Engeltrudis - Unravelling

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FRANCONIA.htm#Hedwigdied903
HEINRICH, son of --- (-killed in battle Paris [before Sep] 886, bur St Médard at Soissons). The Annales Fuldenses names "Poppone fratre Henirico et Eginone comitibus"[86]. The Annales Fuldenses record that "Heinricum principum" led the army of Ludwig II "der Deutsche" King of the East Franks into Moravia in 866[87]. The Annales Fuldenses names "Henricum" as "principum militiæ suæ [=Hludowicus Hludowici regis filius]" and as "comitis vassalus" in 871[88]. The Annales Fuldenses records the victory of "Heinricus et Adalhartus" against "Thiotbaldo principe militiæ Hugonis" in 880[89]. The Annales Fuldenses records the civil war between Saxons and Thuringians in 882, through the machinations of "Poppone fratre Heinrici et Egninone comitibus" and Poppo's subsequent conquest of "Thuringis inferior"[90]. The Annales Fuldenses record that "Heinricus frater Popponis" fought the Vikings at "Prumiam" in 883[91]. He was invested as Marquis en Neustrie in 886 by Emperor Karl III "der Dicke", who was at that time briefly King of the West Franks, after the death of Hugues l'Abbé. Abbo's Bella Parisiciæ Urbis records the part played by "Saxonia vir Ainricus" at the siege of Paris in 886[92]. The Annales Fuldenses record that "Heinrico marchensi Francorum" who held Neustria was killed at the siege of Paris in 886[93]. The necrology of Fulda records the death "886 Kal Sep" of "Heinrih com"[94].

m BABA, daughter of --- (-after 864). The Annalista Saxo names Adalbert and his "pater Heinricus dux, mater Baba dicebatur"[95]. The primary source which confirms her name as Ingeltrudis has not yet been identified. Eckhardt suggests that Heinrich’s wife (whom he calls Ingeltrudis) was the daughter of Eberhard Marquis of Friulia & his wife Gisela [Carolingian], and therefore sister of Berengario I King of Italy[96]. This appears chronologically tight, although possible.

Heinrich & his wife had four children:

1. HEDWIG [Hathui] ([850/55]-24 Dec 903). "Hathwiga" is named as wife of Otto in the Annalista Saxo, which in an earlier passage records that Heinrich I King of Germany was the son of the sister of Adalbert [Babenberg][97]. Her birth date is estimated from the birth of her third son in 876. The necrology of Fulda records the death in 903 of "Hadwih com"[98]. The necrology of Merseburg records the death "24 Dec" of "Hathuui mater Heinrici regis"[99]. m OTTO "der Erlauchte" Graf im Sudthüringau und Eichsfeld, son of LIUDOLF [von Sachsen] & his wife Oda [Billung] (-30 Nov 912[100], bur Gandersheim Stiftskirche). He was chosen to succeed Ludwig "das Kind" [Carolingian] as king of Germany in 911 but, according to Widukind, he declined on the grounds of his advanced age and recommended the election of Konrad ex-Duke of the Franconians[101].

These two passages suggest that she isn't the wife of Heinrich von Babenberg, Markgraf in Friesland

And she isn't the mother of Hedwig of Babenberg

Private User - your thoughts?

cf Heinrich von Babenberg, Markgraf in Friesland

Merging the two Heinrichs:

Erin Ishimoticha your thoughts?

Parents unknown so removing Poppo I, Graf von Grabfeld & Tullifeld

cf spare Ingeltrude

cf mother? Ingeltrudis (Baba) de Frioul

Today I have disconnected the three brothers (Heinrich von Babenberg, Markgraf in Friesland Egino & Poppo) from their probable father (or grandfather) - Poppo I, Graf von Grabfeld & Tullifeld.

Instead, I've created a profile of father of Heinrich, Poppo and Egino which I think is most accurate.

The most important passage from MedLands is:

There is too large a chronological gap between Poppo [I] and the three brothers Heinrich, Poppo and Egino for the latter to have been sons of the former, assuming that they are descended directly from Poppo [I]. No indication has been found about the identity of their father. Jackman suggests that he was Christian [I] Graf im Grabfeld, his son Christian [II] therefore being another brother[49]. However, if this is correct, it is surprising that the name Christian is not found among the descendants of the three brothers. Presumably Jackman bases this speculation on the common reference to Grabfeld. However, as noted above, there appear to have been several different families of counts who held countships in Grabfeld at the same time and it is not certain that they were all related to each other.

Private User I don't think it's wise to disconnect and alter the tree firstly, AND THEN AFTERWARDS, explain why you did it. The proper order is to start a discussion first, then depending on the outcome take actions.

They (the experts in this subject), have suggested that there is a gap (theoretical) between Poppo and Heinrich, and have suggested that there might have been a missing generation, nevertheless, now you have ruined yet another medieval line, just as so many other so called "know it all by them self" have done before you, thank you!

Guideline for you all, (seems to be a need for it anyway)

Start a discussion from just the one profile it affects.

Wait for answers. (let it take time, there's no need to rush things thru).

Depending on the quality of the answer/s, a decision is made, clarify that.

Wait to see if everyone agrees or if there are any valid objections.

Any cuts or major alterations should only be made IF it's without question the only right thing to do, due to evidence.

Dear Private User, I am sorry if you feel that way - but every change I made is reversible 100% during a few minutes, so I do not really think I have ruined anything. I, for one, try to keep the tree as close to historical accuracy as possible. I posted my concerns about this branch of the family in another topic and just after some time I decided to organise it just according to MedLands (this included disconnecting Burkhard from his "father" Poppo I. and instead connecting him to his actual brothers - Christian and Liudolf as well).
Yet the situation is as I wrote before - if the general consensus would be to reestablish the previous connection, I'll gladly do it or leave it to another curator. And this topic is indeed a good place for the discussion.

Thankyou Private User. You pointed out the issues accurately, and then followed up on what you'd established on the Medieval Dup Discussion.
Ulf trolls every Medieval Discussion so please don't be intimidated. Historical accuracy is what we're aiming for, and another Curator prepared to work as carefully as you are in the Medieval Tree is very badly needed.

http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/mittelalter-genealogie/babenberger_aelt...
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/mittelalter-genealogie/babenberger_aelt...

Engeltrude", "Ingeltrude"Heilwig", "Helwise, Hadwig"", R. Wenskus is of the opinion that the mother of Duchess Hadwig was a niece of the abbot Warin of Corvey (EKBERTINER)

Ulf, "good as it can be" is not the genealogical standard. We look for good supporting evidence. When the evidence is weak or absent, the relationship goes in a footnote.

Our goal here is "verifiability not truth".

Tor, the key words there are "of the opinion that". Opinion should not presented as fact, no matter how tempting. This is the type of thing that belongs in a footnote.

Justin, yes according to the note on Engeltrude I agree, but You ought to look at the links, There where more than just Engeltrude to the discussion:
K. Bosl, Franken um 800, 1969; A. Friese, Studien zur Herrschaftsgeschichte des fränkischen Adels, 1979.
Dümmler Ernst: Die Chronik des Abtes Regino von Prüm. Verlag der Dykschen Buchhandlung Leipzig Seite 94,104 - Dümmler Ernst: Geschichte des Ostfränkischen Reiches. Verlag von Duncker und Humblot Berlin 1865 Band II Seite 138, 168,208,215,330,354,356, 519 - Schieffer Rudolf: Die Karolinger. W. Kohlhammer GmbH Stuttgart Berlin Köln 1992 Seite 185,190 -

Ulf You are a bit hard, but I see what Your saying and the claim that the curators are always right using the info they know about goes for more than just Sharon as I I have said earlier, Some is right and some is wrong that goes for all of us.

Justin Durand It's you who are wrong out here, there are genuin lines and there are historical reconstructed lines, wherof some of them actually are s good as they can be, and some not. I fully support the concept of displaying the former here on Geni, but have them marked as not fully proven.

Does that really give other users the right to call me a troll just because of that? There are other people who has created this profiles once, long before I became a member here, apparently, they have legitimized it, the profiles have often several follovers and often dito managers, but now their voices has become very silent, no one else or very few seems to object against all these new cuts in the lines, wherof several seems to have been done by people not as skillful, if even qualified in the subject at all, I read comment done by unknown, not professional,,but maybe, happy amateurs??, that suddenly wants to be taken just as serious as all those medieval experts which they all recently have easily dismissed as worth nothing more than nil,

I seriously suggest that you use these "modern standards" in your own tree so that you once and for all can disconnect yourself from the world tree, as the flaws in the tree purely statistically should lay much closer to you, than way far back.

Ulf, I don't know why you personalize these debates. There are genealogical standards. I didn't invent them. Sharon didn't invent them. Karol didn't invent. None of us invented them. We follow them because we are doing genealogy according to developed standards and best practices.

You want genealogy to be something else than it is. That's fine. But it is you who will have to do it somewhere else. No matter distressing it is for you, Geni is a genealogical site not a myths and legends site. If you want something else, you would be better off going somewhere that will give you what you want.

Tor, I've read it. I read everything I can find about this period. I enjoy the debates. But it's important that we be intellectually honest. An theory can be very attractive, even dazzling, but that doesn't make it true. It makes it an interesting theory.

Thanks Justin. I'm not able to continue to have every discussion started on the Medieval tree immediately become about personal attacks by and between these two. It chases away others from coming to help, and reduces the number of medieval curators prepared to engage with this part of the tree at all.

Ulf, trolling is watching for every Discussion where any medieval line is being maintained (this one came from a request by users of the Medieval Dup Discussion) so that you can make personal comments about me, Justin or whichever Curator is involved. It's bullying for your own stimulation, not genealogical discussion about what is verifiable.

Justin Durand Standards?suddenly appeared last year then. Most of the profiles high up in the tree was made for over 10 years ago, some of them probably by you, and other curators that today suddenly feel the need of following a higher standard then previous and doing that by a lot of cutting.

I personally think that the best solution would have to just implement a red colored board around any profile there the source is lacking, instead of repudiate every later scholar and some of their distinguished academic work. I also belive contrary to you that many of thoose lines has a value being presented here on Geni, even if they are not fully verified.

Ulf, the standards did not just suddenly appear. I'm 63. I've been doing genealogy for some 50 years. since I was 13 or 14. I don't remember a time when the modern standards id not exist. It seems like the answer to your angst and drama would be to spend some time learning about the modern academic world.

Mike, the head of Geni gave us specific instruction to cut unsubstantiated lines. He was over joyed when we cut Zeus and Odin loose, so reporting and smearing us will do nothing.

uh oh, ulf spat the dummy again

Justin: you said :" We follow them because we are doing genealogy according to developed standards and best practices," to Ulf and you said to me:" But it's important that we be intellectually honest. An theory can be very attractive, even dazzling, but that doesn't make it true. It makes it an interesting theory.".I can't see what you mean, because you use main Sources as you say, but what is that. Take a look and tell me who is the main Source of them:
P Cornelius Tacitus wrote The Annals written ap 109 AD exstracts to/ derived to Ammianus Marcellinus
Ammianus Marcellinus wrote Res Gestae (Rerum gestarum Libri XXXI) 31 books preserved 18. Continuing the story of Tacitus exstracts to/ derived to ---- Sulpicius Alexander
Sulpicius Alexander wrote Historia is considered a continuation of Marcellina's work Res Gestae--- exstracts to/ derived to --- Gregorius of Tours
Renatus Profutuus Frigeridus wrote twlwe books - exstracts to/ derived to ---- Gregorius of Tours
Gregorius of Tours wrote Decem Libri Historiarum ---- chronicles of Eusebius using Jeromes Latin Translation ----- chronicle of Hydatius------ Jonas of Bobbio wrote Vita Columbani ------ Hippolytus wrote ?--- Liber generationis/ unknown writer based on the writing of Hippolytus------- Liber Historiae Francorum anonymous chronicle from Neustria—all of this is exstracts to/ derived to Chronicle of Fredegar unknown author, was used in 1579 on the work of Claude Fauchet, the originals disappeared but was copied by a monk named Lucerius in 715.
When it comes to who does what, then those who feel better in their knowledge should be raised above the level of making personal comments and trying to put others as stupid, perhaps the opposite is true. Discussing and disagreeing is one thing, but there are some who have nothing professional to use so it just gets negative.