Constance, Duchess of Wodzisław

302:, Henry IV's brothers-in-law. On 18 April 1287 Henry IV formally asked Mieszko I to refuse his help to Bishop Thomas II, under the threat of rupture of their good relations. He said no, but instead offering as a mediator in the dispute. Despite the adoption of this proposal, Henry IV decided to divorce his wife. Although this move clearly was made against his alliance with the Opole Dukes, the apparent reason for the repudiation was the infertility of his wife, however this fact could be unfounded, because Henry IV's second marriage with Matilda of Brandenburg was also childless. The Dukes of Opole sent to the Pope two complaints requesting the reinstallation of their sister as Henry IV's wife. The waited response never come, certainly because the complaints were sent during the 514: 133:, and Władysław, Duke of Opole, was born a daughter who married Henry IV Probus, Duke of Wrocław. No source directly specified her name, and therefore the historiography is divided about this fact and her correct identification in the Piast dynasty. Some historians share the view that she was Constance of Wodzisław, but the opponents of this idea argue that her name remains unknown. Also not gaining universal approval are the hypotheses arguing that Władysław of Opole's daughter was named either Margareta or Grzymisława. In the absence of proper sources who could clarify this matter, all the information and theories only created more difficulties in reconstructing her life. 327:

with Wladysław of Opole's daughter or any other obstacles, with the exception of a close relationship before marrying Matilda of Brandenburg. In addition, sources not showed any problems for Henry IV about an irregular marital status during his efforts to obtain the royal crown. This hypothesis has been challenged by historians. Is noted that the marriage of Henry IV with the daughter of Wladysław of Opole was invalid without a dispensation from the Pope because of a close affinity between husband and wife (the mother of Henry IV, Judith of Masovia, married with

109: 20: 167: 226:. According to this hypothesis, there is a proof that in the second half of 1277, there was an alliance between the Dukes of Wrocław and Opole. Among the documents issued by Władysław of Opole and his sons, was found an act who provide support for all the plans of Henry IV. This document was issued after the marriage, because there Duke of Opole called Henry IV his son-in-law, and later in 1278, was added a clause that guarantees the obligations of the Duke of Opole with King Ottokar II of Bohemia, who fell on 26 August 1278 in the 262:

into question the credibility of the complaints to the Pope, this document suggests the possibility that the marriage between Henry IV and the princess of Opole took place in Vienna in 1280. In 1281 or 1282, Władysław of Opole died. Since then, the relations of Henry IV with the sons of the deceased Duke were completely different. At that time, the disputes with his brothers-in-law, his efforts to obtain the royal crown and the apparent barrenness of his wife added further problems to Henry IV's political aspirations.

434: 343:, which happened on several occasions with spouses of short-term childless marriages. By contrast, the only reference about the repudiation of Henry IV's wife were two complaints sent to the Pope by two brothers, identified as Wladysław of Opole's sons; in both documents, are described the dismissal of their sister and the exile of the Bishop. Modern historians believed that the complaints are forgeries, based on the following considerations: 1182:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 45, erroneously relied on K. Jasinski, stating that the marriage of Henry with Matilda has been concluded at the end of 1287. Later (p. 47) he stated that the marriage took place before 11 January 1288, because by a document issued that day, Henry IV mentioned his wife there. The document didn't give her name, but there is no doubt that it was Matilda. M. Małecki, 1241:

complaint. In the second, brothers inform the Pope that their sister was taken in marriage at a very young age, when they themselves were still minors, and the idea of this marriage was from their father. Modern historiography almost universally accepted the hypothesis that the events described in the complaints are related to Henry IV Probus, Wladysław of Opole's sons and daughter and Bishop Thomas II.

