Notes ES II:10. Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (53:43) has Robert, Count of Hesbaye; b.c700; liv. 750; md. WILLISWINDA, dau ALLEAUME. This entry calls Robertthe son of LAMBERT (RIN 3847). Inconsistently, Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (169:42) has Rutpert(Robert) I, Duke in the Haspengau, Count in the upper Rhine and Wormsgau,royal missus in Italy; b. 689; d. by 764; md. 730, WILLISWINT, occ. 768;heiress of lands in the Wormsgau . . . WILLISWINT was dau. of COUNTADELHEIM, a widower in 764. This entry has Robert as the son of anotherLAMBERT (RIN 3847), with a different ancestry. Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (48:13) has Rutepert II, Count in the upperRhine and Wormgau, seen 722-757; m. WILLISWINT, dau. COUNT ADELHELM, wid.764. This source gives Rutperet's father as LANSBERTUS (LAMBERT) II (RIN 3847). "Todd A. Farmerie" posted to soc.genealogy.medieval on 14 Dec 1996 (in part): Subject: Re: Lamberts and Roberts and Williswints, Oh My ! "The big problem is that there are conflicting schools regarding theorigins of these families. The problems focus on the descent of theCapets. The germans give them a different descent than the french. Theyall agree that Robert and WILLISWINT are the ancestors, but drasticlydisagree about the connection, and somewhat regarding the ancestry ofRobert (the questions are linked somewhat, being based on differentinterpretations of the power base of the family). Most sources accept oneor the other, rather than making any attempt to harmonize them. Thisbecomes a problem when an author (such as Stuart) doesn't recognize thathe has two different versions of the same thing, and uses both, making noattempt to either harmonize or pick one. (The same mistake was made in Weis/Sheppard, where a switch from frenchto german was made for the Capet line, with no realization that thiswould affect a branch.) So, basically, yes, Robert and WILLISWINT are the same people. Yes, RFChas contradictory descents. No, I am not familiar enough with the sourcesto tell you which is righter."
