The Coat of Arms of Hungary – Gyula Futtaky, Budapest, 1891
The question of the official Hungarian state coat of arms, which is still awaiting final resolution by official authorities, has recently found a passionate advocate in Gyula Futtaky. About a year and a half ago, he addressed the issue in a literary journal. He has now published that essay in an independent booklet, slightly revised, including color illustrations of both the simple and complex forms of the national coat of arms, as well as a black-and-white depiction of the full state arms extended with the ruling dynasty’s shield.
Futtaky’s original aim was to arouse the interest of educated readers in heraldry, thereby helping to correct errors in the use of the coat of arms. His current publication also serves a more specific purpose: to introduce business people authorized to use the Hungarian coat of arms to its correct form. Such guidance is much needed in Hungary, where depictions of the national arms—from royal seals to coins, from parliamentary chambers to commercial signage—show remarkable inconsistency and inaccuracy.
If the illustrations (with minor exceptions noted below) conform to the standards established by professional circles, we are happy to acknowledge their usefulness. However, some comments on Futtaky’s explanations of the illustrations are necessary. In the scientific sense, the Hungarian heraldic question has long been settled: the National Archives, the Hungarian Heraldic and Genealogical Society, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences have all expressed their views, published in the Turul journal in 1884. Beyond minor details, no new research can change the established conclusions.
Thus, anyone addressing the Hungarian coat of arms—especially a non-specialist—can only repeat existing results. If Futtaky did so, citing his sources, we would have commended his efforts and overlooked any scientific oversights, superficiality, or poor style, as we did for his first heraldic contribution. Yet he does not restrict himself to this modest role. Citing “numerous primary sources,” he presents established scholarly conclusions as his own discoveries, even submitting proposals to the government allegedly underlying last year’s ministerial decision. How he assumes the authority to make such submissions is unclear.
It is clear, however, that his personal assertions elevate his work beyond its appropriate measure. The “Futtaky Hungarian arms” largely reproduce the design long agreed upon by heraldic scholars; any additional details he presents—such as changes in the Croatian shield’s color order or a gold star in the Slavonian arms—derive from existing sources. Yet without proper archival verification, even these minor alterations cannot be accepted.
The Small Coat of Arms (Kiscímer)
Based on all historical and heraldic evidence, the correctly established small coat of arms of Hungary is illustrated in color in the attached drawing. Its description is as follows:
Shield: Per pale (split vertically), with eight alternating red and silver stripes on the dexter (right from the bearer’s perspective) side. On the sinister (left) side, a red field features three green hills, from the central hill rises a silver double cross emerging from a gold crown.
Crown: The shield is surmounted by the Holy Crown of Hungary.
Supporters: Two floating angels.
Details:
The shape of the shield must match the drawing: a simple curved form with straight top edges; upper corners should not be truncated. Only eight stripes may appear, with the first stripe always red. Historical seals confirm this configuration.
Triple Hills:
The three hills are heraldically stylized. The two outer hills are of equal height, the central hill taller, supporting a crown from which rises the three-armed cross (Tatzenkreuz), widening gradually at the ends.
Crown:
The crown above the shield faithfully reproduces the Hungarian Holy Crown. It rests fully on the shield and should be drawn with a straight base, leaving small gaps at the sides. Chains and ornaments are omitted unless the crown floats above the shield, which is not heraldically correct.
Supporters:
The angels are stylized, with flowing robes, and are not female as commonly depicted. Male or gender-neutral forms are correct. Lions are not appropriate as Hungarian coat-of-arms supporters, being an Austrian symbol. Angels only appear in exceptional contexts, such as royal seals or state buildings.
The use of Hungary’s coat of arms has long been surrounded by confusion and inconsistency. Although the Cabinet Council resolved its design last year, many official and private uses still display inaccurate versions. Only recently have correct depictions appeared on the outer cover of the national law code and the newly minted 20-kreuzer coins, though even these show minor inaccuracies. Publications, governmental documents, and commercial materials continue to use incorrect versions.
To address this, Futtaky prepared a pamphlet for public guidance, illustrating Hungary’s small, medium, and large coats of arms in accurate color or black-and-white prints, verified by the Ministry of the Interior and the Prime Minister’s Office.
Small Coat of Arms (Kiscímer):
A shield divided vertically:
Right: 8 alternating red and silver stripes (red first).
Left: a red field with three green hills, atop which rises a silver double cross from a gold crown.
The shield is surmounted by the Hungarian Holy Crown, supported by two floating angels.
Guidelines:
The shield must follow the correct curved shape, straight top, rounded bottom.
No more than 8 stripes; first stripe must be red.
Hills are heraldically stylized; the central hill is tallest, supporting the triple crown and Tatzenkreuz cross.
The crown should replicate the Hungarian Holy Crown, resting on the shield with a slight gap on both sides; the cross tilts to the viewer’s left.
Supporting angels should be stylized male figures, not lions.
Medium Coat of Arms (Középcímer):
Combines Hungary’s small coat of arms with those of the crown lands (Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Transylvania) in a larger shield.
Dalmatia: three crowned gold leopard heads on blue.
Croatia: silver and red checkered.
Slavonia: two wavy silver stripes on a blue field, with a red field containing a natural-colored marten running right, six-pointed gold star above.
Transylvania: red-striped shield; blue field with gold eagle rising, flanked by gold sun and silver crescent; top gold field with three red triple-towered castles.
Fiume (inset below Slavonia and Transylvania): black double-headed eagle on red, under blue-lined crown, holding a water-filled urn.
Crown and floating angel supporters as in the small coat of arms.
Futtaky stresses that the historical precedence places Dalmatia first among the crown lands, followed by Croatia, Slavonia, and Transylvania, reflecting historical seals and official titles. Incorrect depictions often misplace or distort these elements.
Conclusion:
The pamphlet aims to educate businesses, officials, and the public about the proper use and design of Hungary’s coats of arms, emphasizing accuracy in heraldic representation. Futtaky’s work relies on historical sources and heraldic authority, correcting common errors in contemporary practice.