Talk:Robert II of France

message: 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)
thread_title: birth?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weird sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another weird sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of edits (Apr 2007)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Excommunication

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definitely not king of "the Franks" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heretics:  Loaded terminology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What Roman imperial custom was that?