Talk:Lambert I, Count of Louvain

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Counts of Leuven - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Counts of Louvain - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Various

Surtsicna thanks for your edits. Just to make sure we miss nothing:

• I don't feel strongly about the "I" but I have a nagging doubt that this particular one is commonly used outside of internet genealogies. Do scholars often call him "I"? I normally read about him in Dutch and French and I don't think they normally do that. A reason for caution is that there were/are old speculations about earlier counts named Lambert, meaning the genealogists are not consistent on this. Another thing to consider is that there were not many Lamberts in this family.
• Concerning the wording "ancestor of all the future counts of Leuven and dukes of Brabant until 1355" does this not imply that Lambert himself was such a Duke?
• Any opinions about his mother? I have looked at this in the past and I think I came to the conclusion that the popular proposals about her identity were all modern speculations from antiquarians and genealogists. If I get a chance I will look again, but that is the background to my caution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A cursory Google Books search shows that, at the very least, "Lambert I" is not a Wikipedia invention. (It takes some effort to find history books among the genealogy publications, though.) But I cannot tell whether it is common. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a correct summary. So good enough to keep going with it until someone has a better idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Stub

@Johnsoniensis: it is not a big concern but I am wondering if this article is still a stub as you've indicated? (It has recently been expanded quite a lot.) I am interested to know if I misunderstand the normal criteria.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Now reassessed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)