Talk:Bolko I the Strict

Name

The name "Bolko I the Strict" seems more correct. Anyway, one English hit for "Bolko I, Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer" is as popular as one English hit for "Bolko I, Duke of Swidnica".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved by Piotrus from his talk page

This is not the most popular name [in English]. Bolko I Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer (or variant) is more popular [1]. It also met the expectations of a large number of people about continental ducal titles. If it's the Germanoform style of the name that bothers you, then I guess can respect that given the transnational character of these rulers. But it would only be fair then, on both counts, to move Bolko II of Świdnica to Bolko II the Small. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that I have no major preference over "of place" and "the adjective", albeit my favorite solution is to have the adjective or both if possible. What about Bolko the adjective x of Świdnica? In that case, Bolko I the Strict of Świdnica? Seems the most informative. For the record, I have no problem with Bolko II the Small. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Bolko I Duke of Schweidnitz-Jauer (or variant) is more popular than 1, getting 9 hits [not one] [2]; the exact form is obviously a wiki-ism. But OK, Bolko I the Strict is more in line with how Polish rulers named on wikipedia. This suggests also though that Bolko II of Świdnica should be moved to Bolko II the Small. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: Bolko I was not a Polish ruler but a ruler of a independent duchy in a period of transition. This transition affected the duke too, who called himself "dux Slezie et domino Lewenberch", later also "de Fürstenberc". IMHO this transition should be included somehow since it's vital for the history of Silesia.Karasek (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Added original name

I added original name. It's obvious that he didn't use English name and the original name is notable enough to be included. Since the germanised version of the name occurs very rarely I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion though.--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't know his "original name". Our only contemporary sources are seals and documents. Almost all of these sources in Silesia during his time are written in Latin, very few in German, none in Polish. Arguing that the Polish/German/Czech name was his "original name" is therefore pure speculation.

PS: the seal shown on this page provides at least his "original" Latin title: Bolkonis dei gra(tia) dvcis Sl(es)ie et d(omi)ni de Wrstenberch (Wrstenberch = Fürstenberg = Fürstenstein = Książ). Karasek (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)