Luitpold - Luitpold, Archbishop of Mainz

Started by Egon Biechl on Friday, April 18, 2025
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 10 posts

His origin is unknown, although most probably he is coming from the Babenberg linage
So his right place is not here as son of Leopold I Babenberger, Margrave of Austria
Leopold, I "the Illustrious", Margrave of Austria
He is born before 990 and died on 7th December 1059
Consequently this Luitpold cannot be entered as part of this tree, if I am not taken wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luitpold_I,_Archbishop_of_Mainz
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/136648185.html#ndbcontent
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG111611
https://books.google.at/books?id=0LQAAAAAcAAJ&q=luitpold&redir_esc=...
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Mainz.htm
I am sorry for not checking the exact situation before my message.

On the other hand it is strange, that a Babenberger Leopold (Luitpold) has not a son with the name of Luitpold. Also age would be suitable and Mainz in Bavaria(Bayern is not so far. Anyhow exist he does.
Best regards
Egon

Dear all,
I dicovered meanwhile another source, approving that Luitpold, Archbishop of Mainz is in fact a son of Luitpold I, Markgraf of Austria

https://austria-forum.org/af/AustriaWiki/Leopold_I._%28%C3%96sterre...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Erzbisch%C3%B6fe_und_Bisch%...

Consequently I suggest to leave this Luitpold as a Babenberger with birth before 990 and death on 7th December 1059

I'm not seeing the primary sources there. Am I missing something, Egon?

The first link cites Europaische Stammtafeln as its Source:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ische_Stammtafeln

That article includes this Evaluation of ES as a primary source:

Evaluation
The newer volumes contain detailed information on the sources from which the family trees were compiled, but no individual references. Therefore, if you want to find the source for a specific filiation, you have to look at all the works included in the references.

Especially in the sometimes highly controversial field of high medieval noble genealogy, one is well advised not to rely solely on European family trees, as they often incorporate speculative assumptions from specialist literature. This applies, for example, to a family as controversial in research as the Conradines .

On the second link, the Luitpold placed as an Archbishop between 1051 and 1059 cites its tertiary source as

Karl Heinemeyer: Luitpold. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB). Volume 15, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-428-00196-6 , pp. 506 f. ( digital copy ).

If you read Heinemeyer at the link it gives you might find that he's tracked down the primary sources proving his parents. Worth a try.

No, from what I can see there it says his family is definitely unknown:
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd136648185.html#ndbcontent

Origin unknown, perhaps from the Babenberg family , not, as previously assumed, that of the Counts of Bogen; he had his own property in the immediate vicinity of Bamberg, as shown by his Seelgerätstiftung with Leppelsdorf near Baunach , district of Bamberg, whose place name "Lupoldesdorf" also includes the name "Liupold".

And here:

www.geni.com/media/proxy?media_id=6000000218008148826&size=large

Step 1: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Erzbisch%C3%B6fe_und_Bisch%...

Step 2: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luitpold_I.
cites Karl Heinemeyer: Luitpold. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB). Volume 15, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-428-00196-6 , pp. 506 f. ( digital copy ) as its source.

Step 3: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd136648185.html#ndbcontent & https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0001/bsb00016333/images/index....

Dear Sharon, I admire you for your perseverance and admit, that I cannot offer any valid prove for Luitpolds origin from the Babenbergers.
Best regards
Egon

Thanks Egon. I'd like to find the sources as much as you - that's why I go searching.

Showing all 10 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion