Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
I guess twice.
Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
His son was
LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
> I guess twice.
> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
> His son was
> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy

On 01-Aug-23 4:27 AM, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?

On 15 June 844 he was crowned as king of Italy, and on 6 April 850 he
was crowned as co-emperor.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 01-Aug-23 7:35 AM, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
>> I guess twice.
>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
>> His son was
>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy

This statement - "he was crowned king and co-emperor to the middle-aged
Emperor Lothair I at Rome by Pope Sergius II on 15 June 844" - is wrong.
The source for his coronation on 15 June 844 is the contemporary vita of
Sergius II, which specified that Louis the emperor's son was crowned on
that date as king of the Lombards ("Tunc almificus pontifex manibus suis
ipsum Hludovicum, imperatoris filium, oleo sancto perunguens, regali ac
pretiosissima coronavit corona, regemque Langobardorum perfecit"). His
reign as king in Italy was counted from the end of 839/before 22 March
840, as the latter date in 841 fell in his second year. His grandfather
Louis the Pious had promised him the Italian kingdom probably at Worms
in June 839, when the old emperor was reconciled with his son Lothar and
made a division of the empire.

The elevation of Louis II as co-emperor with his father Lothar I
occurred at his second coronation in April 850 and his imperial reign
was counted from then - for instance, 10 January 851 was reckoned as in
his first imperial year ("Hludouicus gratia dei imperator augustus
invictissimi domni imperatoris Hlotharii filius ... Data IIII idus
ianr., anno domni Hlotharii serenissimi augusti in Italia XXXII et in
Francia XII et Hludouici magni imperatoris primo").

Stephen Hawking thought that a great advance in human history would come
about when brains could be directly connected to the internet so that
people would have all of Wikipedia in their minds. Ho hum.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
> > I guess twice.
> > Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
> > His son was
> > LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC+10, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> > > > Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
> > > I guess twice.
> > > Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
> > > His son was
> > > LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
> > Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)
I just noticed that he married in 1827 (2 years old) Hemma Welf, she was the Queens Consort born 808 in Altdorf; AND 17 years older than him. The funny thing is that he had 7 children with her, the first Hildegard was born 828, HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD? That can't be right.

On 01-Aug-23 9:08 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
>>> I guess twice.
>>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
>>> His son was
>>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
>> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)

Louis II the Younger who died in 875 was the eldest son of Lothar I
(died 855). Ludwig the German (died 876) was his paternal uncle.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 01-Aug-23 9:35 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC+10, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
>>>> I guess twice.
>>>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
>>>> His son was
>>>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
>>> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
>> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)
> I just noticed that he married in 1827 (2 years old) Hemma Welf, she was the Queens Consort born 808 in Altdorf; AND 17 years older than him. The funny thing is that he had 7 children with her, the first Hildegard was born 828, HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD? That can't be right.

Of course it isn't right - Ludwig the German was the third legitimate
son of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious. He was born ca 805/09 and
married Hemma, daughter of Welf I, in or after October 827. She was the
younger sister of his step-mother Judith, second wife of Louis the Pious.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:41:47 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 01-Aug-23 9:35 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC+10, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> >>>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
> >>>> I guess twice.
> >>>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
> >>>> His son was
> >>>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
> >>> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
> >> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)
> > I just noticed that he married in 1827 (2 years old) Hemma Welf, she was the Queens Consort born 808 in Altdorf; AND 17 years older than him. The funny thing is that he had 7 children with her, the first Hildegard was born 828, HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD? That can't be right.
> Of course it isn't right - Ludwig the German was the third legitimate
> son of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious. He was born ca 805/09 and
> married Hemma, daughter of Welf I, in or after October 827. She was the
> younger sister of his step-mother Judith, second wife of Louis the Pious.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com
That doesn't sound right either.
He was the son of Lothair I, of Lorraine and Ermengarde De Thouars Counter of Tours.
Lothair I was the son of Ludwig I "The Pious" (778- 840) the Twin brother of Lothair. AND HE WAS the Grandson of Charlemagne.
I never checked these details before since 1980, I must have a look and check everything again.

On 01-Aug-23 2:07 PM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:41:47 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 01-Aug-23 9:35 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC+10, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
>>>>>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
>>>>>> I guess twice.
>>>>>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
>>>>>> His son was
>>>>>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
>>>>> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
>>>> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)
>>> I just noticed that he married in 1827 (2 years old) Hemma Welf, she was the Queens Consort born 808 in Altdorf; AND 17 years older than him. The funny thing is that he had 7 children with her, the first Hildegard was born 828, HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD? That can't be right.
>> Of course it isn't right - Ludwig the German was the third legitimate
>> son of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious. He was born ca 805/09 and
>> married Hemma, daughter of Welf I, in or after October 827. She was the
>> younger sister of his step-mother Judith, second wife of Louis the Pious.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
> That doesn't sound right either.
> He was the son of Lothair I, of Lorraine and Ermengarde De Thouars Counter of Tours.
> Lothair I was the son of Ludwig I "The Pious" (778- 840) the Twin brother of Lothair. AND HE WAS the Grandson of Charlemagne.
> I never checked these details before since 1980, I must have a look and check everything again.

