised he would support him although he knew he would not be able to. Behind this promise, there was
another plan, of taking his royal insignia. The plan was carried through. Otto was
imprisoned by the voivode,48 but was released before long, without the royal insignia, however. A German chronicler of that time said that he was released so quickly
because the wife of the Transylvanian prince had family ties with Otto.49 The latter
returned to his native country where he got married, bearing the title of Hungarian
king until his death.
Although the power poles moved from Rome to Avignon, Charles Robert enjoyed the support of Pope Clement V (13051314). Aware of the situation this
kingdom was in, the pope sent another legate there. The new legate, Gentile de
Montefiore,50 arrived in Split at the end of May 1308, from where he proceeded to
Buda. Before and even after his arrival there, Pope Clement V sent letters to those
in the Hungarian kingdom, especially to the barons51 and the bishops, demanding
them to give the legate their full support,52 so that he might complete the mission
he had been entrusted with53 by the Roman Curiaas quickly as possible. Not all
the barons gave their support to the legate; the aforementioned Matthew Csk did
not comply with Gentile. As for the upper nobility, only the Nmetjvri family
responded positively to the letter sent by Pope Clement V, perhaps also because of
their opposition against the Csk family, to which Matthew belonged.

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 160

10/10/2011 3:03:29 PM

Robert-Marius Mihalache The Intervention of the Holy See 161

The legates most important and most difficult mission was that of ensuring the
recognition of Charles Robert; to this end, the legate summoned all the noblemen
in the regions, most of whom answered affirmatively. The coronation ceremony
of 8 May 1309 was sumptuous; many of those invited attended it, but there were
also a few absentees. Amongst those who did not attend it was the Transylvanian
Voivode, Ladislaus Kn. All those present solemnly swore faith and allegiance to
Charles Robert, who became Charles I.54 Although the whole ceremony went as
planned, one big problem was still unsolved. Charles Robert was not crowned at
Szkesfehrvr with the crown of St. Stephen, as had all the kings before him.
The legate de latere knew that although the great barons had pledged their allegiance, they could, at any moment, rebel against the king on account that the
ceremony had not complied with the tradition of the Arpadian kings.
Gentile Montefiore negotiated with the Transylvanian voivode hoping that he
would convince the latter to cede the royal insignia. Gentiles attempts were unsuccessful. The prince was not concerned about this issue. All these troubles vexed the
legate, who was obliged, eventually, to threaten the voivode with excommunication.55
The sentence of excommunication against the voivode was read on December
25, Christmas Day, 1309. This document was a clear expression of the legates helplessness and frustration. The legate had certainly not intended to distance himself
from the voivode by this action, but to make him change his attitude. This he succeeded in. The voivode responded with interest to the legates demands, provided
that his excommunication be withdrawn.56
The meeting between the two parties took place in Szeged,57 where the voivode
returned the crown and the royal insignia in exchange for having his excommunication lifted. Also at this time, Ladislaus Kn probably swore his oath of allegiance to
Charles Robert. Although he had been annoyed by Kns actions, the king did not
punish him, constrained as he was by the legates kindness.58
The return of the royal insignia to Buda opened the way for Charles Roberts
third and final coronation: after having waited for nearly a decade, he was anointed
on 20 August 1310. The ceremony was administered by the Archbishop of Esztergom in the basilica from Szkesfehrvr,59 under the careful supervision of the legate
de latere Gentile Montefiore. Charles Roberts third and final coronation sealed the
replacement of the Arpadian with the Angevin dynasty, the first foreign house in the
history of medieval Hungarian.
As we have seen throughout this text, the institution of the royalty had suffered
most from these switches between the various kings who succeeded one another
at the helm of the country. The royalty was an institution that was subordinated
to Rome and that, at least in terms of its temporal power, was seen as the means
whereby the pope could arbitrate and coordinate the evolution of the regalities in
Christianitas.

