Talk:Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor

III vs. II: Can there be only one?

"He is sometimes referred to as Lothair III." This needs to be expanded for the Wikipedia reader who may be wondered why? --Wetman 11:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wondered that myself when I wrote it, but as I understand it, there was a lot of claiming of ancestral blood that wasn't real and titling oneself with more numbers then were realistic. I know there were several of these but I can't find any explanation for Lothair. --TheGrza 17:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am extremely confused as he is called Lothair II, HRE by the encylopedia britannica. Lothair II of Lotharingia was never emperor so he wasnt counted thus this Lothair III should be II.--67.49.149.91 6 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

He is most commonly known as Lothair III. --TheGrza July 6, 2005 04:11 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at the beginning explaining the confusion with the ordinal, which I think is important to prevent bafflement based on the varying ordinals in the links that might bring the reader here. I don't know enough about this fellow to know what numbering for him is most common among contemporary historians; if there's no consensus, John K's "Lothair of Supplingburg, HRE" is probably a good idea for a title to this page. --Jfruh 13:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lothar/Lothair

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)

Antikings?

"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)