Take a rest for goodness sake - you are repeatedly posting nonsense.

The twin brother of Louis I the Pious named Lothair died as an infant.
Charlemagne's grandson named Lothair was the eldest son of Louis and his
successor as emperor in 840 having been co-emperor since 817.

Since you don't know who was who in the Carolingian dynasty, why keep
bothering the newsgroup with worthless confusion?

Peter Stewart

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:05:40 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 01-Aug-23 2:07 PM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:41:47 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 01-Aug-23 9:35 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC+10, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:55:56 UTC+1, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:28:00 AM UTC+10, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Wiki is giving me two different dates for his coronation in Rome - in 844 by Pope Sergius II and in 850 by Pope Leo IV. Was he crowned twice? Or has the date been reinterpreted? Or whatever?
> >>>>>> I guess twice.
> >>>>>> Ludwig II of Loraine Was called "The German", was crowned Emperor (age 2) and later King of Italy.
> >>>>>> His son was
> >>>>>> LUDWIG III "Der Younger" the creator of the "Carolingian" line, and he was also crowned twice: "King of Bavaria"; and "King of Saxony"; died 20 Jan 882 in Frankfurt.
> >>>>> Different naming practices, I suppose. The one I mean, died in 875, is:
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy
> >>>> That's his father LUDVIG II "The German" of LORRAINE (medieval kingdom of Lotharingia), b 825; died 12 Aug 875 Emperor; King of Italy 843 (old data)
> >>> I just noticed that he married in 1827 (2 years old) Hemma Welf, she was the Queens Consort born 808 in Altdorf; AND 17 years older than him. The funny thing is that he had 7 children with her, the first Hildegard was born 828, HE WAS 3 YEARS OLD? That can't be right.
> >> Of course it isn't right - Ludwig the German was the third legitimate
> >> son of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious. He was born ca 805/09 and
> >> married Hemma, daughter of Welf I, in or after October 827. She was the
> >> younger sister of his step-mother Judith, second wife of Louis the Pious.
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> >> www.avg.com
> > That doesn't sound right either.
> > He was the son of Lothair I, of Lorraine and Ermengarde De Thouars Counter of Tours.
> > Lothair I was the son of Ludwig I "The Pious" (778- 840) the Twin brother of Lothair. AND HE WAS the Grandson of Charlemagne.
> > I never checked these details before since 1980, I must have a look and check everything again.
> Take a rest for goodness sake - you are repeatedly posting nonsense.
>
> The twin brother of Louis I the Pious named Lothair died as an infant.
> Charlemagne's grandson named Lothair was the eldest son of Louis and his
> successor as emperor in 840 having been co-emperor since 817.
>
> Since you don't know who was who in the Carolingian dynasty, why keep
> bothering the newsgroup with worthless confusion?
>
> Peter Stewart
You make silly comments.
These are not my views, these are the published views of very many researchers some 40 years ago. Yes, the twin brother died 2YO, (778-780), I did not say or claim anything else. So your comments are irrelevant He was a twin brother.

I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.

> I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
> As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.

George, I commented earlier; and I am not trying to be rude, but please note that your posts are greatly confused. It may be that you have done 68 years (as you say) of spectacular research, but I implore you to make a doctor's visit for a check-out. Please. This is not an insult.

--Joe C

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:12:21 PM UTC+10, joseph cook wrote:
> > I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
> > As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.
> George, I commented earlier; and I am not trying to be rude, but please note that your posts are greatly confused. It may be that you have done 68 years (as you say) of spectacular research, but I implore you to make a doctor's visit for a check-out. Please. This is not an insult.
>
> --Joe C

Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best. He was thorough, and was always searching for the truth, unlike many other professional Genealogists. The list of his clients is proof of the trust and respect he received all over the world. I was fortunate to know him a little bit. He always answered my questions and I always tried to answer his. Bellow his views in issues discussed here. Emperor’s Charlemagne story is complex due to the fact that he had so many wives and mistresses and so many children legitimate and illegitimate.

Louis was born on 16 April 778, the son of Emperor Charlemagne and Hildegardis. About 794 he married Irmingard/Ermengard, daughter of Ingram, Graf in Haspengau. Between 795 and 806 they had three sons and a daughter, all of whom would have progeny. Irmingard died in 818, and in the following year he married Judith, daughter of Welf, Graf in Bayern und Schwaben, Graf von Altdorf. They had a son and daughter who would both have progeny.
As his father's only surviving son, Louis was crowned emperor by his father in 813 without assistance from the clergy. In 816 the pope anointed him. In 817 he issued the 'Ordinatio Imperii' that effectively divided the Empire between his three sons. However this was not the only reason for the disintegration of the Carolingian Empire. High offices had become hereditary and so less subject to the emperor's favour. As well, the Vikings began raiding the Empire more frequently.
Whereas Charlemagne had been a Frankish warrior, Louis saw himself as a servant of the Church. As a result, where the papal elections had previously required Imperial approval this was no longer the case under the rule of Louis.
In 817 he brutally suppressed his nephew Bernard of Italy. However an indication of his guilt over the brutality is that in 821 he pardoned those involved in the uprising, only to have this interpreted by the Frankish nobles in 822 as a sign of weakness.
By now he had lost control over both Church and nobility. With four sons he was also plagued by dynastic problems. His second wife, Judith, wanting the largest part of the empire for her son, joined forces with Louis' sons Ludwig 'the German' and Pippin, against Lothar the eldest son. Two factions developed in the empire, one wanting to keep it united and the other to continue the Frankish custom of dividing lands between all sons.
In 829 Judith persuaded Louis to set aside his settlement of 817 and include her son Charles in the partition of the Empire. However, Ludwig and Pippin, jealous of Charles' portion, joined forces with Lothar their eldest brother, and in 830 rebelled against their father.
The eldest three sons, supported by Pope Gregory IV, defeated their father in 833. Lothar was restored as emperor designate and Louis was forced to perform a humiliating penance. However, Ludwig and Pippin were still dissatisfied and again took up arms. In 838 Pippin died, followed in 840 by Louis. Finally in 843 at Verdun the Frankish tradition triumphed and the empire was divided between the three surviving sons.

Lothar was born in 795, the eldest son of the Carolingian emperor Louis I 'the Pious' and his first wife Irmingard/Ermengard, daughter of Ingram, Graf in Haspengau. He led his full brothers Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, and Ludwig 'the German' in revolt against their father on several occasions, in protest against his attempts to make their half-brother Charles 'the Bald' a co-heir to the Frankish domains. Upon the death of their father, Charles and Ludwig joined forces against Lothar in a three year civil war (840-843), the struggles between the brothers leading directly to the break-up of the great Frankish empire assembled by their grandfather Charlemagne, and lay the foundations for the development of modern France and Germany.
Little is known of Lothar's early life, which was probably passed at the court of his grandfather Charlemagne. Shortly after the accession of his father, he was sent to govern Bavaria. He first comes to historical attention in 817, when Louis 'the Pious' drew up his _Ordinatio Imperii._ In this Louis designated Lothar as his principal heir, to whom his younger brothers Pippin and Ludwig, as well as his cousin Bernhard I, king of Italy, would be subject after the death of their father; he would also inherit their lands if they were to die childless. Lothar was then crowned joint emperor by his father at Aix-la-Chapelle. At the same time Aquitaine and Bavaria were granted to his brothers Pippin and Ludwig respectively as subsidiary kingdoms. Following the murder of Bernhard I by Louis 'the Pious' in 818, Lothar also received the kingdom of Italy. In 821 he married Irmgard de Tours, daughter of Hugues, comte de Tours, and his wife Ada. Two sons, Ludwig II and Lothar II, and a daughter would have progeny.
In 822 Lothar assumed the government of Italy, and at Easter, 5 April 823, he was crowned emperor by Pope Paschal I, this time at Rome. In November 824 he promulgated a statute concerning the relations of pope and emperor which reserved the supreme power to the secular potentate, and he afterwards issued various ordinances for the good government of Italy.
On his return to his father's court, his stepmother Judith won his consent to her plan for securing a kingdom for her son Charles, a scheme which was carried out in 829 when the young prince was given Alemannia as king. Lothar, however, soon changed his attitude and spent the succeeding decade in constant strife over the division of the empire with his father. He was alternately master of the empire, and banished and confined to Italy, at one time taking up arms in alliance with his brothers and at another fighting against them, while the bounds of his appointed kingdom were in turn extended and reduced.
The first rebellion began in 830. All three brothers fought their father, whom they deposed. In 831 Louis was reinstated and he deprived Lothar of his imperial title and gave Italy to the young Charles. The second rebellion was instigated by Angilbert II, archbishop of Milan and again Louis was deposed and reinstated the next year. Lothar, through the loyalty of the Lombards and later reconciliations, retained Italy and the imperial position through all remaining divisions of the empire by his father.
When Louis 'the Pious' was dying in 840, he sent the imperial insignia to Lothar who, disregarding the various partitions, claimed the whole of the empire. Negotiations with his brother Ludwig 'the German' and his half-brother Charles, both of whom armed to resist this claim, were followed by an alliance of the younger brothers against Lothar. A decisive battle was fought at Fontenay-en-Puisaye on 25 June 841. There, in spite of his and his allied nephew Pippin II of Aquitaine's personal gallantry, Lothar was defeated and fled to Aachen. With fresh troops he began a war of plunder, but the forces of his brother were too strong for him, and taking with him such treasure as he could collect, he abandoned his capital to them. He met with the leaders of the _Stellinga_ ('companions, comrades'), a movement of the lower two of the three Saxon non-slave castes) in Speyer and promised them support in return for theirs, but his brother Ludwig and then the native Saxon nobility put down the Stellinga in the next years.
Peace negotiations began, and in June 842 the brothers met on an island in the Saône, and agreed to an arrangement which developed, after much difficulty and delay, into the Treaty of Verdun signed in August 843. By this Lothar received the imperial title as well as northern Italy and a long stretch of territory from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, essentially along the valleys of the Rhine and the Rhone. He soon left Italy to his eldest son Ludwig II, and remained in his new kingdom, engaging in alternate quarrels and reconciliations with his brothers and in futile efforts to defend his lands from the attacks of the Northmen (as Vikings were known in Frankish writings) and the Saracens.
In 855 he became seriously ill and, despairing of recovery, he renounced the throne and divided his lands between his three sons. His eldest son Ludwig II received Italy and the title of Emperor, Lothar II received Lotharingia, while Charles received Provence. On 23 September 855 Lothar entered the monastery of Prüm, where he died six days later on 29 September. He was buried at Prüm, where his remains were found in 1860.

Lothar II was born about 835, the second son of Emperor Lothar I, king of Lotharingia, and Irmengard de Tours. About 855 he married Teutberga, daughter of Boso 'the Old', count of Arles. The marriage did not result in progeny..
Upon his father's death in 855, Lothar received as his kingdom a territory west of the Rhine stretching from the North Sea to the Jura mountains. It became known as _Regnum Lotharii_ and early in the 10th century as Lotharingia or Lorraine (a designation subsequently applied only to the duchy of Lorraine). His elder brother Ludwig II received northern Italy and the title of Emperor, and his younger brother Karl received the western parts of his father's domains, Burgundy and the Provence.
On the death of his brother Karl in 863, Lothar added some lands south of the Jura to his realm, but except for a few feeble expeditions against the Norman pirates he seems to have done little for its government or its defence.
Lothar's reign was chiefly occupied by his efforts to obtain a divorce from his wife Teutberga, sister of Hugbert, count of Arles and lay abbott of the Abbey of Saint Maurice in Valais, and his relations with his uncles Charles 'the Bald' and Ludwig II 'the German' were influenced by his desire to obtain their support for this endeavour. Although quarrels and reconciliations between the three kings followed each other in quick succession, in general it may be said that Ludwig favoured the divorce, and Charles opposed it, while neither lost sight of the fact that Lothar had no sons to inherit his lands. Lothar, whose desire for the divorce was prompted by his affection for his mistress Waldrada, put aside Teutberga, but her brother Hugbert took up arms on her behalf, and after she had submitted successfully to the ordeal of water, Lothar was compelled to restore her in 858. Still pursuing his purpose, he won the support of his brother, Emperor Ludwig II, by a cession of lands and obtained the consent of the local clergy to the divorce and to his marriage with Waldrada which took place in 862.
A synod of Frankish bishops met at Metz in 863 and confirmed the consent of the local clergy, but Teutberga fled to the court of her husband's uncle Charles 'the Bald', and Pope Nicholas I voided the decision of the synod. An attack on Rome by Lothar's elder brother, Emperor Ludwig II, was without result, and in 865 Lothar, threatened with excommunication and convinced that his uncles Ludwig and Charles at their recent meeting had discussed the partition of his kingdom, again took back his wife. Teutberga, however, either from inclination or compulsion, now expressed her desire for a divorce, and Lothar went to Italy to obtain the assent of the new pope, Adrian II. Placing a favourable interpretation upon the words of the pope, he had set out on the return journey when he was seized with fever and died at Piacenza on 8 August 869.
He left, by Waldrada, a son Hugo and three daughters, all of whom were declared illegitimate. Lothar intended Hugo to be his heir and in 867 Hugo became duke in the Elsass. Hugo fell in love with Friderada, wife of Bernhar, one of his followers. After having Bernhar killed, in 883 he married Friderada. In June 885 Hugo was blinded and became a monk in the Abbey of Prüm. Childless, Hugo died after 895.
Only Lothar's daughter Bertha would have progeny, marrying first Theobald, count of Arles, a nephew of her father's wife Teutberga, then Adalbert, margrave of Tuscany, count of Canossa.
Lothar's kingdom was divided between his uncles Charles 'the Bald' and Ludwig 'the German' by the Treaty of Meerssen.

On 03-Aug-23 6:55 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:12:21 PM UTC+10, joseph cook wrote:
>>> I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
>>> As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.
>> George, I commented earlier; and I am not trying to be rude, but please note that your posts are greatly confused. It may be that you have done 68 years (as you say) of spectacular research, but I implore you to make a doctor's visit for a check-out. Please. This is not an insult.
>>
>> --Joe C
>
> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best. He was thorough, and was always searching for the truth, unlike many other professional Genealogists. The list of his clients is proof of the trust and respect he received all over the world. I was fortunate to know him a little bit. He always answered my questions and I always tried to answer his. Bellow his views in issues discussed here. Emperor’s Charlemagne story is complex due to the fact that he had so many wives and mistresses and so many children legitimate and illegitimate.
>

What does any of your long copy-paste from Genealogics have to do with
the "issues discussed here" about the two coronations of Louis II or the
identities of his close relatives?

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:36:53 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 03-Aug-23 6:55 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:12:21 PM UTC+10, joseph cook wrote:
> >>> I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
> >>> As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.
> >> George, I commented earlier; and I am not trying to be rude, but please note that your posts are greatly confused. It may be that you have done 68 years (as you say) of spectacular research, but I implore you to make a doctor's visit for a check-out. Please. This is not an insult.
> >>
> >> --Joe C
> >
> > Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best. He was thorough, and was always searching for the truth, unlike many other professional Genealogists. The list of his clients is proof of the trust and respect he received all over the world. I was fortunate to know him a little bit. He always answered my questions and I always tried to answer his. Bellow his views in issues discussed here. Emperor’s Charlemagne story is complex due to the fact that he had so many wives and mistresses and so many children legitimate and illegitimate.
> >
> What does any of your long copy-paste from Genealogics have to do with
> the "issues discussed here" about the two coronations of Louis II or the
> identities of his close relatives?
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com
People change but not you. For the very many years I know you (20 Plus), your are obsessed with your own opinion. You try to take control of every conversation, you twist things around to suit you. The two coronation issues were resolved almost at the beginning. Any way, You got me. Good luck to you

On 03-Aug-23 10:55 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:36:53 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 03-Aug-23 6:55 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:12:21 PM UTC+10, joseph cook wrote:
>>>>> I is extremely unfortunate that a proper Family tree can not be posted/presented here, That gives you the opportunity to attack others for for no reason,
>>>>> As far as I can tell, my comments are correct. It is unfortunate that I can not post here data to prove it.
>>>> George, I commented earlier; and I am not trying to be rude, but please note that your posts are greatly confused. It may be that you have done 68 years (as you say) of spectacular research, but I implore you to make a doctor's visit for a check-out. Please. This is not an insult.
>>>>
>>>> --Joe C
>>>
>>> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best. He was thorough, and was always searching for the truth, unlike many other professional Genealogists. The list of his clients is proof of the trust and respect he received all over the world. I was fortunate to know him a little bit. He always answered my questions and I always tried to answer his. Bellow his views in issues discussed here. Emperor’s Charlemagne story is complex due to the fact that he had so many wives and mistresses and so many children legitimate and illegitimate.
>>>
>> What does any of your long copy-paste from Genealogics have to do with
>> the "issues discussed here" about the two coronations of Louis II or the
>> identities of his close relatives?
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
> People change but not you. For the very many years I know you (20 Plus), your are obsessed with your own opinion. You try to take control of every conversation, you twist things around to suit you. The two coronation issues were resolved almost at the beginning. Any way, You got me. Good luck to you

The genealogy of Emperor Louis II, whose coronation is the topic of this
thread, is not a matter of anybody's opinion but of incontrovertible
fact recorded in contemporary documents and a vast secondary literature.
You initially confused him with his nephew Louis III, also known as "the
Younger", who was not crowned in Rome as he was never emperor.

Subsequently you confused Louis II (died 875) with his uncle Louis the
German (died 876), who was also not crowned in Rome and never emperor.
For some reason you then brought up a twin son of Charlemagne who died
in infancy as if he had some mysterious genealogical significance for
the succeeding generations.

Today you have posted a long screed bringing in Lothair II and his
marital imbroglio, along with others equally irrelevant to the foregoing
discussion.

My posts setting out information for the record are not made to suit
myself - if that had been my purpose I would not concern myself with the
correctness of the SGM archive for the sake of readers. Probably no-one
in this newsgroup over the past few decades has been more harshly
self-critical and ready to admit errors than myself. Obsessed with my
own opinion? Fiddlesticks. It is you who - very consistently over years
- can't abide criticism of your opinions and won't change your mind when
presented with unwelcome facts.

Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 3:55:10 PM UTC-5, George Tsambourakis wrote:

> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best.
[snip]

The late Leo van de Pas was a well-regarded participant in soc.genealogy.medieval/GEN-MEDIEVAL, but in my opinion, saying that "Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best." goes way too far. In fact, Leo was not even a "researcher" in the same way that many of us do genealogical research. He acknowledged as much on his website, when he divided genealogists into the categories of "hunters" (those who do research in original records) and "gatherers" (those who collect, combine, and organize the results of other researchers into a different, and often much more extensive form), and he clearly stated that he considered himself a "gatherer", a characterization with which I would agree, although I don't really care for the terms "hunter" and "gatherer" (but alternative suggestions elude me at the moment).
When Leo first started posting messages to the group, it was clear that he did not know much about the primary sources, and that he was basing his work mostly on secondary sources, some good, some not. To be fair, the same is true of most novice genealogists (including me, when I was starting out), but one can always hope that the novice will eventually gravitate toward more serious research in primary sources, which sometimes happen, but not often enough. Leo never did seem to get to the point where he was using primary sources, but to his credit, he did pay attention to the discussions that were occurring on the newsgroup, and he made a serious effort to remove some of the more serious flaws were corrected on his website.
Unfortunately, of all of the really large genealogical websites I have seen which cover medieval royal and noble families (e.g., genealogics, Medieval Lands, Wikitree, Geni, etc.), there is not a single one which I would rate as "good" or better. However, I would consider Leo's genealogics site to be the "best" of these large sites, in the sense that I would rate it as "mediocre" (at the lower end of that category, close to the border between "mediocre" and "bad"), and I would rate all of the others I have seen as somewhere from "bad" to "terrible", so Leo's site is the "least weak" in a pretty weak crowd. (This newsgroup has had numerous discussions in the past about why it is so difficult to get a really large database that is also of good quality.)
The problems with "genealogics" as it exists today are numerous. The bibliographic citations are often incomplete and not easy to follow, and the choice of sources is still often poor. To give some specific examples:

1. Agatha, wife of Edward the Elder (i.e., the "famous" Agatha as far as this newsgroup is concerned): Genealogics makes it look like the "Polish Theory" (a weak option among many opposing opinions on her origin) has been definitively established, mentioning the existence of alternate theories only in a way so as to suggest that they had been superseded. This seems to be a case of believing the most recent theory put forward, and totally misrepresents the still unknown status of this person's parentage. [Maybe I should submit an article somewhere entitled "Has Agatha's origin really been definitively established?" The full text of the article would consist of the single word "No."]

2. The page on Alpin, the shadowy father of Cinaed mac Ailpin (called Kenneth I of Scotland in older works), states that "Alpin, son of Eochaid IV 'the Poisonous', king of Dalriada, became king of Kintyre in March 834, only to be killed in battle with the Picts in Galloway in August the same year." and cites as sources Burke, Moncreiffe, and Wikipedia. In fact, there is no good source that Alpin ever even reigned as king (the earliest sources suggesting this being themselves problematic), and there is no reasonable authority for the supposed dates. In the earliest sources, Alpin has no personal history or biography, but is merely Cinaed's patronymic and (in slightly later sources) one of the genealogical links between Cinaed and his great-grandfather Aed mac Echdach. The "sources" given are all notoriously unreliable for medieval genealogy. [Apologies for omitting the accents of these Irish names, but such accents don't seem to survive very well as these postings go through various formats.]

3. The kings of Wessex are traced back to Cerdic by the official genealogy. As has been discussed on numerous occasions here, the early history of Wessex is a muddled mess, and the official genealogy composed in the ninth century can be regarded (at best) as a (not that good) late attempt to make sense of this mess.

4. For Welsh kings, genealogics uses Bartrum as the go-to source, apparently not getting the fact that Bartrum was just giving an account of what the early Welsh genealogical manuscripts claimed. As bad as this is, for (the probably mythical) Cunedda, genealogics departs from the usual early genealogy given by Bartrum, and take a bizarre route from Cunedda to the 100% mythical Beli Mawr, using "Griffith, John Edwards, Pedigrees of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire 1914 [from FamilySearch]." Accepting a genealogy probably compiled in the ninth century as being accurate to a millennium earlier would be bad enough, but accepting a twentieth century work which massively corrupts this genealogy is even worse.

5. Genealogics takes the ancestry of Charlemage back to Afranius Syagrius.

6. While sensibly taking the kings of Denmark and Sweden back only to (respectvely) Gorm the Old and Erik the Victorious, genealogics takes the kings of Norway back to Gudrod, the supposed grandfather of Harald Fairhair. The reliable genealogy of the Norwegian kings only goes back to about 1000. This haphazardness of getting some things right and others wrong occurs throughout the websight.

7. There are some strange DFA's back to the Achaemenids, citing Wikipedia, departing from Settipani's work for reasons that are unclear. I don't buy the DFA's suggested by Settipani (or any other DFA), but Settipani at least gives clear arguments from clear sources, even if the uncertainties are stated much more weakly than I would prefer. Presenting such genealogies without qualification is bad, presenting undocumented alterations of very speculative material is even worse.

I could go on, but the fact that other really large databases I have seen are even worse just helps to show how bad the genealogical database situation is.

Stewart Baldwin

On 05-Aug-23 6:49 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 3:55:10 PM UTC-5, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>
>> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best.
> [snip]
>
> The late Leo van de Pas was a well-regarded participant in soc.genealogy.medieval/GEN-MEDIEVAL, but in my opinion, saying that "Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best." goes way too far. In fact, Leo was not even a "researcher" in the same way that many of us do genealogical research. He acknowledged as much on his website, when he divided genealogists into the categories of "hunters" (those who do research in original records) and "gatherers" (those who collect, combine, and organize the results of other researchers into a different, and often much more extensive form), and he clearly stated that he considered himself a "gatherer", a characterization with which I would agree, although I don't really care for the terms "hunter" and "gatherer" (but alternative suggestions elude me at the moment).
> When Leo first started posting messages to the group, it was clear that he did not know much about the primary sources, and that he was basing his work mostly on secondary sources, some good, some not. To be fair, the same is true of most novice genealogists (including me, when I was starting out), but one can always hope that the novice will eventually gravitate toward more serious research in primary sources, which sometimes happen, but not often enough. Leo never did seem to get to the point where he was using primary sources, but to his credit, he did pay attention to the discussions that were occurring on the newsgroup, and he made a serious effort to remove some of the more serious flaws were corrected on his website.
> Unfortunately, of all of the really large genealogical websites I have seen which cover medieval royal and noble families (e.g., genealogics, Medieval Lands, Wikitree, Geni, etc.), there is not a single one which I would rate as "good" or better. However, I would consider Leo's genealogics site to be the "best" of these large sites, in the sense that I would rate it as "mediocre" (at the lower end of that category, close to the border between "mediocre" and "bad"), and I would rate all of the others I have seen as somewhere from "bad" to "terrible", so Leo's site is the "least weak" in a pretty weak crowd. (This newsgroup has had numerous discussions in the past about why it is so difficult to get a really large database that is also of good quality.)

Leo compiled a huge amount of information on a vast array of
individuals, doing his conscientious best to sort wheat from chaff in
the secondary sources he relied on but not always succeeding in this effort.

For medieval ruling dynasties in Europe, mainly in Germany - a
substantial subset of Leo's coverage that is far more immense both
geographically and chronologically - I would suggest that the least bad
online resource is probably Genealogie Mittelalter and its several
offshoots (starting here:
https://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/).

In each case the compiler engaged with the subject matter on a different
part of a spectrum in the same pursuit as the most dedicated researcher
in original medieval documents. The difficulty of cleanly separating
primary from secondary material has been discussed here before, to no
useful resolution. Primary sources used by professional historians in
medieval research are frequently not original documents but rather
modern editions of these, preferably those giving variant readings from
at least the most important medieval manuscripts of the work in
question. However, editorial activism can play an unduly influential and
sometimes compromising part in textual decisions as well as in the
interpretation of unclear or ambiguous passages.

Secondary sources may do this silently, which is one of the main
problems with relying on them exclusively. But the primary sources
(taken to mean "Of the first order in any series, sequence, or
process, esp. of derivation or causation") may be centuries later than
the people involved and can be erroneous even when contemporary with
them, or misleading even when their own immediate personal documents.

All that any kind of research can do is to aim for the best version of
the truth obtainable within the researcher's inevitable limitations. Leo
did this as well as anyone.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:35:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 05-Aug-23 6:49 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 3:55:10 PM UTC-5, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >
> >> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best.
> > [snip]
> >
> > The late Leo van de Pas was a well-regarded participant in soc.genealogy.medieval/GEN-MEDIEVAL, but in my opinion, saying that "Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best." goes way too far. In fact, Leo was not even a "researcher" in the same way that many of us do genealogical research. He acknowledged as much on his website, when he divided genealogists into the categories of "hunters" (those who do research in original records) and "gatherers" (those who collect, combine, and organize the results of other researchers into a different, and often much more extensive form), and he clearly stated that he considered himself a "gatherer", a characterization with which I would agree, although I don't really care for the terms "hunter" and "gatherer" (but alternative suggestions elude me at the moment).
> > When Leo first started posting messages to the group, it was clear that he did not know much about the primary sources, and that he was basing his work mostly on secondary sources, some good, some not. To be fair, the same is true of most novice genealogists (including me, when I was starting out), but one can always hope that the novice will eventually gravitate toward more serious research in primary sources, which sometimes happen, but not often enough. Leo never did seem to get to the point where he was using primary sources, but to his credit, he did pay attention to the discussions that were occurring on the newsgroup, and he made a serious effort to remove some of the more serious flaws were corrected on his website.
> > Unfortunately, of all of the really large genealogical websites I have seen which cover medieval royal and noble families (e.g., genealogics, Medieval Lands, Wikitree, Geni, etc.), there is not a single one which I would rate as "good" or better. However, I would consider Leo's genealogics site to be the "best" of these large sites, in the sense that I would rate it as "mediocre" (at the lower end of that category, close to the border between "mediocre" and "bad"), and I would rate all of the others I have seen as somewhere from "bad" to "terrible", so Leo's site is the "least weak" in a pretty weak crowd. (This newsgroup has had numerous discussions in the past about why it is so difficult to get a really large database that is also of good quality.)
> Leo compiled a huge amount of information on a vast array of
> individuals, doing his conscientious best to sort wheat from chaff in
> the secondary sources he relied on but not always succeeding in this effort.
>
> For medieval ruling dynasties in Europe, mainly in Germany - a
> substantial subset of Leo's coverage that is far more immense both
> geographically and chronologically - I would suggest that the least bad
> online resource is probably Genealogie Mittelalter and its several
> offshoots (starting here:
> https://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/).
>
> In each case the compiler engaged with the subject matter on a different
> part of a spectrum in the same pursuit as the most dedicated researcher
> in original medieval documents. The difficulty of cleanly separating
> primary from secondary material has been discussed here before, to no
> useful resolution. Primary sources used by professional historians in
> medieval research are frequently not original documents but rather
> modern editions of these, preferably those giving variant readings from
> at least the most important medieval manuscripts of the work in
> question. However, editorial activism can play an unduly influential and
> sometimes compromising part in textual decisions as well as in the
> interpretation of unclear or ambiguous passages.
>
> Secondary sources may do this silently, which is one of the main
> problems with relying on them exclusively. But the primary sources
> (taken to mean "Of the first order in any series, sequence, or
> process, esp. of derivation or causation") may be centuries later than
> the people involved and can be erroneous even when contemporary with
> them, or misleading even when their own immediate personal documents.
>
> All that any kind of research can do is to aim for the best version of
> the truth obtainable within the researcher's inevitable limitations. Leo
> did this as well as anyone.
> Peter Stewart
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com

There is one difference between Genealogics and other websites.
Corrections are accepted by Genealogics, especially if you provide a link
to a discussion or documentation. I've submitted a number of changes
in this way, but not from the Medieval period.

