Willigarde of Bavaria - Primary Sources?

Started by Sharon Doubell on Sunday, December 16, 2018
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 25 posts
Private User
12/16/2018 at 3:50 AM

Saint Leutwinus, Bishop of Trèves

Saint Leudwinus, Count of Treves (Leodewin, Liutwin, Ludwin) (c. 660 – 29 September 722 in Reims) founded an abbey in Mettlach. He was Archbishop of Treves and Laon.

St. Ludwin, Feastday: September 29
Death: 713
Benedictine bishop of Trier, Germany. He was born in Austrasia, and trained by St. Basinus. Married he became a widower and founded the abbey of Mettlach before being consecrated a bishop.
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4348

Marriage
Initially uninterested in an ecclesiastical career, Leudwinus married Willigard of Bavaria.
Their children were:
Milo, Count of Treves
Wido, Count of Hornbach
(Possibly) Chrotrude of Treves (Rotrude), who married Charles Martel and became Duchess of Austrasia (Rotrude is believed to be the daughter of Lambert, Count of Hesbaye, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotrude_of_Hesbaye )

Archbishop of Treves 4 March 705 – 29 September 722, He was succeeded as Archbishop of Treve by his son, Milo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leudwinus

The problem origins with Chrodbert and his grandchild Rotrude (Chrotrude of Treves),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrodbert_(count_palatine_of_Chlothar...
creating a fuzz about Willigarde of Bavaria's parents, thus creating two sets of parents.
This is not Leutwinus daughter Ruodhaid needs to be disconnected, deleted or merged in the right place as a daughter to Lambert, Count of Hesbaye, secondly, Leutwinus wife was dead when he became a bishop 705, he himself died 713, but was succeded by his son Milo 722, this new wife should be disconnected, Daughter of Chrodobertus II because someone has solved the problem by giving him two wives, his only wife ought to be nearly contemporary in age with him, living between ca. 660-705, dead before 705. Willigarde of Bavaria which also give that their children ought to have been born within the year range of 676-704, not sooner, nor later.

The main problem for me is that all I got to read is secondary sources given by the links above, so if anyone have the actual sources, it would be good to link them here.

Private User
12/16/2018 at 6:56 AM

"Traditionally, the information available about the family background of Rotrude was the indication that Wido (Guy), Count of Hornbach and Lay Abbot of Fontenelle, was a propinquus of Martel. This kinship term, vague enough, means a close relationship with women: a brother, a cousin by women or a cousin by marriage. Wido is the brother of Milo, Bishop of Trier, and son of Saint Leudwinus, Bishop of Trier.

Christian Settipani, in his seminal work on the ancestors of Charlemagne, details an analysis by Anton Halbedel, first issued in 1915, and echoed by historians Jean Depoin, Maurice Chaume and Szabolcs Vajay. According to this analysis, the word propinquus implies "brother", so that Wido was Rotrude’s brother. Rotrude has therefore often been identified as the daughter of Saint Leudwinus.

However, in Settipani’s Addendum to the Ancestors of Charlemagne,[1] he returns to this problem, reflecting thoughts of medieval history professor Richard Gerberding, who believed that Rotrude’s background was related directly to the Robertians. He noted that Charles Martel had three wives and that Wido may be a relative of the other two." Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotrude_of_Hesbaye

After reading that above, I belive that the most likely woman of Martel who was a brother of Wido (Guy) should be Ruodhaid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruodhaid

At least, it makes sence, solves a lot of problems and takes away this uncertainty regarding the parents of Willigarde of Bavaria as well as the parents of Rotrude.

I believe that Settipani is the one and only expert in this subject who we should take serious, also, his solution makes it easier to understand the choice of course for Ruodhaids sons, Remigius, archbishop of Rouen, Bernard, Abbot of St. Quentin, Hieronymus, lay abbot of the monastery of St. Quentin.

12/16/2018 at 7:26 AM

Not ignoring you - I've just got to get a long enough moment to come and think about all of this, Ulf. Thank you for posting. I'll try tonight or tomorrow.

12/16/2018 at 8:38 AM

Too many topics, Ulf. I can't follow.
Which is the profile you have a concern with?

12/16/2018 at 8:41 AM

Private User is there a reason for this duplicate of Charles Martel?

Private User
12/16/2018 at 8:46 AM

Step 1
Ruodhaid by renaming her Ruodhaid and merge her with Ruodhaid you solve it easily, then some explanations in her profile explaning why and how, also stating that the sources are vague but plausible.

Step 2 would be to set up Rotrude as Lambert I, count of Burgundy daughter, also explaning why and that the sources are few but plausible.

Step 3,
Saint Leutwinus, Bishop of Trèves two wives merges togheter and keeps the name Willigarde of Bavaria, and with no parents.

12/16/2018 at 8:49 AM
12/16/2018 at 9:03 AM

So Ruodhaid is a duplicate of Ruodhaid. The MP is RLEd, I'll merge them in and that sorts that one.

12/16/2018 at 10:38 AM

I see what you're saying about Settipani's theory about Rotrude's parents. It contradicts Medlands, so we should get Justin Swanstrom to weigh in on which theory is currently preferenced. Perhaps we should put this in a specific Discussion from her profile, though - so we can find it easily when we're trying to remember why we did it.

12/16/2018 at 11:21 AM

We could all argue forever because there is no absolutely final answer. However, MedLands stays on solid ground -- or tries to -- while Settipani is generally speculative. That's the whole point of Settipani. He is suggesting lines that he believes might be true even though the evidence isn't really there.

As soon as you find yourself saying "the sources are few but plausible" you should stop to think that you're saying "speculative".

12/16/2018 at 11:33 AM

That's a useful insight.

Private User
12/16/2018 at 11:43 AM

We should not weight in Justin, he is one of the persons behind all this mess because of his stubborness when it comes to have 100% verified lines, which we never can't reach in most of this old lines and families.

We have the sources that we have, and we have the experts who have tried to unravel the connections, sort out the most suitable candidates and presented their theories, whereof some have been rejected or improved or altered to better fit the sources, and that's pretty much all we are left with when it comes to the sources, not much to do about it other than accept the most ideal idea that fits from a specialist in the topic.

That means that we will get a very plausible path, not the same as the asbsolute truth, but if we accept that, we can then lock the relationships, avoid more mess, more duplicates, more errors than if we don't do it.

This can be done in many, but not all profiles this high up in the tree, otherwise you can keep on what you're doing, raise questions about wrongfully done profiles names and connections until doomsday withou any other ability to resolve the conflicts than to cut parents, erase names etc, in my opinion, the very opposite of solving problems.

12/16/2018 at 11:53 AM

The policy on Geni is to represent the Sources. Justin is completely correct about verifiabe lines. No slanging match is going to happen here, so let's be moving on.

Step 3,
Saint Leutwinus, Bishop of Trèves now has one wife, Willigarde of Bavaria, and with no parents. Thankyou for spotting the duplicate. I'll RL to make sure it stays that way. You've been a great help, Ulf. Appreciated.

12/16/2018 at 2:25 PM

Ulf, a useful way to view the question of proof is that if the evidence allows more than one solution, you've haven't solved the problem.

Private User
12/16/2018 at 2:54 PM

Bring up that other solution then, and show how it holds up Justin.

12/16/2018 at 4:50 PM

Ulf, think about that. You've answered your own question in the material you quoted above!

Old analysis by Halbedel and supported by Depoin, Chaume, and Vajay. "Propinquus" (close relative) implies "brother" therefore yada yada.

But new analysis by Settipani he thinks Rotrude might have have directly related to the Robertians.

Right there, you've got different possibilities. There's no direct evidence Rotrude was a Robertian, just that Settipani thinks it would make sense if she was. That's not proof, Ulf. It's speculation.

Private User
12/17/2018 at 5:10 AM

Justin, think about this. You et Co. have managed to reduced Charlemagne ancestors into only 14 persons, cut off all the ties to the Merovingians, most of all of the nobility who actually ruled the Franks, profiles with a lot of followers are no longer their ancestors or reduced to distant cousins or isolated islands why, just because you could do so by raising the bar to a level that fits modern genealogy, and by doing so reduce all those experts, professors and other skilled academic peoples results into just an opinion among others, among them your own that apparently weighs most.

No wonder a lot of people continues to try to connect the now broken links by creating duplicates, creating a greater mess then ever before. I still vote for plausible parents this high up in the tree and they should be marked as that as well, Order before Anarchy, it's just as easy as that.

12/17/2018 at 5:45 AM

Ulf, I think that's a fair analysis. Different people put the bar at different levels. Geni's curators have set the bar fairly high because Geni is a collaborative site. Our collective goal has been to create a tree that almost everyone can accept, and not to assert connections that are controversial.

12/17/2018 at 8:47 AM

The same all over again. Denies Settipani, which did the same as Gregory. They interpreted what they read and wrote down their story as it fits them. Gregory was a priviliged man who could use his writings poliitically at his time. and he did copy others for at least six books. Justin have denied the authenticity of these People, but holds on to Gregory as a Source. Some of those Gregory copied are: For the earlier part of the work he depended on various chronicles,histories and local annals, and also on oral tradition. [note: The list given by Manitius is as follows: Chronicles of JeromeVictor, Sulpicius Severus; history of Orosius; church historyof Eusebius­Rufinus; Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus;letters of Sidonius Apollinaris and Ferreolus writings of Avitus;histories of of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus and Sulpicius Alexander(not elsewhere known), annals of of Arles, Angers, Burgundy. Geschichteder Lateinischen Litteratur.] Ammiianus Marcelinus, Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus. So I think Ulf is right when he says that you use some Sources as the thruth and ignore others. That is not setting the bar fairly high.

12/17/2018 at 10:00 AM

Justin said Settipani is speculating. That is the function of Historians.

This is Genealogy - our function is to represent the documents; not to risk crucifixion because there is always more than one speculation.

12/17/2018 at 10:55 AM

Tor, no one is denying Gregory of Tours. This is an odd accusation, totally without foundation, but you keep making. I've refuted it at length over and over.

12/18/2018 at 6:42 AM

To Sharon: I know, the only thing I say is that Gregory copied documents from others and put it in his writings, I do not say that it is wrong, but it is wrong to give credit just to Gregory and his writings when he himself copied others.

To Justin: the same goes to you, I have never denied Gregory, but I am saying that all his writings is not of him, but copied others who wrote historie before him, and who you say is incorrect. That is wrong because Gregory copied what other People before him wrote in at least 6 of his books. Give the credit to those who wrote it not the one who copied these People.

12/18/2018 at 7:22 AM

Tor, we've been over this before. Quote something you think we're ignoring and we'll take a look at it.

Showing all 25 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion