Charles 'the Younger' Carolingian son of Charlemagne & Hildegard - Record of Alternative Data After Merges

Some thoughts on this profile:

1. We have him as Carlos / Charles. The Geni naming conventions advise using the modern form of the name in the territory where the person lived. This Charles lived in what is now France. The modern French form of his name is Charles. Carlos is the Spanish form of Charles, but this Charles had no association with Spain. So, I recommend moving Carlos to the AKA field.

2. We have him as "IV Duke of Maine, King of the Franks". The conventions advise using only the highest title in the name fileds, and moving all subsidiary offices and titles to the About Me. So, we could remove IV Duke of Maine.

3. There is an ambiguity of "IV Duke of Maine", because some people like the pseudo-antique Roman numbers for order for succession, while others prefer the modern form of using Roman numbers for ordinals and Arabic numbers for order of succession. So, does this mean he was Charles IV, Duke of Maine? Or that he was Charles, 4th Duke of Maine?

In fact he was neither. He didn't have the actual title "Duke of Maine". Instead, he had the title "rex Francorum" (King of the Franks) and he ruled the ducatus Cenomannicus, 790-811, an area that later became the duchy of Maine. He was the third known ruler of that area, and the first named Charles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Younger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_and_Dukes_of_Maine

4. As King of the Franks, he was co-king with his father 800-811. That is, he was "young king", his father's designated successor. Genealogists have dealt with this a variety of ways. I've seen him called (a) "co-king of the Franks", but also (b) "king of the Franks at Le Mans" (the capital of Maine), even though he was king throughout his father's domains, and (c) "king of Neustria", because the ducatus Cenomannicus was an alternative name for the regnum or kingdom of Neustria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustria

5. His current surname on Geni is "de Neustrie". I suggest changing to "des Francs" or "of the Franks" -- unless we change his title to King of Neustria. Neustrie / Neustria is a remnant of the foregoing problem with his title.

6. There is a typo in the name field. His mother is called Hildergard. Should be Hildegard.

7. The AKA field gives an alternative name Liderie, and the occupation field calls him (in various forms) Forester of Flanders and Harelbeke. It looks like this profile was merged at some point with a profile for Lidéric or Lydéric, one of the legendary Foresters of Flanders. These should be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyd%C3%A9ric_and_Phinaert

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/baldw001.htm

8. Similarly, we should delete some of his other names and titles: King of the East Francs, Prince, du Buc, and Roi de Bretagne.

Justin, I'm awed.

1. Changed to Charles. Carlos to the AKA field.

2. removed IV Duke of Maine.

3. Good point about the numbering - I think Victar also pointed this out.
But I'm not sure how to include the following:
=In fact he was neither. He didn't have the actual title "Duke of Maine". Instead, he had the title "rex Francorum" (King of the Franks) and he ruled the ducatus Cenomannicus, 790-811, an area that later became the duchy of Maine. He was the third known ruler of that area, and the first named Charles=

4. I've left King of the Franks

5. Rmoved "de Neustrie", but left off des Francs too - because the duplication in KIng of the Franks reads uncomfortably imo - and it wasn;t his Surname.
But I'm happy if ypu think it should be there for conformity's sake.

6. Thanks - typo was me. Corrected.

7. Removed all Lideric & Forrester references.

8. Can you look over the aka / occupation fields, & use your expertise to insert which seem to you to be most accurate?

I've locked the naming fields & will add a note to comment here if people want them changed.

Sharon is it necessary to have "son of Charlemagne & Hildegard" in the display name field?

Erica Howton remember I added that to Chuckie's direct descendants because of the hundreds of mismerges that were occurring, that we just couldn't keep up with. It's specific to that line of Chuckie's tree because many of those relationships are actually in dispute because the data is ambigious - so we've had to choose to represent just one of the numbers of options. So far, it's worked well, and until relationship locking happens, I'm inclined to want to leave it there - despite the 'eyesore' potential.

But, perhaps your question was about 'why in the display name' field specifically?

I'm only wedded to this idea if it reduces the work on that line; so if you think there are better ways I'm not seeing - I'm pleased to have them yelled at me :-)

Sharon I put genealogical information & in curator notes, not in display name. (Son of VV & YY. married 1) XX; 299 children; 2) JJ; 1 child.).

I lock the name field and known date fields.

This way there is no issue with incorrect merges; the data resolves to the locked field value.

The family relationships are described in curator notes.

We do not yet have relationship locking, but this method has resulted in the ONLY errors being extra parents or spouses from those who don't see the curator notes - BUT very easy for ANYONE to repair (that is, prune off).

And the name can stay the name, instead of being used for something other than names. :(

yup, I do that too - but in this one specific line, the 'extra parents' are Charlemagne and his myriad wives - and as the names of the mothers are often the subject of legitimate scholarly dispute, it seems to create an immediate breeding ground for duplicate profiles that have genuine claims to be considered; so the potential for subtrees to grow around them if they're not pruned in time is big - and creates the need for a constant monitoring by curators - cos Chuckie is locked - many / most of whom haven't been around for the couple of years' of negotiations that has resulted in the specific template we use as the default...

Sorry the argument is so long; it's not because I'm committed to it, but because the reasoning is long. Still open to it being challenged.

So the problem is that people create new mini trees for Charles incorrectly? And by having his mom & dad in the display name they are correctly created? (still not getting it ...)

Ref back to your previous comment: =this method has resulted in the ONLY errors being extra parents or spouses from those who don't see the curator notes - BUT very easy for ANYONE to repair (that is, prune off).=

Chuckies' kids are prone to duplication because not all their mothers are unambiguos.
So one way of stopping them being continually re-positioned and then re-duplicated into the aporia, is to make sure it is obvious even on tree view - which mother we use for each of them.

I am lost as to why anyone would create new profiles c 1000 at all :)

I agree, Erica. Somehow Geni is not communicating the message. Anything before 1500 and people should be very skeptical that the profile doesn't already exist. In fact, Geni should probably require an estimate date, and if it is before 1500 should reject it unless approved by a curator.

Oh, I do find profiles missing before 1500 (in obscure English lines anyway) - never entered, uploaded, or long since "smerged" - so I'm not sure that "rule" could apply (yet). But for Royalty - of course.

Oh yeah, me too. And being able to easily add that one in a hundred makes it worth the hours of merging and cleaning up the other 99 ;)

agreed on all above :-)