Talk:Doubravka of Bohemia

Untitled
Took out the official and legal title stuff, because that concept just didn't exist in the 10th century, to the best of my knowledge. There was no administrative mechanism for "official and legal" titles -- births were not regularly registered, names changed as family possessions changed, etc. For most leading families in what had been Francia (and remember, Louis the Child died in 911, and there were still Carolingian family members around after his death), there were very few regularized titles -- especially titles bound to specific chunks of land! If somebody can show me real documentation (from the time, and not some later document based on an assumption) for this, I'll put this back. JHK

Sorry -- the comments don't go in the article -- here they are:

From HJ -- A note on nobility : names entered in Royal and Noble registries such as "Stammtafeln" remain unchanged including the "von" or "von und zu". That is part of the title ,earned, by rendering service to the empire. H. Stoyan at the University of Erlangen lists Dubrawka as follows: "Dubrawka von Boehmen".


 * ''I think most of us have a good idea of how titles work -- you might want to consider that basing everything on what was true for the HRE in the early modern period may not always have been the case. The Stammtafeln didn't actually exist when Dubrawka was alive, so they aren't a good source.  Also, your explanation is somewhat simplistic -- titles were often appropriated by their holders, and after a generation or two, were considered fact.  For the period we're talking about, your identification of "von" and "zu" as part of a formal title is just flat out wrong.

As far as Stoyan using "dubrawka von Boehmen," I'm sorry, but unless there's a sentence that says "Upon event X, Dubrawka was granted the title D. of Bohemia," it isn't proof. WE MODERN PEOPLE often agree on nomenclature for certain historical characters as a convenience. It is much more likely the case that Dubrawka is referred to as 'of Bohemia' because someone a hundred or so years ago started calling her that, and it was useful enough that others followed. It is Extremely Unlikely that it had anything to do with an official title -- which as a woman would have been a very rare occurrance anyway. Relying on genealogical sources is bound to lead you into these kind of discussions, by the way -- they are notorious for including a lot of wishful thinking rather than hard scholarship.'' JHK

Dubrawka link to Edward I, of England
How could Dubrawka (Dubrawa) (b.about 925/931-d.977) possibly be the grand-daughter of Edward I, of England (1239-1307). This page directs us to Edward I "longshanks", King of England instead of Edward "the elder" or "the unconquered" (870-924). If Adiva is the daughter of Edward "the elder", what other names might she go by. I have 8 daughters and 5 sons by three wives recorded in my database and none of them are "Adiva". I do have EDGIVA(Eadgifu)(Ogive) (904-951) recorded. could this be Adiva?

My thanks to anyone that can clarify this for me.

Adiva is Elgiva, 8th child of Edward the Elder by his 2nd wife, Elfleda. According to the Pitkin Guide on royal succession, she was married to a prince near the Alps, who has recently been identified as Boleslaw II. The wikipedia article on him claims this marriage; but it seems that the wikipedia article on Boleslaw I, from whom Dubravka is descendent, also married her. I don't know if they both married the same woman (distinctly possible), but there is some confusion that needs to be cleared up here. Any clarification on my confusion is greatly appreciated.

Dubrawka or Dubravka?
Shouldn't this article be moved to Dubravka? Dubrawka may be a Polish or German spelling but since she was Bohemian, I suppose we should use Czech spelling which I guess is Dubravka (there is no W in the Czech language except in words of foreign origin). --Kpalion 12:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Golden loincloth?
Is the information about a "golden loincloth" reliable? In the Polish version there is a "golden head band". It seems much more plausible. --Jidu Boite (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

baptism issue in the lead
suggest to remove the paragraph which briefly flags the controversy over Doubravka's role in introduction of Christianity in the Mieszko's state. It is definitely worth mentioning, but in a specific sub-section of the narrative (perhaps Historiographic reception???). In the lead it seems to be out of place. The lead is supposed to provide brief and introductory information, not to dive into historiographic disputes. Regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)