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 161

10/10/2011 3:03:30 PM

162 Transylvanian Review Vol. XX, Supplement No. 2:1 (2011)

At the end of the thirteenth century, Hungary had entered a crisis of royal continuity, a problem that would only be settled by papal intervention two decades later.
During this time, several popes attempted to solve the crisis of the Arpadian kingdom by sending special legates there, known as legates de latere. Over the course of
two decades four pontifical legates were present in Hungary, but only one of them
was successful in his activity: Gentile Montefiore. Of the aforementioned popes,
Clement V was the only one who managed to settle the matter of the Hungarian
royalty through the institution of the legate.
The pontifical legates dispatched to Hungary during this period had to resolve
political rather than religious issues, proving once again the force of the Roman Curia, which held not only spiritual power, but also temporal might. By virtue of this,
Rome was entitled to intervene in the kingdoms that formed Societas Christiana and
to oversee the evolutions of these regalities; this was made possible by the ministry
of royalty, a role that each European regality assumed on acknowledging the pontifical suzerainty, as Hungary also did in the late tenth century.
q
Translated into English by Carmen Borbely

Notes
1. Lat. Christianitas = Christianity, erban Turcu, Sfntul Scaun i romnii n secolul al
XIII-lea, 2001, Bucureti, p. 17.
2. Ibid, p. 8385.
3. Ioan-Aurel Pop, Romnii n secolele XIVXVI: de la Republica Cretin la Restaurarea Daciei, in Istoria Romniei (Compendiu), Ioan-Aurel Pop i Ioan Bolovan (eds.),
Cluj-Napoca, 2004, p. 213.
4. Andreas Kiesewetter, Lintervento di Niccolo IV, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella
lotta per il trono ungherese (1290-1303), in Bonifacio VIII. Ideologia e azione politica,
Atti del Convegno organizzato nellambito delle Celebrazioni per il VII centenario della morte,
Citta del Vaticano-Roma, 2004, p. 139.
5. Ioan-Aurel Pop, Romnii i maghiarii n secolele IX-XIV, Cluj-Napoca, 1996, p. 178187.
6. Andreas Kiesewetter, Lintervento di Niccolo IV, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella
lotta per il trono ungherese (1290-1303), p. 142.
7. Chronicum Pictum Vindobonense, http://konyv-e.hu/pdf/Chronica_Picta.pdf, p. 129,
accessed on 8. 06. 2010.
8. Andreas Kiesewetter, Lintervento di Niccolo IV, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella
lotta per il trono ungherese (12901303), p. 143.
9. rszegi Gza, Eredeti ppai oklevelek Magyarorszgon (11991417), Budapest, 1989,

passim.

10. Andreas Kiesewetter, Lintervento di Niccolo IV, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella
lotta per il trono ungherese (1290-1303), p. 150.
11. The papal formulas do not state clearly and concisely that Hungary belonged, in feudal
terms, to the Roman Curia, but one may assume that Romes interventions were made

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 162

10/10/2011 3:03:30 PM

Robert-Marius Mihalache The Intervention of the Holy See 163

by virtue of the agreement concluded at the beginning of the eleventh century, when the
Arpadian kingdom recognised the papal suzerainty.
12. Tudor Slgean, Transilvania n a doua jumtate a secolului al XIII-lea. Afirmarea regimului congregaional, Cluj-Napoca, 2007, p. 228233.
13. Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples, Church Building in Angevin Italy 1266-1343,
New Heaven, 2004, p. 75133.
14. Andreas Kiesewetter, Lintervento di Niccolo IV, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella
lotta per il trono ungherese (12901303), p. 153.
15. Jen Szcs, Az utols rpdok, Budapest, 1993, p. 7475.
16. Isabelle Bonnot, Marseille et ses rois de Naples - La diagonal angevine 12651382, Marseille, 1988, p. 13.
17. Michael Jones, The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VI, (13001415), Cambridge,
2000, p. 892.
18. Blint Hman, Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria, 1290-1403, Roma 1938, p. 317
351.
19. Engel Pl, Regatul Sfntului tefan. Istoria Ungariei Medievale 895-1526, Cluj-Na-

poca, 2006, p. 136.

