THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF CROWNING IN CROATIANHUNGARIAN LAW (THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EMPEROR FRANZ JOSEPH I CORONATION FOR THE KING OF HUNGARY AND CROATIA)

Abstract

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Coronation of Franz Joseph l as the King of Hungary and Croatia which was marked by the Hungarian side as the condition of reconciliation with Vienna and the conclusion of the Austro-Hungarian settlement. This compromise between Austria and Hungary has served as a template for a yearlong Croatian-Hungarian settlement in many segments. With these two settlements, the Hungarians settled their relations with the court and with the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, with whom Hungary had been in the state community since 1102. This event marked the end of a long-standing conflict with Austria, and the Croatian issue was removed from the agenda in Budapest and Vienna. In the course of eight centuries of the common statehood, the Coronation was one of the pivotal constitutional questions. The act of the Coronation, which gave the King legitimacy, consisted of the church ritual (anointing) and the secular part manifested in taking the oath, and it had a public character and meaning. The latter was reflected in the fact that the crown oath and crown vow (the diplomas of inauguration) were considered the contract between the people and the King, and therefore the Crown Defender had a constitutional character. The King got his legitimacy only if he was crowned with the crown of St. Stephen (the Holy Crown), so Franz Joseph l became the Hungarian and Croatian King only after the crowning in Buda. Since the palatine function was incomplete at the time, Hungary had to be represented by Count Gyula Andrassy, who was then the president of the government. After the King’s death in 1916, during the last royal Coronation, a political-legal debate was raised about whether Hungary should be represented by the Prime Minister or other person on behalf of the people.