User talk:Daaviiid/Archive 1

Page titles
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Children of Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Descendants of Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Klementia of Habsburg
Thanks for creating the article on Klementia of Habsburg. Can you provide any references to support the information you put in the article, or provide more context on her life and role in history? Mr. Darcy talk 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Illus-050-1-.jpg
Hi David, I'd like to clarify the source of the image of Queen Eleanor you uploaded recently. Using http://tineye.com I've found it appears at http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Queen-of-Henry-II-Posters_i1881031_.htm so we're concerned that your upload is a violation of copyright, unless it's actually yours or they're being misleading.. eug (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Matilda of Habsburg
Hi, I noticed that you created Matilda of Habsburg, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Gilo1969 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglicisation of names
Hello, David! Anglicisation of names of European royalty and nobility up to to the 17th century is the norm, because people of the Middle Ages are known by the English form of their name. Take Anne of Bohemia, Queen of England, for example. She was also known as Anna in Bohemia, but she has always been known as Anne in England. This "rule" does not apply only to royalty and nobility, but to all people of the Middle Ages, including saints, bishops, poets, and philosophers. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rikissa or Richeza or ...
Hello, could you shed light on why you moved Rikissa Valdemarsdotter of Sweden to Richeza of Sweden? A move to a Polish spelling, Ryksa, I had understood, but the spelling Richeza appears nowhere in the article text. Unless you provide a reliable source that Richeza indeed is the common name for her, and edit the article text to include this information, the article should probably be restored to its previous name. Tomas e (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Artois

 * Hello Daaviiid. I see you created an article on Margaret of Artois. Today, I created one on her younger sister, Jeanne of Artois. It's great to see another editor with a passion for history. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice of Brandenburg
Hi Daaviiid. I don't understand why was placed a cleanup tag in the article, I think that is fine. Thanks for the advice and sorry for the bad english!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor of Portugal

 * Hello Daaviiid, I did what I could to expand the article on Eleanor. I agree that as an Empress of the Holy Roman Empire her article does need more biography, but I couldn't find much info on her when I did a Google search.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anne Woodville

 * Hello Daaviiid, I have just finished an article I created on Anne Woodville. What do you think of it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Brabant
Hi Daaviiid, I began to find some fact about this Queen, and when I found a good material I post it in her article, don't worry and thanks for write to me!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Greater Poland
Hi Daaviiid, I still looking more facts about Margaret of Brabant but it's hard to find concret things about her. Sure, I would translated the article about Queen Jadwiga, but now I'm working in the article about the Piast Dukes of Cieszyn (now I tried to finish the translated biography of Duchess Viola of Opole). When I finished, the bio of Jadwiga was the first translation in my list, I promise!). Aldebaran69 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is wanted

 * Hello Daaviiid, I have just created this new article:Marguerite de Sablé. How does it look to you? I need another pair of eyes to check it over. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your article on Sibila de Fortia is good. Why not upload it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Daaviiid! The article on Sibila looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dukes of Silesia
Hi Daaviiid, I known that the article is too long, but if you can fix it, It's ok. I made some corrections about the rulers and for this is now long. Thanks for your suggestions and good look with your articles!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth de Veele
Hello Daaviid, thanks for adding the categories, as I had indeed forgotten to add them. This morning I created another aticle:Elizabeth de Veele. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Świdnica
Hi Daaviiid. I made a few changes to your article about Elisabeth of Świdnica, I hope you like it. Thanks for write to me. Aldebaran69 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

John, Earl of Kent
If you'd like his entry from the Complete Peerage, use the "e-mail this user" on my talk page to send me your e-mail address and I will send it to you. I can't post it here because it's copyrighted. - Nunh-huh 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maria of Bytom
Hi Daaviiid. About Helena's parentage is hard to accept one theory. The name of his children strongly suggested a relation with Russia or Lithuania (the name Maria is hard or impossible to find in other Silesian branch). If Lev I of Galica and Constance of Hungary are Maria of Bytom maternal grandparents is hard to asserted, but this is an interesting fact: If Maria was granddaughter of Constance of Hungary, she had indeed Arpad blood and in consequence, her husband Charles I Robert had an additional claim (although weak and remoted) over the Polish crown. Thanks for write and sorry again form y bad english!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

John Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Kent
Well, I did as you suggested and have just created an article on John Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Kent. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it. I normally don't create articles on men, so it was quite novel writing he instead of she! I have just finished a new article :Maud de Lacy. What do you think? Her mother Margaret de Quincy could do with her own article. If you're interested, perhaps you might like to create an article on her, and I could help add what information I possess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice of Bourbon
Hello! There was no need to flatter me, I would've done it anyway (btw, I haven't created many articles). I've inserted some valuable information along with references. I've removed the statement that she remarried, because no book mentioned her second husband. If you have a book which mentions him, feel free to reinsert it along with the reference.

Oh, and please, do me I favour. Whenever you see a link to Elisabeth I of Bohemia, replace it with Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330). Whenever you see a link to Elisabeth II of Bohemia, replace it with Elisabeth of Bohemia (1409–1442). Those two women were never monarchs, so the ordinal is very misleading and incorrect. Thanks Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, there was no Salic law which prevented women from inheriting. If I recall correctly, pre-Habsburg Bohemian monarchs were elected by Bohemian nobility and it happened that no women were elected. The monarch of Bohemia was not Elisabeth, but her husband John. He was elected because he was husband of Elisabeth, but he was still a sole monarch. Neither of the Elisabeths is listed as a Bohemian monarchs, and therefore they are never given ordinals. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England and King of France

 * Hello David.We are not argueing on wether Henry VI was king of France since historions recognize him as king of france.He concilidated a dual-monarchy by virtue of the treaty of troyes.Sorry I cant give you all the dtails now,I might tommorow.Ill give you refs so you can pick up the idea.First,Charles was renderd incapable of succestion because of lese-Majesty(injury to the soveriegn) and this was confirmed by a lit-de-justice in 1421 in which all his formal titles and possetions were legally withdrew from him although the actual case of Charles VII wasnt mentioned in the treaty explicity to give a legal dissinheritence it was done outside the treaty(i,e as I just mentioned the lit-de-justice)Sorry David but Henry V claim through Edward III wasnt mentioned in the treaty of troyes that was so upheld by English Lawyers for a century now since Edward III claimed his throne of france in 1340 and so Henry inherited through obligations or clauses.The treaty had 2 sphers to deal with the fundemental law of succestion by salic law and Charles VII but we just dealt with Charles VII legal dissinheritence outside the treaty.OK the fundemental law of succection part.Salic Law states as you know no women can succeded to the throne or through a women.Now this is the good bit.Henry V was not just the son in law to Charles,He was adopted to Charles VI.Henry as adopted son and so legitimised son of Charles VI would take Charles and Isebaue as Father and mother as mentioned in one of the clauses.Henry now apearing as the "son" of Charles VI adopted the title "Heir of France" and to clarify on this,Henry could have only succeded as a son of Charles VI and so he(Henry) adopted the title adopted-son.Now there was a feasible legal escuse so there was no contrevention of Salic Law.There was still more problems because acording to Legal juriscist theroy the treaty must be ratified by the two realms and was done in both Paris and London.To add to the legal binding force off the treaty various lords and nobels including Philip III duke of Burgundy and the Count of Foix gave there solemn pledge to the treaty.As for your statement concerning blood I then will reply with the ref book called the contendig kingdoms of England and France.It talks about a double-inheritence through both his father and mother(Catherine) as a descent of Saint Louis.

Here are the refs:


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=keUoHXulnewC&pg=PA128&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+crowned+king+of+France#PPA128,M1


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=G5yuNbIuPKwC&pg=PA95&dq=Henry+V+adopted+son+of+Charles+VI&as_brr=3


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes


 * Here is a book confirming Henry VI dual blood from valois and Lancaster:Read.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

main book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=contending+kingdoms+of+England+and+France&lr=#PPA23,M1


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=s8H9TEtITPcC&pg=PA147&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=LY0OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA93,M1


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=Sctuzn19w5EC&pg=PA85&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3

Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 01:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI as "king of France"
If you are interested, here are some references that accurately indicate how Henry VI was recognized in France.

1. Patrick, James, Renaissance and Reformation, (Marshall Cavendish, 2007), 601.

2. Neillands, Robin, The Hundred Years War, (Routledge, 1991), 263.

3. Morgan, Kenneth O., The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, (Oxford University Press, 2000), 200.

4. Oman, Charles William Chadwick, The History of England, from the Accession of Richard II to the Death of Richard III (1377-1485), (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), 316-317.