Another section of the site that seems unusual, is the Achaemenid Dynasty,
for example as given here:
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00736408&tree=LEO

One of the contributors (not during Leo's time) has decided that people who
lived during the period commonly designated as B.C. should instead be
described as "AUC". Does it make any sense to describe the Achaemenids
from the number of years they lived after the Foundation of the City of Rome ?

Leslie

On 05-Aug-23 1:37 PM, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:35:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 05-Aug-23 6:49 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 3:55:10 PM UTC-5, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The late Leo van de Pas was a well-regarded participant in soc.genealogy.medieval/GEN-MEDIEVAL, but in my opinion, saying that "Leo was one of the best researchers, if not the best." goes way too far. In fact, Leo was not even a "researcher" in the same way that many of us do genealogical research. He acknowledged as much on his website, when he divided genealogists into the categories of "hunters" (those who do research in original records) and "gatherers" (those who collect, combine, and organize the results of other researchers into a different, and often much more extensive form), and he clearly stated that he considered himself a "gatherer", a characterization with which I would agree, although I don't really care for the terms "hunter" and "gatherer" (but alternative suggestions elude me at the moment).
>>> When Leo first started posting messages to the group, it was clear that he did not know much about the primary sources, and that he was basing his work mostly on secondary sources, some good, some not. To be fair, the same is true of most novice genealogists (including me, when I was starting out), but one can always hope that the novice will eventually gravitate toward more serious research in primary sources, which sometimes happen, but not often enough. Leo never did seem to get to the point where he was using primary sources, but to his credit, he did pay attention to the discussions that were occurring on the newsgroup, and he made a serious effort to remove some of the more serious flaws were corrected on his website.
>>> Unfortunately, of all of the really large genealogical websites I have seen which cover medieval royal and noble families (e.g., genealogics, Medieval Lands, Wikitree, Geni, etc.), there is not a single one which I would rate as "good" or better. However, I would consider Leo's genealogics site to be the "best" of these large sites, in the sense that I would rate it as "mediocre" (at the lower end of that category, close to the border between "mediocre" and "bad"), and I would rate all of the others I have seen as somewhere from "bad" to "terrible", so Leo's site is the "least weak" in a pretty weak crowd. (This newsgroup has had numerous discussions in the past about why it is so difficult to get a really large database that is also of good quality.)
>> Leo compiled a huge amount of information on a vast array of
>> individuals, doing his conscientious best to sort wheat from chaff in
>> the secondary sources he relied on but not always succeeding in this effort.
>>
>> For medieval ruling dynasties in Europe, mainly in Germany - a
>> substantial subset of Leo's coverage that is far more immense both
>> geographically and chronologically - I would suggest that the least bad
>> online resource is probably Genealogie Mittelalter and its several
>> offshoots (starting here:
>> https://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/).
>>
>> In each case the compiler engaged with the subject matter on a different
>> part of a spectrum in the same pursuit as the most dedicated researcher
>> in original medieval documents. The difficulty of cleanly separating
>> primary from secondary material has been discussed here before, to no
>> useful resolution. Primary sources used by professional historians in
>> medieval research are frequently not original documents but rather
>> modern editions of these, preferably those giving variant readings from
>> at least the most important medieval manuscripts of the work in
>> question. However, editorial activism can play an unduly influential and
>> sometimes compromising part in textual decisions as well as in the
>> interpretation of unclear or ambiguous passages.
>>
>> Secondary sources may do this silently, which is one of the main
>> problems with relying on them exclusively. But the primary sources
>> (taken to mean "Of the first order in any series, sequence, or
>> process, esp. of derivation or causation") may be centuries later than
>> the people involved and can be erroneous even when contemporary with
>> them, or misleading even when their own immediate personal documents.
>>
>> All that any kind of research can do is to aim for the best version of
>> the truth obtainable within the researcher's inevitable limitations. Leo
>> did this as well as anyone.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
>
>
> There is one difference between Genealogics and other websites.
> Corrections are accepted by Genealogics, especially if you provide a link
> to a discussion or documentation. I've submitted a number of changes
> in this way, but not from the Medieval period.
>
> Another section of the site that seems unusual, is the Achaemenid Dynasty,
> for example as given here:
> https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00736408&tree=LEO
>
> One of the contributors (not during Leo's time) has decided that people who
> lived during the period commonly designated as B.C. should instead be
> described as "AUC". Does it make any sense to describe the Achaemenids
> from the number of years they lived after the Foundation of the City of Rome ?

Does it make any more sense to describe the Achaemenids by the number of
years they lived before an inaccurate chronology of an event they never
even contemplated?

Peter Stewart