On 5/8/2017 4:15 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short chronology That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. (+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted occasional followers. Stewart Baldwin

On 10/05/2017 12:22 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 5/8/2017 4:15 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > >> One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since >> placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short >> chronology > > That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be > accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite > impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was > correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first > husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das > Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum > Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. > (+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues > über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. > Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted > occasional followers. This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram) as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it. Peter Stewart