Talk:Waldalenus

A fact from Waldalenus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 7th-century duke Waldalenus traded off with the Church his firstborn son against his wife's miraculous fertility?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/November.

Wikipedia

Just posted this

I have just posted this. Please check for "copyvio" [sic] now, before this text is copied by Wikipedia mirrors and spread around the Internet. Don't come along later, suggesting it's a violation of some mirror's text, please. --Wetman 17:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy

I am assuming that the Adalrici ducis in the 12th footnote is the same person as Adalrich, Duke of Alsace, especially considering the Etichonid connexion mentioned in footnote 11. However, the Adalrich article, which I wrote based almost entirely on the cited book by Hummer, states that he was initially an ally of Dagobert II against Theuderic III. It states that he changed sides after—and presumably to take advantage of—the death of Hector of Provence in 679. However, with the failure of the expedition against Provence he returned to the Austrasians camp only to be dispossessed when Theuderic took over the whole kingdom later that year. If he was only an ally of Theuderic for a brief spell in 679, how can he be called an ally of his in a September 677 document? Does anyone know how to explain this discrepancy? Is there an error at the Adalrich article? Or is the 679 date for Hector's death and the attack on Lyon incorrect? Did the alliance with Theuderic begin before Hector's death? If so, what prompted it? Srnec 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Chramnelenus' brother-in-law Amalgar of Dijon" would be the Amalgar, grandfather of Adalrich dux in Alsace, I'd think, but really I'm so far from being sure that I'd be grateful if you'd vet the article, Srnec, and double-check that "Wandalenus" and "Waldalenus" are in fact identical. Merovingian prosopography is a tangle, and web-"genealogies" are less than trustworthy: I've ignored them in setting up this stubby bio. --Wetman (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they are the same, though I will probably check up on this to be sure. I think the discrepancy was a result of my uncareful reading of Hummer. The answer to my last two questions is "Yes, and we have no idea what prompted it exactly, but it was probably the thought of personal gain." I have edited the Adalrich article accordingly. Srnec (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, dear, there just are no illustrations of Waldalenus

A naïf intent on filling in every line on the "Biography Project" template bannered above has reinserted a "need" for an illustration, and seems conscious there there will not actually be a photo. Nor a colored lithograph from L'Histoire mérovingienne redigée pour tous. Before any of the other simplissimi at the "Project" waste their time, let us assure them that Waldalenus issued no coins, that there are no contemporary "illustrations" of seventh-century Merovingians and that later imaginative ones— of kings, abbots, saints— do not include Waldalenus. Nor was he prominent enough in nineteenth-century historicist fantasy that there might be an "illustration" whether in oil or popular print. There. Now the "Project" folk can marshal their skills elsewhere. A disinfobox without dates or other hard facts in post-literate tabular form will be as empty as... oh well. --Wetman (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]