20. Hermann Egyed, A katolikus egyhz trtnete Magyarorszgon 1914-ig, Mnchen, 1973,
p. 122.
21. Chronicum Pictum, p. 131.
22. Hermann Egyed, A katolikus egyhz trtnete Magyarorszgon 1914-ig, p. 123.
23. Sndor Szilgyi, A magyar nemzet trtnete, Budapest, 1895, vol. III, chapter I, p. 7.
24. OttfriedNeubecker, Heraldry Sources, Symbols and Meaning, London, 1976, p. 132
236.
25. Hermann Egyed, A katolikus egyhz trtnete Magyarorszgon 1914-ig, p. 123.
26. ndor Szilgyi, A magyar nemzet trtnete, p. 9.
27. Ibid., p. 10.
28. Chronicum Pictum, p. 132.
29. Claude Michaud, The Kingdoms of Central Europe in the 14th Century, in Cambridge
Medieval History, Cambridge, 2002, p. 735736.
30. Documente privind Istoria Romniei, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I. (1301-1320), doc.
14, p. 9-10.
31. Ibid., doc. 13, p. 8-9.
32. Gyula Krist, Csk Mt, Budapest, 1986, p. 127143.
33. DIR, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I, doc. 24, p. 1819.
34. Georges Digard, Les registres de Boniface VIII, Paris, 1884, doc. 5367, p. 890.
35. Szilgyi Sndor, A magyar nemzet trtnete, p. 17.
36. Ioan-Aurel Pop, Geneza medieval a naiunilor moderne (secolele XIII-XVI), Bucureti,
1998, p. 2425.
37. Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, Il Papato - Antichita, medioevo, rinascimento, Roma, 2006, p.
187221.
38. Bruno Bernard Heim, Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs and Laws,
Buckinghamshire, 1981, p. 25.
39. Chronicum Pictum, p. 135.
40. DIR, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I, doc. 35, p. 29.
41. Ibid, p. 33.

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 163

10/10/2011 3:03:30 PM

164 Transylvanian Review Vol. XX, Supplement No. 2:1 (2011)

42. Engel Pl, Regatul Sfntului tefan, p. 156157.


43. Chronicum Pictum, p. 134.
44. Szilgyi Sndor, A magyar nemzet trtnete, p. 41.
45. Jnos Bak, Pl Engel, Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae, Vol. II, (13011457), Budapest, 1993, passim.
46. Szilgyi Sndor, A magyar nemzet trtnete, p. 4344.
47. Krist Gyula, Az Anjou-kor hborui, Budapest, 1988, passim.
48. Tudor Slgean, Un voievod al Transilvaniei: Ladislau Kn 1294-1315, Cluj-Napoca,
2007, p. 135137.
49. Szilgyi Sndor, A magyar nemzet trtnete, p. 45.
50. Chronicum Pictum, p. 136.
51. DIR, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I, doc. 76, p. 54.
52. Gyula Krist, Anjou-kori Oklevltr (Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium illustrantia), vol. II (1306-1310), Budapest-Szeged, 1992, doc. 202, p. 95.
53. DIR, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I, doc. 75, p. 54.
54. Ibid., doc. 82, p. 58.
55. Tudor Slgean, Un voievod al Transilvaniei, p. 157.
56. DIR, sec. XIV, C, Transilvania, vol. I, doc. 111, p. 164169.
57. Ibid., doc. 118, p. 172173.
58. Ibid., doc. 121, p. 174175.
59. Charles DEszlary, Histoire des institutions publique hongroises, vol. II, Paris, 1962, p. 188194.

Abstract
The Holy Sees Intervention in the Struggle
for the Occupation of the Hungarian Throne (1290-1310)
This study attempts to present the major changes that occurred in the history of the Hungarian
royal institution between 1290 and 1310. After the death of King Ladislaus IV, who was also
known as the Cuman and had no successor, the Hungarian royalty experienced a rather difficult
period. Several heirs on the maternal side expressed their desire to ascend the throne of Hungary.
The pope followed closely the situation in this kingdom, since he was the head of the Pontifical
Monarchy, an institution known as Christianitas or Societas Christiana, to which Hungary also
belonged. The pope made his presence felt through his legates, special envoys sent there to resolve
the matter of the continuity of the Hungarian throne. In this segment of time, four legates de
latere were dispatched to Hungary, which attests the extremely acute character of the Hungarian
question. The pontifical legates dispatched to Hungary during this period had to resolve political rather than religious issues, proving once again the force of the Roman Curia, which held not
only spiritual power, but also temporal might. By virtue of this, Rome was entitled to intervene
in the kingdoms that formed Societas Christiana and to oversee the evolutions of these regalities;
this was made possible by the ministry of royalty, a role that each European regality assumed on
acknowledging the pontifical suzerainty, as Hungary also did in the late tenth century.

Keywords

Legatus de latere, Hungarian Throne, Charles Robert of Anjou, excommunication.

Suppliment no. 2 f 1 2011.indd 164

10/10/2011 3:03:30 PM