5. Hare, Christopher and Mare Andrews, The life of Louis XI, (C. Scribner, 1907), 15-16.

6. Thackeray, Frank W., Events that changed the world through the sixteenth century, (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001), 57. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hello David Thanks for your reply and you are most welcome.If you want to enter in these conversations go ahead.Like all Humans we learn from others so nobody is going to hastle you for getting something wrong.When you feel you know a good bit and are confident post your POV and argues and everybody will treat it with respect.There also French arguements aswell concerning the treaty of troyes because they thought it was illegal because Charles VI treated the kingdom as private land but was royal property passed on by legitimate succestion.Charles VII disinheritence was legal but the next legitimate ruler in the line was the duke of Orleons and so on.The treaty of troyes had in effect ended salic law to all the further claimints so the English would have needed a predescent in which it is understanble and the peasents most off all could uinderstand and defend.The English predescent used an example of the first monarchy by Rome.In Rome the republic was transferd to the roman emperors by the people and soveriegn(singuler or collective).Armed with this awsome predescent the English needed ratification in order to change the fundemental law of succestion to a different line.I still though wouldnt declare the entire treaty legal but it is understandable on that predescent.Concerning Salic Law now.Salic Law originated from germany on the floods of Sallbe and so wasnt a french law but a german law and so this was upheld by English Lawyers for a century since Edward III declared himeself king of France in Ghent(Belgium).In 1317 there was a council held in France in order to ensure the succestion if the Capetian dynasty was ever to be wiped out.One of the capetian kings was suprised at the wealth of the kinghts templer so he accused them of heresy.Thousands of Knights whom were members were killed all over France and there was a majour one in Paris where a Knight Templer cursed the Capetian King and all his descendents through his line.One by One each of the remaining capetian Kings died subsequently after the other.In 1328 salic law was given a false predescent and an interperation.Salic Law which was later discoverd in the 16th century by a french monk had in fact nothing to do with succestion of thrones.Believe it or not,this was the fact.When it was made during Charmaglens reign it was only to do with succestion of private land or the private norm,not with thrones.In 1317 the french interpted salic law as no wommen can succede(nothing about through women).In 1328 they added through women.Therefore Philip IV basicly succeded through acceptence of the land and his legitimacy was utterly quistionable and controverstial.To be authentic however the English lawyers only debated that the law lied in Germany not the salic law which was far later rediscoverd.Lets just look however why the french didnt want an English king.The reason was because England was only emerging and seen by the frech and the richer countries of Europe as a Barberious,Rebilious and backwash.No way were the french going to accept an English King,not Edward III.Historions however have always debated the seriousness of Edwards claim.Meaning did he actually think he wanted to concilidate France or using his legitimite claim as a pretext to gain more land.The latter was most notable as he took an extended Aquataine at the treaty of Breitigny 1360.It wasnt really that much in the eyes of frenchmen but it did severly attack french honour since there french king John II was captured by the black prince of Wales at Poitiers in 1356 and ransomed at the same treaty for up to 4 times Frances annual gross.I got this caculation from an article on wikipedia which I know unfortunitly fail to remember.I hope you will enter in the conversation but to let you know,we were merly dissusing on the legality of the Treaty of Troyes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

John the Blind the usurper
Hello David,Sorry for replying late I am just trying to understand the problem between the two.You gave the main point that women wernt allowed to succede so that was agnaistic prigminatioure(did it say anything about claims through women?)Didnt Wenceslaus II also have a son with the same name but was assasinated leaving no male heir(Wenceslaus III).The dispute was in 1306.In this category it says Henry of Bohemia was a pretender Bohemia.It clearly says in John the Blinds article he deposed Henry of Cartia or Bohemia and Henry already had de facto power over all Bohemia when he was "ELECTED" in 1306.Anna as you said was older and Henry claimed jure exurios(by right of the wife) as king of Bohemia.Like Edward IV of England John with the aid of his father Henry VII of Holy Roman Emperor and the bohemian aristocracy took the role of usurpers not the legitimate rulers.Remove Henry of Bohemia from the list of Pretenders.Again if the male-line was knocked out by Wenceslaus asaaination they have the right to elect the closest line.(Anna as queen not the sibling Elisabeth.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=PW_Oo2PQwocC&pg=PA30&dq=Henry+of+Bohemia+1307-1310&as_brr=3#PPA30,M1

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/438151

There is unfortunitly a huge lack of information on him,even in the google book search.

Mabel FitzHamon of Gloucester

 * Well, Daaviiid, I finally created the article on Mabel FitzHamon of Gloucester this morning. How does it look to you? I only had about two hours to work on it as I had to go out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

John the blind

 * Well David.John the Blind should definitely be mentined as usurper.It clearly says in the book I mentioned that he deposed Henry without any legal right.Henry IV of England tried to institute salic law in England to prevent the Mortimers from inheriting and remain on the throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just edited it. John the Blind.


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=mvuvF0iEjL4C&pg=PA411&dq=John+of+Bohemia&as_brr=3#PPA411,M1


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=fvQDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=John+of+Bohemia&as_brr=3#PPA87,M1

Good book.


