Talk:Robert II of France

birth?

What is the basis for this birthdate given for Robert II? As far as I an aware, no contemporary source gives such an exact birthdate. His biographer, Helgaud of Fleury, states that the king was aged 60 when he died on July 20, 1031. If correct, this would place Robert's birth around 970/971. Missi 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Burgundy

Why is it said that Robert's 1003 invasion of Burgundy was thwarted until 1016, while several other articles say that Burgundy was annexed to Kingdom of France in 1004? (e.g. Otto-William, Duke of Burgundy)

Weird sentence

After Robert became king he did as his father and crowned his eldest son Hugh Magnus as his successor. But, due to Prince Hugh Magnus' death, another son, Henri, became king.

I am going to delete the above sentence from the article. Hugh Magnus was Robert's grandfather. I am not aware the Robert had a son named Hugh.

Momoboy 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Momoboy

Another weird sentence

I am going to remove:

His eldest son Hugh Magnus died suddenly while in rebellion against his father.

As I stated above, Hugh magnus was not the son of Robert II

Momoboy 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Momoboy

Hugh Magnus was definitely his eldest son and co-king. It is not the same person as the father of Hugh Capet. You should not have removed those sentences. Srnec 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of edits (Apr 2007)

Here it is:

• Image — the Laurens image is actually a cultural representation, and at least it represents something that actually ocurred. The other image is just a madeup textbook image with no correspondence to the real Robert or anything he did. It has no informative value, hence it is not encyclopaedic and the Laurens image is to be preferred.
• Removal of Direct Capetians template — as is, the template is mostly just a picture of a coat of arms which Robert didn't use and a listing of two of his four sons (of perhaps 7 children). It provides no extra information and just takes up space. There is nothing in the MoS mandating it.
• Listing of children — the redundancy is an insult to readers' intellligence. If the infobox is going to provide the list, there is no reason to provide a full list elsewhere. It is convenient that at the moment, the infobox lists the three children mentioned in the body text and the section "Children" mentions the rest.

I hope this is sufficient to prevent any edit war. Srnec 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox portrait gives a better depiction of him: I do not see why both pictures cannot be used; dynastic templates are a standard feature in articles on monarchs; listing of all marriages and children under that heading is good practise. Michael Sanders 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The portrat is not a depiction of him. It is fantasy with no connection to reality. Why don't you admit this? Srnec 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

The template was removed because the large fleur-de-lis was an inaccuracy. Srnec 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excommunication

Whose genealogy has Bertha of Burgundy being Robert II's cousin? I had understood Robert as having been the godfather of one of her children from an earlier marriage (thus still incest in the eyes of the Church). But, our article on Bertha says she has no children (directly contradicting the French book that I'm using as a reference). Is the actual relationship disputed? Should we make mention of this? 74.140.196.72 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert's Paternal Grandmother, Hedwig of Saxony, and Bertha's Maternal Grandmother, Gerberga of Saxony, were sisters: daughters of King Henry I of Germany & St. Matilda. Gecko G (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not king of "the Franks"

Robert II. never ever had been a "king of the Franks". He had been king of the Western part of the former Frankish empire for a while. The area he had been holding then, was about 30% of what the original "Kings of the Franks" once held. Therefore, Robert was rather a ruler of a part of some regions of today's France, i.e. Western parts of a Frankish, but sort of proto French area, long before modern France had been established in the 17th century and by attacks on neighbouring countries and other war related expansions later on. In his days, Robert II. had been seen and described as a ruler of the most Western part of the former Frankish realm, nothing more than this. 2003:D5:5F17:1100:35D0:80D1:2D95:27C2 (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Heretics: Loaded terminology

I think it's important to note that heretics in the Middle Ages pertained more to would-be teachers, and not simply those either, but those who maintained their doctrine obstinately, that is, by admitting to certain authorities and cherry-picking their teachings to draw privately-favored conclusions to win status. But the article may have you thinking it pertains simply to possessing differing beliefs with no allowance made for the merely misinformed, uninformed or those confused by logical illusions. I'm particularly concerned with the impression it might leave with women, many of whom are of a sympathetic nature and to whom the bullying picture such a substitution of terms would originate might unfairly induce a repulsion in them toward quite innocent and well-meaning agents of the Catholic Church. Surely there are many who would sooner side against persons cashing in on the prestige of the Catholic Church, were they to be made aware of such rendering of profits from producing in their hearers the cheap novelty of hearing plausible but maliciously-constructed arguments that seem to set an enormous social institution at odds with itself.

In fact, the whole section reads like that, with respect to the adverse employment of terminology and to the point of seeming to show a deliberate design and multiplying the inaccuracy and unfairness.

I hope we can take steps soon to alleviate this burden on our religious heritage so we can once again reap whatever positive influence it can provide for today as we remember the 1,000th anniversary of the reign of this esteemed king. 99.149.179.43 (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ancestry ahnentafel

please leave the ahnentafel up for others and please add extra sources much appriecated Briannemartindale (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement for others to add sources .. when an editor adds information, they should add sources that support the information, not leave that for others to do. And in this particular situation- the source you're attempting to use says at the top "The following outline ancestor table for Henry II should not be regarded as definitive" - so it's hardly a reliable source as WP:RS is defined. Even if it was a reliable source, it does not agree with the given information in this article - it does not give any ancestors for Adelaide and specifically marks her as "Individuals marked "***" indicate known problem areas" - so .. your "source" does not support the information given in this article, which is a no-no for editing wikipedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth

if you don't like my sources please add your own but don't remove my ahnentafel 's thanks brianne martindale Briannemartindale (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If your sources do not support the information given .. the information shouldn't be included. And if you add sources that do not support already given information, it is not some other editor's job to fix your bad sources - they should be removed. It is YOUR job to add sources that correctly support the information you add them to. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth

you and several others are removing the ahnentafel s even after a source is given which is starting to cause an edit war which i want no part of

if you don't like the source please remove the source and leave up the ahnentafel s because there are many other ahnentafel s with no sources and they are being left alone and only mine are getting removed Diane, Duchess of Württemberg is just one example and here more examples Philipp Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg Archduchess Rosa of Austria and the examples could go on Briannemartindale (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are not reading what I'm saying. It isn't my job to fix your sources. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good guideline - I do not have those articles watchlisted, so they aren't a concern for ME. Your sources are not reliable, and thus, additions with those sources should not stay. There is also the issue of the undue-ness of the extraneous ancestries and you would also do well to read WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Please do not ping me EVERY time you reply to me, I'm obviously watching this page and do not need to be paged constantly. It's not my job to be at your beck and call either - which is what these repeated pings feel like. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A poor source here is being added again, it's been explained why this is a poor source and why it does not support the information its being attached to in the article. A further source here is added, but this source does not support anything about the ancestor table except that Robert was the son of Hugh Capet. The source does NOT give any other ancestors of Robert's. Please stop repeatedly inserting sources that do not support the information given and that have been objected to. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Ealdgyth. Please stop adding these. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. We are supposed to include genealogy charts only if they are included in scholarly works specializing in the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna@Ealdgyth

the problem i have is not the sources are getting removed it's the ahnentafels getting removed

i don't mind the sources getting removed but what is bothering me is that my ahnentafels are getting removed when other pages have them with no sources attached to them and they are not getting removed

for me either all stay up or all get taken down today

thanks brianne martindale Briannemartindale (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and take them all down today. I do not care. Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna

you take them all down or i will put back my ahnentafels without the sources

i have tried to be polite and respectful and i will continue to do so

you can not fight hatred with hatred you can only hatred with love

have a blessed day thanks brianne martindale Briannemartindale (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna

have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ

thanks brianne martindale Briannemartindale (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Briannemartindale: Those ahnentafels are a relic of Wikipedia's past. If we are going to have any kind of family tree? It should be vertical, including only the parents & grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What Roman imperial custom was that?

Robert II reinstated the Roman imperial custom of burning heretics at the stake, says the article. So far as I know, Priscillian was the only heretic burned at the stake before the canons of Orleans. I wouln't call one person a custom. Rwflammang (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)