Robert III, comte de Wormsgau - Inconsistencies

More reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robertians

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertiens Assigns categories (hypothetical, fairly certain …)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertiner

Variant table?

Brief comment - will need to read the rest in more detail this weekend > but we take Settipani very seriously as an historian, whose job it is to propose new theories, and open them to debate. Genealogy, however, is not doing the same thing. We record documented links, and wait for explicit facts to be teased out by the historians before we document the results of their research discussions as provable genealogical links. There's a potentially subtle, but fundamental difference, by definition. We have no way of showing conflicting theories, and that isn't the function of a collective family tree, because of that fact.

Understood. I brought it up for several reasons, primarily because Darius Radmanesh wanted to understand. And I think we could hyperlink within profiles and present the current theories a bit better.

I think what kept me at it is that there are unpublished charters apparently at Lörch abbey. Apparently the compiler / publisher didn’t cover them all? And … from the articles, that the reconstructed current tree is not as “laughable” as Talk: Wikitree made it sound.

My personal conclusion is probably where I started, with Stuart Baldwin at the Henry Project: perhaps close, but not close enough to call.

Great idea to document with links in the About. Perhaps those docs will see the light of day soon.

Should be Talk: Wikipedia. Andrew Lancaster posted at the Wikitree touting the Henry Project more than Medlands. But I believe https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000186174770141 was published after Baldwin, so it’s more “state of the art.”

Re: Perhaps those docs will see the light of day soon.

They will be in Medieval Latin, and published in German. So they’re not going to help us any moment soon, even if some eager grad student / oenophile is at it, as we speak.