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=y6OSDKH7U2MC&pg=PA2&dq=John+of+Bohemia+1306&as_brr=3


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=1j6_VyR6NBoC&pg=PA8&dq=John+of+Bohemia+1306&as_brr=3


 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=tz12J0Eb9eUC&pg=RA1-PA327&dq=John+of+Bohemia+1306&as_brr=3

Just a bit more information on John the Blind.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Medieval times
Yep, I like the movies The Lion in Winter (1968 film), Braveheart & A Man for All Seasons (1966 film). GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK
Hello David.I am doing OK I was just editing elsewhere.I am here now and always ready to help you with the wave of your command.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: consorts of Bavaria

 * Hello David.What have you been doing.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which queen to be exact David.Thanks.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All of them, it's a list, though there was only a few of them, there was more Duchesses and Electresses. --David (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  15:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Philippa of Champagne

 * David, thank you so much for suggesting that I write about Philippa of Champagne. She's up and running. I completed it this morning after I woke up. Do you realise that although I had definitely heard of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem I had never heard of Philippa nor of the Champagne War of Succession. Now, thanks to you, I know something about it. I enjoyed creating the article as I learned a lot whilst writing it. Thanks again. Oh, David, her husband Erard de Brienne-Ramerupt has an article but it's just a stub. Why don't you expand it if you've got the time?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Duchesses of Bavaria
Hello! I've been looking for information about them, but English sources mention only whose daughter of wife they were, which is not enough for an article. I suggest removing links, as it is very likely that they'll never lead to an article. They are just not notable enough. Sorry I couldn't help! Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean removing the names. I meant removing links. You know, having Duchess X of Bavaria instead of  Duchess X of Bavaria . Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Retire
Hello David.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Abbesses of Quedlinburg
Quiet life? They knew nothing about it! They were regents, warriors, kingmakers, allies of the emperor and enemies of the pope, reformers, mistresses of kings, etc. Some led not-so-exciting, but still notable lives as artists, miniaturists, engravers, writers, and composers. Anyway, thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Kuyavia
Hello! Elizabeth of Kuyavia was the consort of a ruler of my country, so I searched for information about her last May and I didn't find enough information to create an article even though I searched three days! All I know about her is that she was the second wife of Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia, and that she had two sons and a daughter, but both her sons died before her husband died. She obviously wasn't an important figure. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Elizabeth (Elizabeta) of Bosnia was sent to Hungarian court as a teenager. I suppose Elizabeth of Kuyavia died (of plague, probably, which was devastating the region at that time) when her daughter was very young, so Stephen (Stjepan) sent his only daughter to Hungarian court. Catherine (Katarina) was a granddaughter of Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia; her parents were either Vladislav of Bosnia and Jelena Šubić or Stephen II of Bosnia and Elizabeth of Kuyavia. It is unclear because some sources say Jelena Šubić raised Tvrtko, Elizabeth, and Catherine - Tvrtko was definitely her child and Elizabeth was definitely her brother-in-law's child, while Catherine could be either her child or her niece. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you where are you from? I am Bosnian and I don't think that you are a native speaker of English either. I suppose you are Czech - am I right? Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't tell that I do not live in England? That's actually flattering :) I live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. No, your English does not annoy me! Anyway, I don't know why, but I would've never guessed that you are British! I thought that all the British use strictly formal English and your interest in Bohemian princesses made me think you are a Czech :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * About Elizabeth... we do not have basic biographical information. We do not know the year of her birth, nor the year of her death. I'm afraid the article would be proposed for deletion soon. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first website claims that she died twenty years after her husband, which seems very unlikely to me, but who knows. Can you give me a link to the medieval lands page which mentions her? Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no article about Catherine's husband, Hermann I, Count of Cilli. There is a stub article about her son, Hermann II, Count of Cilli. Tell me if you find anything about Catherine on medieval lands. All I know about her is that she is first mentioned in 1377, though she married Hermann I of Cilli in 1361 and gave birth to two sons, and that she died after 1400. The famous coin with her image is very appreciated by the numismatists. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! I was the one who created the article about Catherine of Bosnia in the Bosnian Wikipedia :) It seems that the article about Elisabeth of Poland is going to be great! Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kujava
Hello! I noticed that you replaced "Kujava" with "Elizabeth of Kuyavia". Kujava is the name of the second wife of King Stephen Ostoja of Bosnia. She was a very interesting character; her husband divorced her when their marriage became politically unsuitable for him (he became an enemy of her brother), but Kujava became powerful again when he died and her son became king. She was powerful enough to imprison her husband's third wife, a wealthy widow and heiress, Jelena Nelipčić, and she eventually had her murdered. Unfortunatly for her, Kujava outlived her son and died completely forgotten during the reign of her brother-in-law. That's what mean people deserve :P Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article about Kujava, I just forgot to link it. I created the article in May, I believe. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your dilema
I agree with your opinion about Catherine probably being daughter of Vladislav. Regarding your dilema, I know as much as you do. The contradictory sources and (probably) nationalistic feelings make things too complicated to understand. The gender of the children is not helpful either; had they been sons, they would've attracted more interest. Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kotromanić family tree
Hello! Having a Kotromanić family tree would be very helpful, but I find the template extremely complicated. The family tree would depict the descent of the last king from the first king; the relations between the royal family of Bosnia and reigning queens of Hungary and Poland, as well as the relations between the Bosnian royal family and the Counts of Celje. This is important because King Sigismund of Hungary claimed the throne of Bosnia as husband of Mary and cousin-in-law of King Tvrtko I, while Count Hermann of Celje was a designated heir of King Tvrtko II. Do you know how to use Template:Familytree? If you don't, do you know anyone who knows how to use the template? Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Katherine and Elisabeth of Anjou
Hello Daaviiid, in the expanded article of Maria of Bytom you could see the theories about the maternity of Katherine and Elisabeth. For me, still a complete doubts about the existence of Elisabeth except for some websites who cited her.

