This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
In 1056 and 1059, by the treaties of Andernach, Baldwin received the march of Ename in the shire of Brabant, probably in exchange for giving up the march of Valenciennes, which was confiscated by emperor Henry III in 1045.
It originally read:
In 1059, by the treaty of Andernach, Baldwin received the march of Ename in the landgraviate of Brabant, probably in exchange for giving up the march of Valenciennes, which he had confiscated in 1045.
The confusion rests not in the date or number of treaties nor in the relation of Brabant to Ename, but in the nature of the confiscation of Valenciennes. It originally sounded like Baldwin confiscated Valenciennes in 1045 and later exchanged it for the march of Ename. The new version seems to say that the emperor took Valenciennes (from Baldwin) in 1045 and later made the confiscation legitimate by giving Baldwin Ename. Which version is correct?
Srnec18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Requested move 22 June 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would mentioning their main title or titles not be better? I agree the numbers can be confusing in this period. Too many Godefrids. I am not opposed to this idea of using the bynames to help. Are there any bynames for Godefrids in this period which were repeated or used inconsistently though? (I am thinking of the confusions which exist about which of the 10th century Reginars were originally really called Longneck for example.) --
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
You are probably right. I don't have a really strong opinion either way at this stage.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 15:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC) FWIW, because it is highly cited I checked Parisse's article on the House of Ardenne and he also calls these two le Barbu and le Bossu (no numbers, but titles given for example in his tree). BTW it also reminds me that the bearder one was Duke of "Lotharingie" (both parts).--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
15:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.