Hildegard von Vinzgouw - How Should We Record Her Name?

Now that we have language dependent naming, Private User has contacted me with this message:
"Surname is as follows:
German: von Vinzgau and/or more correctly im Vinzgau
English: in the Vinzgau
Dutch: van Vinzgouw"

The Medieval Curators are busy talking through a standardised way of approaching naming, at the moment (See project: http://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Kingdoms-of-Western-Europe/3198) So Hildegard might be an excellent test case.

Name: Hildegard surname: blank, display name Hildegard of Vinzgouw

Just one proviso: The "wife'daughter etc of Charlemagne" designator I have put into the Display name field is specific only to Charlemagne & his children - & functions to keep down the daily mis-merges on one of the highest traffic & most highly contested areas on the tree.

It is not a suggested naming convention at all - & will be done away with the minute we have relationship locking.
I agree that it is ugly & it isn't optimum, but I also am not prepared to watch the rapid devolution of this line that occurs when users can't see it.
This is not what we're discussing here, as it is definitely nothing more than a work-around.

My first thought is to consider the fact that she is not referred to with a surname or any kind of toponym. That's a much later invention. In her own time she was just "Hildegardis regina" (Queen HIldegard).

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CAROLINGIANS.htm#CharlemagneB

I wrote this nearly two years ago, in this same discussion:

http://www.geni.com/discussions/115224?msg=833100

My opinion hasn't changed since then ;)

So you're saying that =she is not referred to with a surname or any kind of toponym= at the time that she lived.

Does this mean that we should use the names as they were used at the time people lived, do you think?

yes of course

I think it would be better.

The standards currently say we will use the modern language equivalent for the area where the person lived, but even that has become outdated now with multilingual names.

So: "Hildegardis" across all languages - because that's what she was recorded as in her time?

hildegard, hildegardis is the latin version

Give Name: Hildegardis
All other basic name fields blank

Display names -- match the name on the Wikipedia article for that language.

When I looked a few years ago English Wikipedia was using Hildegarde of Vinzgouw. French Wikipedia was using Hildegard de Vintzgau. German Wikipedia didn't give her a surname.

Just a twinge of regret here. Einhard says she was "de gente Suavorum" (of the Swabians). That's almost a surname, and is the traditional English name for her.

Jason - What source are you using to establish that her name was spelt 'Hildegard' by the woman herself?

Jason, the source says Hildegardis. As long as we're translating the name into English for the display name, why not use the actual name as given in the source for the Given Name?

(I know, I know. I argued the other side of this one in the curator forum. It's a hard call.)

The female name Hildegard derived from the Old High German words hild (=war or battle) and gard (=protection) and means "protecting battle-maid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard

That tells us nothing about what the woman herself used in her time. It's a modern translation into English.

she was frankish german she was not latin. latin was used only for record keeping by this time, it was only used by the clergy and was "book language"

Yes, good point. Needed to be made, but the only record that we have is the written one.
Transliterating this record into modern languages and then deciding which modernised version is the one from her country, is not using the name as she would have used it.

The cardinal rule of genealogy is "don't invent data". For all we know, she called herself Hildie. We only know what the source tells us.

Another way of putting it is that if Hildergard was able to read (not especially likely) this is the language she would have read her own name out loud to herself in.
Were she have been able to write we would definitely use the version of her name that she wrote.

There is a very basic question here. There are two ways of seeing it.

1. Put Hildegardis in all the Given Name fields, then use the Display Name to translate it into your language. Users can always see the original and many will be able to judge whether the Display Name is correct. But, it makes the multilingual names somewhat pointless except for the Display Name itself.

2. Put the translated name in each of the Given Name fields, and use the Display Name only to add titles and fake surnames. The multilingual feature shines, but the common source (Hildegardis) gets lost.

key word "read out loud to herself" not called herself that day to day just like Alfred the great didn't call himself Aelfredi and William the Conqueror didn't call himself Willelmus

That's it in a nutshell, for me, Justin:
I vote 1.

Jason - that is the key point, I agree. But if we're talking about using the most valid source - then one taken from their time has to win hands down over an anachronism from today.
We have no idea what Alfred called himself at home. Without tape recorders the most accurate data we have is how he allowed his name to be written down at the time.
I put it to you that if you disagree with this, then you must vote for option no 2. :-)

ah yes we do, once he learnt to read and write and changed the written language from latin to english he recorded himself as Ælfrēd. im not sure where you are getting this Hildegard is a modern invented name from

Trying to guess what she called herself day to day is too subjective. It sets too high a standard.

Probably it was some Schwäbisch form of a name that can be fairly rendered into Latin as Hildegardis -- but was it pronounced Hildegard, Hildegarda, Hillegard, ...?

And was it pronounced the same in her Swabian homeland as in the Frankish capital?

This isn't the way to approach the question of how to handle it here.

Ælfrēd.= Source? If it's the most accurate/close to the time, then that's definitely the one we use if we're going for option 1. Quite simple

We have no way of knowing what the sound & spelling of the name that was written down as Hildegardis was in the woman's own time. None at all.
Hildegard is a modern translation that is projected backwards through the filters of modern alphabets and modern languages. This is Option 2.

Justin, =This isn't the way to approach the question of how to handle it here.=. Why do you say that? I think it's probably quite useful for people if we tease out the questions that go with deciding between the two options.

I think we can keep this quite simple:

As already mentioned, on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_(Karolinger)
Sie war die Tochter des schwäbischen Grafen Gerold aus dem Geschlecht der Agilolfinger und der Imma, Tochter des alemannischen Grafen Hnabi.

Hildegard was from Schwaben / Swabia (the daughter of Gerold, Count in the Vinzgau (Graf im Vinzgau) of the Agilolfinger dynasty and his wife Imma, daughter of Hnabi of the Alemannians) and was thus a German speaking person probably having a Swabian dialect. I doubt very much she was ever called Hildegardis which is a latinised rendering of the German name Hildegard. Hildegard is a very ancient German name.

I would call her Hildegard, Countess of the Vinzgau in Swabia. (Hildegard, Gräfin im/vom Vinzgau). Von Vinzgouw is, as I already mentioned, wrong and Wikipedia is wrong to use this name. Vinzgouw is Dutch for Vinzgau. In Dutch it would be van not von Vinzgouw but she was not Dutch so it is irrelevant and a Dutch name is not appropriate. The region called Vinzgau in Swabia is where she lived and where her father was "seigneur", that is why she is referred to as "Vinzgau". In old books she is referred to as Hildegard Gräfin vom Vinzgau (countess of the Vinzgau) alternatively as Hildegard Gräfin im Vinzgau (countess in the Vinzgau). Hildegard von Winzgau "of as in the Fench de" is incorrect but sometimes used (in ignorance).

As to a surname, as Justin has pointed out, a decion was made that royalty has no surnames and that dynastical names like her father's name were possibly not used in their lifetimes (we do not know that actually) otherwise she could be called Hildegard Agilofing(er). I personally think a reference to a dynastical name is useful and not harmful, but my proposal was rejected.

I think calling her Countess of the Vinzgau would be a mistake, in the absence of a primary source calling her that.

The reasoning seems to be that her father Gerold was Count in the Vinzgau, and the Germans practiced partible inheritance, so even though she was not an heiress she would have the same titles her brothers had.

There are a number of problems with that.

First, the modern spelling is Vinschgau, older spelling Vintschgau, not Vinzgau. Vinzgouw looks like it would be a Dutch spelling, but if I remember correctly it's taken from a Latin charter. I could be wrong about that. Further, Vinschgau is actually in Tirol, not Swabia.

Second, there is a question about whether Hildegard's father was really Count in Vinschgau. MedLands says only that he was Count in Kraichgau. German Wikipedia says he was Count in Kraichgau and Anglachgau, and had estates in Kraichgau, Anglachgau , Wormsgau, Lobdengau, and Ufgau (around Worms and Heidelberg).

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SWABIAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc359920225
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerold_von_Anglachgau

Private User and I had an extended discussion about Gerold a few years ago. I don't remember the outcome, but he gives his opinion on the profile for Gerold, count in Kraichgau and Anglachgau: "Some English sources still insist on [calling him] Gerold of Vinzgouw, though he held no land in any such named territory. His area of origin is unknown - ethnicity is Frankish." Ben also says Gerold was Count in Westbaar, and possibly Alsace.

French Wikipedia adds that Gerold was Count in Baar. And further that his possessions on the Middle Rhine suggest he might have been a Frank installed in Alemannia after an uprising of the nobility there.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rold_Ier_de_Vintzgau

Third, at this period Counts were Imperial officers. The title was not yet hereditary and it was not associated with a defined area. We make the distinction by saying these counts were Counts in ... rather than Counts of ...

Hildegard would not have shared in her father's title, nor was there a title for her to inherit. Her brothers didn't even share the title.

Sharon Doubell, I'm going to vote for Option #2 (using the translated name).

I see the arguments in favor of #1 (using the name as given in the primary sources). The researcher in me really hates the idea of making things up, but I think #1 will be vastly more intuitive for non-academic users -- enter the name as you know it in your own language.

There just aren't enough people on Geni who use primary sources. We'd be explaining it every day ;)

We can lobby Geni for a real name field, one that captures the name from the sources.

Thinking... :-)