For Katherine, even other sources denied her existence, and placed the mother of Anna of Swidnica as a woman of unknown origins. If she really was a daughter of Charles I of Hungary (the biography of Anna showed that she was raised in Hungary by her mother, who perhaps comfirm Katherine's parentage), I think that from a chronological point of view that she could be the daughter of Maria, but this is only my oppinion. Thanks for write and good luck!!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Images of Eleanor of Castile and Eleanor of Aquitaine
Hello :-), I have one request to you. I am from slovak wikipedia and I wrote article about England and British consorts, but I didn´t find some images (images of Eleanor of Castile and Eleanor of Aquitaine) on commons. I found their images on en wikipedia. I upload they on commons (look - and ). But there is one problem with missing essential source information. You write near picture  that you are the copyright holder of this work, it´s means that you are author? Please, can you complete necessary information about these images (here - on en wikipedia, or also on commons)? It will be not good, if these images will delete. Thank you very much, --Amonet sk (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Johanna of Pfirt
No need to apologize - I'm more hamfisted than most, so I quite understand. The article looks quite good - excellent work! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Johanna of Pfirt
I think that any medieval woman who gave birth to a live child at the age of 51 is extraordinary! I've moved the article to Joanna of Pfirt, as there are more English-language sources referring to her as Joanna. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Beauharnais claims to Italy
Hi. I known you know a lot about French royalty and nobility. I got a question for you, can the House of Beauharnais be considered pretenders to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy? Eugène de Beauharnais whould have become the next King of Italy after Italy, if Napoleon I hadn't been defeated. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Pomerania
I have somewhat restructured the article so it has an ancestry section listing all theories first, and then going into detail about the "most likely" one. I however removed that the Pomeranian ancestry is the "most likely" because it was sourced to pl.wiki, and interwikis must not be used as a source. I further removed from the lead that she was from Pomerania - the title suggests it anyway, and it looks odd if you say in the lead she was Pomeranian and in the article's body you list a handful of countries she might as well be from. I also specified the resp Pomeranian house (Samborides) and region (Pomerelia), because there were other regions with other houses in Pomerania who unfortunately also were entitled "Dukes of Pomerania". And some other c/e, have a look and contact me if you think any of my changes don't make sense. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Breton monarchs
English wikipedia lack its own list of Breton monarchs. Can you help me create one? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Catherine of Bosnia
Hello! BartBassist is the greatest! Have you seen the latest version of the family tree? Regarding Catherine, you do not need anyone's permission to create an article, so go ahead! Just be sure that you have enough reliable sources and enough information - we don't want it to be speedily deleted! I'll help you with references and information. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They sure like to keep it in the family, but Sigismund's marriage to a close relative of his first wife would not have been valid unless the Pope granted a dispensation. That's why I believe Catherine was daughter of Vladislav. I've looked for the dates on both Medieval Lands and Leo's page, but they do not give any dates. Perhaps I am missing something? Anyway, have a nice vacation! Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re
I am sorry but I can not help you with this - I really know nothing about this family. You said "nobody knows for sure": in history, unlike maths, "not sure" is a definite result. For an encyclopedia, it is perfectly fine to say "foo1 and foo2 researched and state the results are inconclusive". Maybe some day, some Bulgarian abbot will discover some document in his abbey's library that has it all written down, but maybe one will just have to live with not knowing for sure. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)