831:, "Poczet żon królewskich" "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, pp. 31–32, didn't give directly a date of birth. He merely stated that marrying her husband in 1277 or 1278 (probably in the second half of 1277), she was about 10–12 years old, and died in 1351 aged over 84 years. In modern historiography, one encounters another date of birth given to her, about 1256, although without justification; J. Sperka, 1165:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 46, rejected the hypothesis of Grzymisława identification as daughter of Władysław of Opole, stating that the wife of Henry IV Probus wouldn't styled Duchess of Opole, but Duchess of Wrocław and Silesia. Also, he not quoted or reject the hypothesis of the repudiation of his first wife, by Henry IV between 1282-1284. 354:, who died in 1276, before the events reported in the complaints. The contents of both documents shows that the man who dismissed his wife, was the ruler of a foreign language, but both spouses came from the same diocese. Finally, the repudiation of Henry IV's wife wasn't mentioned during his long dispute with Bishop Thomas II Zaremba, who constantly enumerated the Duke's vices. 198:, the Duke of Wrocław is identified as a boy, which would be impossible if he was then married. In the Congress of Vienna was settled the dispute between the Dukes of Wrocław and Opole, proved in a document were Władysław called Henry IV his son-in-law. It's possible that the consolidation of the agreement was just the wedding between Henry IV and Władysław's daughter. 455:

hypothesis assumes that Constance resided in Racibórz until the death of Anna of Czersk (aft. 13 July 1324), Przemysław's widow, who received Wodzisław as her dower. Then Duke Leszek of Racibórz (son of Przemysław and Anna) gave Constance the domain over Wodzisław, a fact who is easier to explain, if Constance was his sister and not his aunt.

537:

person who resting in the grave died as result of an infectious disease. It is known that during 1349–1351 the Duchy of Wodzisław was affected by a plague epidemic. Therefore, if during the excavations uncovered the remains of Constance, it could be inferred that she was the daughter of Przemyslaw of Racibórz.

88:, who given to her the district of Wodzisław as her own Duchy, where she remained until her death. Historians who dispute this theory alleged that Władysław of Opole had a daughter of unknown name, who died shortly after her marriage with Henry IV, or between her repudiation and Henry IV's subsequent marriage. 326:

The first hypothesis states that the Opole princess died probably in 1287 or 1288, shortly before the conclusion of Henry IV's second marriage. One fact that supported this view was in any contemporary source was read anything about the Duke of Wrocław's ventures seeking the annulment of his marriage

270:

Almost all the modern historiography universally accepted the view that Henry IV Probus repudiated Władysław of Opole's daughter. It is based on the conclusion that the complainants to the Pope against the Duke of Wrocław's conduct are the Dukes of Opole, Henry IV's brothers-in-law. According to this

560:

In Wodzisław are signs which commemorate Duchess Constance. Her name was given to one street (Duchess Constance Street), a school (The Duchess Constance Gimnazjum No 4), and one of the monumental oak trees on the beach near Balaton lake (Constance). Also, in a niche of the corners of the market town

536:

In 1992 during excavations in the church of the former Dominican monastery (now a museum) in Racibórz, was a tomb from the first half of the 14th century. Inside were the remains of a woman who died aged about 40 years. Next to them were discovered numerous traces of lime, a fact who proved that the

261:

in March 1280, Władysław of Opole issued a document, in which he promised to the Duke of Wrocław, his son-in-law, assistance in obtaining the Polish royal crown. This support would be provided with the condition that her daughter (and Henry IV's wife) was also crowned queen with her husband. Giving

1315:

It's possible that the princess of Opole died before 10 August 1282, because at that time was issued a document of the Papal Legate who ended the dispute between Bishop Thomas II Zaremba and Henry IV. By virtue of one of the provisions in the document the Duke could collect the Church tribute from

217:

dated 15 August 1277, the King referred to his allies the Opole Dukes. Since they wanted to arrange a meeting in Racibórz, he requests the presence of Duchess Euphemia of Opole and her daughter, calling a Congress to discuss matters relating to the wedding of Władysław's daughter and Henry IV. The

141:

The exact birth date of the daughter of Władysław of Opole is unknown. The approximate year of birth was established on the basis of one of the two supplications addressed to the Pope, whose credibility are now called into question. In those documents, her brothers (considered by historians as the

454:

and his wife Euphrosyne of Płock received the right to choose their own confessor. The issue is determined how long Constance stayed in Racibórz. According to one theory, shortly after her arrival, Mieszko I gave to Constance the district of Wodzisław as her own Duchy during her lifetime. Another

413:. In addition, is hard to believe that Constance, daughter of Wladysław of Opole, could live almost 86 years. Another point in favor of the hypothesis about the origin of Constance, is the fact that after the death of Anna of Czersk, Duke Leszek of Racibórz give the district of Wodzisław (Anna's 322:

In modern historiography were found two views, according to which Henry IV's first wife died during the 1280s, before the conclusion of his subsequent marriage with Matilda of Brandenburg. Both hypotheses are opposed to the identification of Wladysław of Opole's daughter as Duchess Constance of

1148:

with the title of "Duchess of Opole", claimed that the wife of Henry IV Probus has been dismissed by him around 1282-1284, between the verdict issuing by the Papal Legate Philip in a dispute with the Bishop Thomas II Zaremba (10 August 1282) and its announcement (12 March 1284), after then she

889:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 542, note 3, presenting this conjecture to identify the daughter of Władysław of Opole from occurring in the 14th century sources of Constance. However, the researcher agreed to the hypothesis given that she was the daughter of Przemysław of Racibórz. 1240:

In none of the two complaints were shown the names of the characters from the events described there. Both were relate to a Polish prince, who stepped back from his sister's applicants. The first letter, addressed to Pope Gregory, stated the Duke is also pursued by the expulsion of Bishop's

142:

authors of the two complaints) requested an adjournment of their sister's wedding with Henry IV, since they felt that her age wasn't appropriate for a bride. Since the marriage's date was established between 1277 and 1280, she could be born about 1265. Her birth probably took place in

61:) and mentions her death in 1351. None of these sources showed Constance's parentage. Historians and sources are agreed that she was a member of the Piast dynasty; however, the difficult of establishing who was her father, caused two theories to emerge about her origins. 150:. By convention, among the offspring of Władysław of Opole and Euphemia of Greater Poland, she is placed as the fifth and last child, although she could be older than Przemysław of Racibórz. If her name was Constance, she probably was named after her cousin 445:

Following the hypothesis who identified Constance as the daughter of Wladysław of Opole, after she was repudiated by her husband came to Racibórz at the side of her brothers Mieszko I and Przemysław. Probably because she lived in that district was called

425:. The experts founded that in the first half of the 14th century, was buried there an approximately 40-year-old woman who died as result of a disease. If this remains belonged to Constance, they proved that her father could be Przemysław of Racibórz. 1344:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", ed. by J. Horwat (red.), vol. VI, Gliwice 1990, p. 14. The investigator said that the name of the Pope actually could be inserted in the final editing. Therefore this disagreed with the model of a typical complaint. 738:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, pp. 45–48 (although he put forward the hypothesis—from which he later retreated—about the possible name of Władysław of Opole's daughter as Grzymisława, on the basis of the 796:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 46, rejected this hypothesis, stating that if Grzymisława were the wife of Henry IV Probus, she wouldn't be styled Duchess of Opole, but Duchess of Wrocław and Silesia. 1316:

their subjects to cover the cost of his marriage. As the next document included a similar provision for the future children born from the union, is believed that the document maybe related a purely theoretical situation. Ref: T. Jurek,

338:

According to another hypothesis, the daughter of Wladysław of Opole wasn't repudiated by her husband, but died shortly after her marriage. This is supported by the fact that as the wife of Henry IV, she is not mentioned in the

1061:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, pp. 286–287, argued that the document was issued in 1280 or in the first half of 1281, but accepted that Władysław of Opole died on 27 August or 13 November 1281; J. Tęgowski, 918:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 286 and note 2, stated that the wedding took place shortly before the conclusion of the agreement between Henry IV and Władysław of Opole in Vienna in March 1280; T. Jurek, 822:

K. Jasiński fixed the birth of Władysław of Opole's daughter approximately in 1265, because he claimed that her marriage to Henry IV Probus took place between the second half of 1277 and early 1280; K. Jasiński,

1054:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, p. 16, dated the document about 1280–1281, but points out that the made after and released at the congress in Vienna in March 1280; R. Grodecki, 1231:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 525, found it confusing, although possible, that the friendship between Henry IV and Mieszko I began after the repudiation of his wife (and Mieszko I's sister). 363: 201:

According to one hypothesis, the marriage between the daughter of Władysław of Opole and Henry IV Probus only could have taken place between 1277 and 1278. This is based on the following considerations:

242:); at that time, the conclusion of an alliance with the Dukes of Opole was the most favorable for Henry IV. The complaints presented to the Pope supported the hypothesis that the wedding took place in 335:, paternal uncle of the Opole princess). Moreover, in these times, there was still the custom which allowed the dismissal of infertile wives. Thus, an annulment for Henry IV's marriage wasn't needed. 1069:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", ed. by J. Horwat (red.), vol. VI, Gliwice 1990, p. 11, found that Władysław of Opole this act has yet wasn't made this document by the time of the congress in Vienna. 1132:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 293, dated this event around 1286-1287, although in another place said that it had been before, without giving an exact date (p. 303, ref: K. Jasiński, 930:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 32, presented the hypothesis that the marriage took place in 1277 or 1278 (probably in 1277). This theory is supported by: J. Sperka, 417:) to Constance, which is more understandable if she was his sister rather than an old paternal aunt. Another argument who supported this view was provided by the archaeological research in the 346:

The second complaint related that at the time of Henry IV's marriage with the Opole princess, her brothers are minors, a fact who is proved to be false. The first complaint was addressed to

1144:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", vol. VII-VIII, Gliwice 1991–1992, pp. 380–384, hypothesized about the identification of Wladyslaw of Opole's daughter as the Grzymisława who appears in the 1149:

returned to Opole, where died around 13 September 1285-1286. Her death allowed Henry IV to intensify his efforts of marrying Matilda of Brandenburg. By the other hand, J. Horwat,

1140:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31, argued that the dismissal of Władysław of Opole's daughter took place during the first half of 1287; J. Horwat, 860:, Wodzisław Śląski 1997, p. 2, he relied on the findings of J. Tęgowski (although he didn't put this information in their work) and then developed this hypothesis in footnote 3. 1324:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, p. 29. See the article of B. Włodarski in "Kwartalniku Historycznym", Lwów 1928, pp. 622–623. See also R. Grodecki, 1218:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 525, doesn't exclude that the dismissal of Henry IV's wife was preceded by the assistance of the Dukes of Opole to Bishop Thomas II. 730:, , Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 524–526 (although he later presented the conjecture of the identification of Władysław of Opole as Constance; K. Jasiński, 230:. It is believed that the marriage took place in 1277 after Henry IV regained his freedom at the cost of giving Bolesław II the third part of his lands, including 926:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, p. 16, assumed that marriage was most likely performed at a congress in Vienna in 1280; J. Tęgowski, 290:

A detonant for the decision of repudiated his wife, was Henry IV's dispute with Bishop Thomas II Zaremba. Expelled from his dominions, the Bishop took refuge in

502: 210: 91:

According to the second hypothesis, based on Constance's titles showed in sources: Duchess of Racibórz and Duchess of Wodzisław, she was the daughter of Duke

251: 1065:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31, believed that Władysław of Opole issued this document in 1280; by contrast, J. Horwat, 186:. Historians place the wedding between the second half of 1277 and March 1280, this is, between the six-months of captivity of Henry IV by his uncle 271:

hypothesis, the princess of Opole was repudiated by her husband in 1287 at the latest, because between 1287–1288, the Duke of Wrocław married with

788:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", vol. VII-VIII, Gliwice 1991–1992, pp. 380–384, identified her with a certain Grzymisława, who appears in the 409:. According to some historians, if Constance was the daughter of Wladysław of Opole, the appropriate title for her in this document would be 1611: 382:. Probably born before 1307, is understood that she was the youngest child of Ducal couple. She probably named after Constance, Abbess of 950:, ed. by K. Ożóg and S. Szczur, Kraków 1999, p. 728, reported that Władysław of Opole's daughter was married to Henry IV Probus in 1278. 218:

treatments of King Ottokar II were explained in his desire to obtain the support of Henry IV and Władysław of Opole in the war against

1579: 1560: 1267:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 542-543, note 3, found that the daughter of Wladysław of Opole died in 1287 or early 1288. 276: 549:, indicates that as a ruler, she gained wide respect from her subjects. This is proved by the local legends, where she is named the 254:. Władysław's daughter probably reunited with her husband in Wrocław after she had the proper age to consummate the marriage. 194:. The wedding couldn't take place prior to 1277, because in the description of the events of Henry IV's imprisonment in the 95:. Certainly she remained unmarried and settled in Wodzisław (which probably was her own independent Duchy) until her death. 1621: 622:, red. by K. Ożóg and S. Szczur, Kraków 1999, pp. 728–729. Kazimierz Jasiński treated this as a conjecture; K. Jasiński, 1616: 1186:, Wodzisław Śląski 1997, p. 11, reported that the marriage with Matilda took place by the end of 1287; R. Grodecki, 486:

could stop the imminent attack to Constance's duchy. The second event was the epidemic of plague (commonly known as

458:

During the reign of Constance, in Wodzisław occurred two significant events. The first of them was the invasion of

272: 405:

Assuming that this hypothesis were true, it's easier to explain the title given to Constance in the Papal letter:

451: 906:

2007, part III, p. 524, claimed that the marriage was concluded between the second half of 1277 and early 1280;

513: 155: 593:"Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Alterthum Schlesiens", ed. by A. Weltzel, vol. IV, 1862, p. 115. 1201:, ed. by K. Ożóg and S. Szczur, Kraków 1999, pp. 728–729, reported that Henry IV married Matilda in 1288. 980:, "Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altertum Schlesiens", vol. LXVI, 1932, p. 61; K. Jasiński, 521:

Constance's burial place is unknown. It is believed that she was buried either in the parish church or a

371: 299: 151: 92: 85: 295: 122: 81: 1153:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", ed. by J. Horwat (red.), vol. VI, Gliwice 1990, p. 14; J. Horwat, 375: 526: 399: 43: 280: 227: 19: 387: 187: 1606: 65: 398:(Ziemomysł's brother). Constance probably never married. Until her death in 1351 she lived in 459: 362: 239: 206: 126: 391: 1601: 746:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", vol. VII-VIII, Gliwice 1991–1992, pp. 380–384); T. Jurek, 379: 219: 247: 231: 8: 1455:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 542, note 1 and p. 593, note 9; J. Tęgowski, 589:"Anno MCCCLI feria quinta obiit Constantina preclarissima princeps Ladislawiensis". Ref: 395: 328: 1576: 1557: 1001:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, pp. 27–29. See R. Grodecki, 498: 493:

Constance ruled over Wodzisław until her death in 1351, according to the message of the

108: 53:

dated 22 September 1321, where she is named "Duchess of Racibórz", and secondly in the

1095:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", ed. by J. Horwat (red.), vol. VI, Gliwice 1990, p. 19. 479: 332: 1082:, "Rocznik Muzeum w Gliwicach", ed. by J. Horwat (red.), vol. VI, Gliwice 1990, p. 16 214: 166: 350:: the only Pope who bears that name during the second half of the 13th century was 311: 307: 23:

Statue of Duchess Constance of Wodzisław, situated in a corner of the local market.

433: 1583: 1564: 688:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No. 8, Bytom 2007, p. 46. 418: 223: 179: 69: 31: 1404:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 46. 1383:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 46. 1280:, "Rocznik Muzeum Górnośląskiego w Bytomiu. Historia", No 8, Bytom 2007, p. 45. 701:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, pp. 31–32; J. Sperka, 606:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, pp. 31–32; J. Sperka, 1342:

Stosunki między książętami opolskimi a Henrykiem IV Probusem w latach 1278–1288

1151:

Stosunki między książętami opolskimi a Henrykiem IV Probusem w latach 1278–1288

1093:

Stosunki między książętami opolskimi a Henrykiem IV Probusem w latach 1278–1288

1080:

Stosunki między książętami opolskimi a Henrykiem IV Probusem w latach 1278–1288

1067:

Stosunki między książętami opolskimi a Henrykiem IV Probusem w latach 1278–1288

907: 351: 130: 50: 39: 1214:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31; K. Jasiński, 466:

from June 1345 during the Polish-Czech War. Polish troops gained the towns of

1595: 1476:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 522-523; M. Furmanek, S. Kulpa, 680:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 542–543; M. Furmanek, S. Kulpa, 171: 1536:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31; J. Sperka, 483: 303: 734:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 542–543, note 3); J. Horwat, 517:

The Dominican monastery of Racibórz, Constance's probable place of burial

487: 1366:

Historiography also ranked her birth around 1305-1306. Ref: M. Małecki,

545:

The nickname "preclarissima" (the brightest), given to Constance in the

530: 422: 291: 147: 77: 49:

Her name appears twice in contemporary sources: firstly, in a letter of

1136:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 525, note 6); J. Tęgowski, 522: 813:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, pp. 27–28. 754:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, pp. 27–29. 646:(Wratislavia antiqua 8), ed. by K. Wachowski, Wrocław 2005, pp. 27–29. 183: 73: 663:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, pp. 293–294; K. Jasiński, 383: 284: 121:

In medieval sources, it is only known that from the marriage between

1400:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, p. 99; compared with J. Horwat, 903: 478:, all adjacent to Wodzisław. Only the presence of the Bohemian King 64:

The first hypothesis states that Constance was the daughter of Duke

1357:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 542-543 and table V/2. 1125:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 524–525; R. Grodecki, 467: 235: 76:, who repudiated her after several years of marriage. She moved to 1193:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 294 and S.A. Sroka, 1178:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 524-525; J. Horwat, 463: 1459:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31. 1293:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 31. 1021:, "Poczet żon królewskich", "Magazyn Razem", 1987, No 1, p. 32. 497:. Then the heir of the Duchy of Racibórz as husband of Princess 475: 370:

According to another theory, Constance was the daughter of Duke

1472:, Wodzisław Śląski 1997, p. 12 and pp. 21-22; see K. Jasiński, 471: 258: 191: 827:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, p. 524; J. Tęgowski, 626:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part III, pp. 542–543, note 3. 414: 243: 143: 868: 866: 839:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, p. 78, and S. A. Sroka, 709:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, pp. 78–79; S. A. Sroka, 614:, red. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, pp. 78–79; S.A. Sroka, 317: 257:

After settling the dispute with Henry IV at the Congress in

1331:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 293, note 3. 1037:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 277, note 2. 1008:, ed. by S. Kutrzeba, vol. I, Kraków 1933, p. 286, note 2. 938:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, p. 78 and M. Małecki, 1161:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, p. 99 and J. Horwat, 863: 717:, ed. by K. Ożóg and S. Szczur, Kraków 1999, pp. 728–729. 942:, Wodzisław Śląski 1997, p. 4; by contrast S. A. Sroka, 450:

in the Papal letter of 22 September 1321, in which Duke

1544:, ed. by A. Barciak, Katowice 1995, p. 79; M. Małecki, 984:, Second Edition, Kraków 2007, part I, p. 161, note 11. 580:, ed. by A. Theiner, Rome 1860, vol. I, p. 170, No 259. 1329: