The Voynich Ninja

The 1490 German version (Cod. Pal. germ. 156) exploits the similar motif, and Sigismund is thrice-crowned here as well:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is very curious that the crown as depicted in the Hungarian Chronicle, manifestly differs from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Both kingdoms went to the Habsburgs after 1280 and no longer existed here.
I think the drawings are not authentic and were probably drawn with the Habsburg crown. For some of them the Hungarian crown would be possible. After the death of Ladislav it went to the Habsburgs. ca. 1274
See Kings Bohemia and Mären, as well as Hungary and compare their grave plates with the drawings.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The Bohemian You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks much more like what we see in the Hungarian chronicle, and in the October page of the VMS Zodiac. It's really inexplicable how the guy who illuminated the Hungarian chronicle has never seen (?) his king.

Wenzel I was a puppet king, appointed by the Habsburgs.

When his father (Ottokar II Přemysl) lost the crown to the Habsburgs in 1278, Wenceslas I was married to the daughter of King Rudolf I to ensure inner peace.

Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what is going on in this thread anymore : none of the crowns posted here match the Voynich one except for the ones in Aga Tentaculus' earlier post. 

As I mentioned in my previous comment here, there are lots of orb and cross type crowns. To me, these are all irrelevant unless they also match the stepped design of the base. 
For this stepped element, and for the first two Voynich crowns, the best matches I've seen are those presented by Koen in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.blogpost. 
Of course, the problem with that interpretation is that October would then blend a Persian-inspired base with a European superstructure. 
And as Koen calls it, a "nudity bonus".
But perhaps Nick Pelling is right and except for the Leo crown, the others were later additions. Which doesn't really explain them either. 

I look back with mixed feelings at things I wrote before mid 2017, roughly my first year and a half studying the VM. At the time I was convinced that the VM included elements from an unknown ancient document, integrated into an adaptive medieval copy. Allowing for such possibility has the effect that anything goes, because well, you don't know what was in the source material. From that perspective, the activity I was doing was not much better than finding the best visual match without attempting to explain any connection.

However, as you say, it is true that the VM crown, as presented to us, looks more like the ancient Persian one. And the different types of aphrodites are abnormally close to the other nymph+crown. So the question is, do we want to take the VM image literally, or do we tweak it to accommodate a more "reasonable" match. This is also a dangerous activity, because before you know it your crown becomes an armadillo.  In short, if we take the lines as they are in the VM literally, we are presented with a historically unlikely scenario. But if we tweak the lines, we enter the realm of speculation.

People are also taking liberties with the third crown. If we really take it as it is presented to us, this is a crown with one overhead band, topped by a cross.

[attachment=3876]

There is likely no fabric in the middle since we can see the back row of spikes.
The type of crown with one overhead band preceded the one with the crossed bands. This seems like an important consideration.

While tracing this crown, I noticed that the artist had attempted to draw "wiggles" at the edges, but the small scale did not bring those out well. I believe this may be the reason why two crowns got done again later with a different ink.

(11-01-2020, 11:19 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what is going on in this thread anymore

On the contrary, the discussion has been extremely enlightening!

Quote:But perhaps Nick Pelling is right and except for the Leo crown, the others were later additions. Which doesn't really explain them either. 

In fact, it explains them right away.

List of German monarchs: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rupert of the Palatinate: 21 August 1400

Jobst of Moravia: 1 October 1410

Sigismund: 21 July 1411

The Voynich parchment carbon dating: 1404-1438

August crown is one with the original drawing, Libra/October and Cancer/July are later additions. Means that originally the Zodiac was drawn in the rule of Rupert.

Number of the relevant nymph on the diagram, counting outer first, inner last, clockwise:

Libra/October: 1 (perfect match)
Leo/August: 22 (match with an error of 1)
Cancer/July: 26 (not good, error of five days, but still relatively close)

  Capital, is not it?

I should write a blog post about that...

One has to ask oneself, who was Charles IV now?
then comes the big aha.
Now you are back with Wenzel I and the daughter of Rudolf I.

In the game of VM, Meinhard II takes a key position.
After his death, all clues are together.
Crown, battlements, German text, and the possibility of all plants in one place. Apart from the drawing stem and other features. These add the finishing touches.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Anton: that's worth further investigation. If true, and if you also maintain that the two crowns were added later, it would place the original creation of this section right at the beginning of the radiocarbon date range. (Which is fine by me, the clothing of the Zodiac figures belongs in 1400-1430, favoring the earlier half).