Talk:Robert the Strong

marriage

Surely we need some more information on hyis possible marriage - arguments for and against ?

-- Beardo 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Robert I King of france, the son of Robert the Strong, was born six decades after the "possible" wife. It doesn't fit. Accordingly,I edited the "possible" wife reference out and left in the cite to the histroical reference. It remains unclear exactly who was "Adeliade of Tours"

Conflicting research shows that his wife could have been either Adelaide of Tours, daughter of Hugh of Tours, or Adelaide, daughter of Louis the Pious and Ermengarde of Hesbaye. In both cases, the wife would have been born shortly after 800, making them over 60 when Robert I of France was born in 866. More likely is that she was a daughter of Lothair I, the son of Louis the Pious. He had several daughters born in the 820s that could be candidates for Robert IV's wife. However, there is the possibility that she is the daughter of Louis the Pious by his second wife, Judith of Bavaria, who was born circa 805 and gave birth to two other children after 819, the year she married Louis. Although there are only two commonly known children from this marriage, Louis lived until 840 and Judith to 843, making this explanation viable. Daytripper07 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stewart Baldwin (FASG, and hence an 'expert'), has discussed the identity of Robert's claimed wives and children in excruciating detail and should not be set aside for one set of summary tables. Agricolae (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

father

Was Robert the son of Rutpert (Robert) III, count in the Wormgau? --Michael K. Smith 02:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

what if Robert's father was Charles the Younger, king of France? -- Lineage 9:27, May 26 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable information to back up this comment? — ERcheck (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC=)

Not completely yet, I mean its just really a theory, but It makes perfect sense that Robert would be the son of Charles the Younger, for example this website: http://www.themolloys.net/molloy/france/carolingian%20dynasty/carolingian%20dynasty.htm, when this guy talks about the Carolingian dynasty he says "In the West, which was the nucleus of later France, they continued to be the ruling dynasty until a minor branch of the family, the Capetians, ascended the (by that time) French throne in 987." You may want to look into if Robert was the son of Charles I know I believe it, but I'm still doing research on it as well. --Musicbandit1321 2:27, July 13 2007 (UTC)

There are many lines of thought as to who Robert's father might have been. The earliest, best documented is that his father was a Saxon man named Witikind, (Christian name "Robert", also named Guy II which is a short form of Witikind). Witikind/Robert was Missus Dominicus for the Turonem Missaticum, and Comte d'Anjou, du Maine, de Touraine, and Abbe de Saint Martin until his death in 861. & many, many more. Robert le Fort wasn't appointed Missus or Comte of any of his father's comites until after 861. There really isn't any proof that the other lineages suggested by various factions are valid. Also, Robert didn't have a drop of the Carlovingian or Merovingian blood running through him. This, too, is well documented and there is abundant historical references, which I'd be happy to discuss further on private talk pages. May we discuss? Darkliest (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Stewart Baldwin's online summary gives detailed explanation of the possible arguments, and the sources available. http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober100.htm --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Status as a stub

Since the last major edit, would this still be considered a stub? Zsd1791 00:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a stub anymore. I have tried to integrate information from my source, which has required some reorganising and rechronologising. Srnec 05:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Count of Anjou

This article contradicts the article Counts of Anjou, which has Ingelger becoming the first count of Anjou in 870. Which is correct?Syd Henderson (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have refactored the following apparent attempt to post a reply [1]. The edsum said "Syd, I don't believe either are correct. By order dated 823 A.D., Emperor Louis I appointed a Robert (Guy I) as missus in Turonem, which encompassed Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, and some smaller lands. Louis made Guy I Comte d'Anjou before his death in 834. Guy II (a second Robert, and Robert's father) followed as missus (in 835) and was appointed Comte d'Anjou in 842 and 853. Robert le Fort was appointed missus and Comte d'Anjou after his father's death in 861." and the edit also contained the following:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mémoires de la Société archéologique d'Eure-et-Loir, Tome VII, Société archéologique d'Eure-et-Loir, 1901, p. 16, footnote
• Histoire depuis la conquête des Gaules par les Romains jusqu’ à l’ anêe 1790, Jean Louis Chalmel, 1828, p. 244
• Speculum Gy de Warewyke, an English Poem, Georgiana Lee Morrill, 1898, at page lxxxvi
• Études et récits sur Laval et le Bas-Maine, Jules Le Fizelie, 1884, p. 58
• Revue des ëtudes historiques, Henri Pariander, 1908, p. 325
• Biblioteque de l’Ecole des Chartes, Tome Cinquieme, A. Valley de Viriville, 1864, p. 246
• Histoire D'Allemagne Ancienne Et Nouvelle, Contenant L'origine, les moeurs, les richesses, les coutumes, les Guerres & la Religion des Peuples, La fondation & la description des Villes Imperiales, Jean le Royer de Prade, 1684, p. 104
• Capitularia Regum Francorum, Additae Sunt Marculfi Monachi Et Aliorum Formulae Veteres, Et Notae Doctissimorum Virorum. Quibus accedit Tractatus de Missis Dominicis Francisci de Roye Andegavensis, Baluze, 1772, p. LXII

10:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Darkliest (talk)

and/or the son of Robert III of Worms

I believe the edit ...”or” that Robert was the son of Robert III of Worms’ was mis-entered (as the reverse of its correct meaning) in context of the larger sentence. Namely, if historians have found that he ‘is’ the son of Robert III of Worms then ‘or’ is a mis-statement; if historians have not found such evidence then several positive statements (of the father-son relationship) in this and several associated articles should be corrected.jbeans Jbeans (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

re the wife of Robert III of Worms

"Robert (the Strong) was a son of Robert III of Worms and Wiltrud of Orleans"; contradicts the article Robert III of Worms: "By his wife Waldrada of Worms he had his only recorded son Robert the Strong." I deleted the (seeming) more dubious fact (wiltrud of Orleans); but I have not accessed the source cited for this line (Schwennicke). Anyone confident of one 'fact' or the other is welcome to contribute.Jbeans (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a question of 'one fact or ther other'. Wiltrud of Orleans and Waldrada of Worms are just different ways of referring to the same woman, in the different linguistic traditions of different modern scholars. Agricolae (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pipera (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Father Robert III of Worms (most probably) Mother Waldrada of Worms (most probably)

Should be removed saying most probably causes problems in people doing bogus family trees and wasting their time adding most probably which has no factual basis. They had a son Robert "Rubertus filius Ruberti comitis" donated property "in in pago Wormat. in Mettenheimer marca" to Lorsch by charter dated [836/37][542]. "Batdagis" donated property "in villa...Phungestat", to Lorsch, for the soul of "domini mei Guntrami comitis", by charter dated 10 Apr 837, that is not Robert 'le Fort'

Does one need permission to remove the most probably parents from here?