Talk:Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor

message: :::I've have seen him numbered as II and III.  I will note that the spelling I am most familiar with is "Lothar."  Perhaps Lothar of Supplinburg, Holy Roman Emperor would be a more non-disputable title? john k 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
::::It probably gets down to whether one wants to count kings or emperors; if one counts kings, it arguably makes sense to count Lothair II of Lotharingia since his kingdom fell to the eastern kingdom after his death. Since emperor was more of a ceremonial title than an office, one could also argue that king status is the one that should be counted. It would be interesting to find out which was the historical numbering. -- About Lothair/Lothar: Britannica says Lothair in the full edition and Lothar in the concise edition, so no help there. Not knowing which is more common in English, I would prefer Lothar since it is closer to his historical (Latin) name, Lotharius. --Chl 9 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
:::::Lothar is the proper name in English and in German and much more common in English (8.3m Google hits v 0.197 for just Lotha(i)r, 2240 v 3(!) for 'Lotha(i)r von Supplinburg'). Further, of those many fewer hits for Lothair, many of them come from these articles. Wiki is inconsistent and has some articles with each name, but the naming policies clearly suggest fixing this. OTOH, fixing the current mess should involve not just this "Lothair" article but all the others and the ones mentioning or linking to them. So it'll take some doing. -114.91.66.121 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lothar/Lothair

message: "The Staufens, who had the support of their own lands plus support in many imperial cities, Austria, and much of Lower Lorraine, raised Conrad as antiking Conrad III." I don't understand the last part of this particularly 'antiking'. Rogertudor 18:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In German, we say "Gegenkönig". 2A0A:A541:1C58:0:A03B:7BAA:CCBF:7965 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Antikings?

message: I'm not sure were in the article to stick this information. I leave it to more experienced wikipedians:
Lothar died on December 5th, 1137 in Upper Bavaria and was buried 500 Km north, at the castle of Koenigslutter. Transportation of the body probably took several weeks. To avoid decay and putrefaction the body was defleshed and boiled for about 6 hours. This was proven by a chemial analysis of his remains. The paper names him "Lothar I".
J.L. Bada, B. Herrmann, I.L.Payan and E.H.Man (1989) Amino acid racemization in bone and the boiling of the German Emperor Lothar I. Applied Geochemistry, vol. 4, pp. 325-327. Pergamon Press. 
Well done!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.241.2 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiled after his death! 

message: These seem to be exactly the same date, viz. 9 June 1075.  We say that he was born "shortly after his father's death", which would generally indicate anywhere from a few days to a few months after.  But if it was only a matter of a few hours later, on the very same day as his father died at the Battle of Langensalza (1075), shouldn't this be noted explicitly?
Unless, of course, someone has been making it up as they went along and has just plugged in some date rather than reveal a gap in our knowledge.  Nah, nobody would ever do that.  :)   Either way, can this please be looked at closely and resolved quickly?  Thanks.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth vs. father's date of death

message: "He was a posthumous child, born at Unterlüß in 1075 shortly after his father,"
What on Earth? 
How was he a dead child born at the same time as his father???68.45.174.58 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentences end at periods, not commas. HTH, HAND. Choess (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress