Von Bidembach family, possible descent from Ludwig I of Wirtemberg

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Hi all, I wondered if anyone with access to and/or familiarity with German sources could help with a line.

Does anyone know of proof confirming the descent of the Bidembach (later von Bidembach) family from Count Ludwig I of Wirtemberg?

The descent of the family from the House of Wirtemberg is mentioned on the German Wikipedia entry (under ‘Origins’).

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidembach&prev=search

The mother of Johannes Bidembach I’ve seen identified as Margarete Wirtemberger, supposed to be the daughter of Johannes Wirtemberger, who, according to Neues württembergisches Dienerbuch, vol. 1, published 1974, was the illegitimate son of Ludwig I.

I wondered if anyone had some confirmation on this. Her son Johannes Bidembach was keeper of the Count’s cellars, and married Elisabeth von Petershain, daughter of the treasurer.

In this thread:

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/topics.royalty.germann/208.1.1/mb.ashx

Somebody says Margarete’s mother and the wife of Johannes Wirtemberger was Walburga von Reischach, but someone else mentions Walburga’s tombstone describes her as a Jungfrau which they interpret to mean maiden/virgin. Not sure if they’re maybe misinterpreting that, or if Walburga must not have been Margarete’s mother. Either way though that isn’t really consequential to this particular query, as Johannes is the one who descended from the house of Wirtemberg.

Thanks for any help, much appreciated-

Nick

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

*edit* Sorry, Bidembach von Treuenfels, not von Bidembach.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

>
> Somebody says Margarete’s mother and the wife of Johannes Wirtemberger was Walburga von Reischach, but someone else mentions Walburga’s tombstone describes her as a Jungfrau which they interpret to mean maiden/virgin.
>

"Jungfrau" means young wife. Maiden would be "Jungfraulein" amongst other possible words e.g. "Mädchen" for younger girls. I have mostly seen "Jungfrau" when the wife died on or shortly after the first pregnancy.

>
>Her son Johannes Bidembach was keeper of the Count’s cellars, and married Elisabeth von Petershain, daughter of the treasurer.
>

Not "the" treasurer. Eckhard von Petershain was "Rentmeister" in Ulrichstein, a small town in Hessen. "Rentmeister" is commonly translated as treasurer but the office was mainly on the collecting side. "The" treasurer in charge of the treasure would be the "Schatzmeister".

>
>The mother of Johannes Bidembach I’ve seen identified as Margarete Wirtemberger, supposed to be the daughter of Johannes Wirtemberger, who, according to Neues württembergisches Dienerbuch, vol. 1, published 1974, was the illegitimate son of Ludwig I.
>

I do not know of any solid proof. ES "Europäische Stammtafeln" lists Ulrich Bidembach as an illegitimate son of Ludwig I. but not his brother Johannes as you may see in Leo's database:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00351971&tree=LEO
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00293800&tree=LEO.
IMHO there is not any solid documentary proof because such a proof would have been known by ES.
"Neues württembergisches Dienerbuch" by Walther Pfeilsticker is a very sound source but was first published in 1953 (Cotta's ed.) and I do not know if that information was from the original or was added/edited in 1974.
On the other hand, a simple mention identifying her as "Wirttemberger" would be a sound evidence (I do not know of such document but it is not impossible that it was recently found) as "Wirttemberger" in other state could be somebody coming from Württemberg but within Württemberg would mean a bastard of the ruling house.
Not so sound but compelling was her marriage to Johannes Bidembach a member of the "Gelehrtenfamilien" the scholar families. These were not noble but become an elite in protestant Württemberg and they married practically without exceptions, between themselves or with the lower nobility, the "natural" rank for "royal" bastards. In Leo's database you may see a cousin of Margarete Wirtemberger, also Margarete Wirttemberg (without the suffix "er") daughter of count Ulrich of Württemberg-Stuttgart, married to Johannes Königsbach, also of the "Gelehrtenfamilien".
If they were my ancestors, I would accept Johannes Wirttemberger as a bastard of Ulrich I but I would need any reference to Margarete as a daughter of Johannes or, at least, mentioned as Wirttemberg(er).

Kind regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

sábado, 12 de Agosto de 2017 às 16:45:36 UTC+1, Francisco Tavares de Almeida escreveu:

> I do not know of any solid proof. ES "Europäische Stammtafeln" lists Ulrich Bidembach as an illegitimate son of Ludwig I. ...
>
It's well Ulrich Wirttemberger.
>
> If they were my ancestors, I would accept Johannes Wirttemberger as a bastard of Ulrich I ...
>
It's well a bastard of Ludwig I.
>
Sorry for the mistakes,
Francisco

[John Higgins]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-7, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:

> >The mother of Johannes Bidembach I’ve seen identified as Margarete Wirtemberger, supposed to be the daughter of Johannes Wirtemberger, who, according to Neues württembergisches Dienerbuch, vol. 1, published 1974, was the illegitimate son of Ludwig I.
> >
> I do not know of any solid proof. ES "Europäische Stammtafeln" lists Ulrich Bidembach as an illegitimate son of Ludwig I. but not his brother Johannes as you may see in Leo's database:
> http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00351971&tree=LEO
> http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00293800&tree=LEO.
> IMHO there is not any solid documentary proof because such a proof would have been known by ES.
> "Neues württembergisches Dienerbuch" by Walther Pfeilsticker is a very sound source but was first published in 1953 (Cotta's ed.) and I do not know if that information was from the original or was added/edited in 1974.
> On the other hand, a simple mention identifying her as "Wirttemberger" would be a sound evidence (I do not know of such document but it is not impossible that it was recently found) as "Wirttemberger" in other state could be somebody coming from Württemberg but within Württemberg would mean a bastard of the ruling house.
> Not so sound but compelling was her marriage to Johannes Bidembach a member of the "Gelehrtenfamilien" the scholar families. These were not noble but become an elite in protestant Württemberg and they married practically without exceptions, between themselves or with the lower nobility, the "natural" rank for "royal" bastards. In Leo's database you may see a cousin of Margarete Wirtemberger, also Margarete Wirttemberg (without the suffix "er") daughter of count Ulrich of Württemberg-Stuttgart, married to Johannes Königsbach, also of the "Gelehrtenfamilien".
> If they were my ancestors, I would accept Johannes Wirttemberger as a bastard of Ulrich I but I would need any reference to Margarete as a daughter of Johannes or, at least, mentioned as Wirttemberg(er).
>
> Kind regards,
> Francisco
> (Portugal)

To be specific, ESNF vol. 1.2 table 256 does show two illegitimate sons for Ludwig I of Württemberg: Ulrich and Hans (= Johannes?) Wirtemberger von Tagersheim. ESNF notes only one wife, Barbara Kaltmayer, for Hans and notes that he had descendants ("Nachkommen") but doesn't list them. Leo's database calls Hans Johannes and shows another wife Walburg von Reischach. I'm pretty sure that Leo's source for the other wife and the daughter Margarethe Wirtemberger was the work of Brigitte Gastel Lloyd, but I have no idea what her sources were (and apparently Leo didn't either, which is why he didn't include a source for Hans/Johannes and his daughter).

FWIW one of the descendants of this Bidembach line is Henri, Prince Consort of Denmark.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

>
> To be specific, ESNF vol. 1.2 table 256 does show two illegitimate sons for Ludwig I of Württemberg: Ulrich and Hans (= Johannes?) Wirtemberger von Tagersheim. ESNF notes only one wife, Barbara Kaltmayer, for Hans and notes that he had descendants ("Nachkommen") but doesn't list them. Leo's database calls Hans Johannes and shows another wife Walburg von Reischach. I'm pretty sure that Leo's source for the other wife and the daughter Margarethe Wirtemberger was the work of Brigitte Gastel Lloyd, but I have no idea what her sources were (and apparently Leo didn't either, which is why he didn't include a source for Hans/Johannes and his daughter).
>
> FWIW one of the descendants of this Bidembach line is Henri, Prince Consort of Denmark.
>

Thank you very much for the information on ES. I was misled for the absence of sources in Johannes Wirttemberger's page and did not checked Barbara Kaltmayer's wich has ES as source. Not really important but Leo should have included the source for Johannes and leave Walburga von Reischach and her daughter Margarethe unsourced.

Hans is indeed the same as Johannes. The name in German is Johann (John), Hans is a diminutive and Johannes the latin for Johann. Practically all Johann were commonly called Hans and as the majority of documents and many books were written in latin some translators left the Johannes while others opted for Johann. I have several cases in church registers where one was baptized Johannes, married as Hans and died as Johann. It was such a common name that many times was omitted and a Johann Michael could appear only Michael even if official documents and office nominations. In modern times the three forms became distincts.

If Leo had followed Brigitte Gastel-Lloyd her sources should have been investigated by Günther Todd, prof. Günther Schweizer or both but this line is not in her ancestry so it is possible that Leo's source was the Ancestry of Henri de Monpezat (Prince Consort of Denmark) by William Addams Reitwiesner. If I am correct - names and spelling are almost identical - Reitwiesner's source was a serial of articles published by Hansmartin Decker-Hauff under a long title, something like "The German bourgeois ancestry of the heirs of the Danish crown."
Decker-Hauff was a famous genealogist but after his death some independent researchers proved without margin for doubt that he had used false sources in some of his works. He was the author of at least three different bastard lines to the dukes and counts of Württemberg, one of them this Bidembach line, another a Volland line through Antonia von Dagersheim that was proved wrong.

For everything, I keep my opinion that Johannes Wirttemberger was an illegitimate son of Ludwig I. but some additional evidence is needed for his daughter Margarethe.

Kind regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[joe...@gmail.com]

For much of Germany late 1500s onward, Johannes is generally a standalone name.

Johann is typically used in conjuction with a baptismal name like Johann Georg Miller. (Never Johannes Georg Miller)

Prior to 1600 the situation is much more muddled. "Hans" would be one of dozens of name variants that someone may be known by including Henne, Henkel and many many others.

[Peter Stewart]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:37:38 AM UTC+10, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
>
>
> Hans is indeed the same as Johannes.

I'm not sure that 'Hans' Brahms would agree with you.

Peter Stewart

[John Higgins]

Brigitte Gastel Lloyd is (or was?) indeed a descendant of Johann Wirtemberger and Walburg von Reischach. In fact the descents to Brigitte are the ONLY descents from this couple that are shown in Leo's database. That's why it seems likely that her work was Leo's source for the lines. I doubt that Leo had any information on whatever her sources may have been.

Leo does not show the possible Wirtemberger connection of Henri, Prince of Denmark because he appears to have relied on the book on the Laborde de Monpezat family that is cited by Reitwiesner, but not the other source that WAR used to continue the line back to Ludwig I of Württemberg (which connection Leo does not show). I'd guess that Leo was unaware of the Reitweisner article, which is now available here (the original wargs.com website has apparently been taken down in recent months):
https://web.archive.org/web/20170616223427/http://www.wargs.com/royal/laborde.html

WAR cites somewhat different information for the German source that continues the line back to Ludwig I. Specifically: "a series of articles by Dr. Gerd Wunder titled "Die deutschen bürgerlichen Vorfahren des dänischen Thronfolgers", published in Archiv für Sippenforschung. starting in the February 1969 issue." I don't have access to these articles, but WAR was quite meticulous and I have no reason to doubt his citation.

I do agree with you that more evidence is needed for Johann's daughter Margarete and her connection to the Bitembach family.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

domingo, 13 de Agosto de 2017 às 04:30:13 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 4:37:38 PM UTC-7, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
> > >
> > > To be specific, ESNF vol. 1.2 table 256 does show two illegitimate sons for Ludwig I of Württemberg: Ulrich and Hans (= Johannes?) Wirtemberger von Tagersheim. ESNF notes only one wife, Barbara Kaltmayer, for Hans and notes that he had descendants ("Nachkommen") but doesn't list them. Leo's database calls Hans Johannes and shows another wife Walburg von Reischach. I'm pretty sure that Leo's source for the other wife and the daughter Margarethe Wirtemberger was the work of Brigitte Gastel Lloyd, but I have no idea what her sources were (and apparently Leo didn't either, which is why he didn't include a source for Hans/Johannes and his daughter).
> > >
> > > FWIW one of the descendants of this Bidembach line is Henri, Prince Consort of Denmark.
> > >
> > Thank you very much for the information on ES. I was misled for the absence of sources in Johannes Wirttemberger's page and did not checked Barbara Kaltmayer's wich has ES as source. Not really important but Leo should have included the source for Johannes and leave Walburga von Reischach and her daughter Margarethe unsourced.
> >
> > Hans is indeed the same as Johannes. The name in German is Johann (John), Hans is a diminutive and Johannes the latin for Johann. Practically all Johann were commonly called Hans and as the majority of documents and many books were written in latin some translators left the Johannes while others opted for Johann. I have several cases in church registers where one was baptized Johannes, married as Hans and died as Johann. It was such a common name that many times was omitted and a Johann Michael could appear only Michael even if official documents and office nominations. In modern times the three forms became distincts.
> >
> > If Leo had followed Brigitte Gastel-Lloyd her sources should have been investigated by Günther Todd, prof. Günther Schweizer or both but this line is not in her ancestry so it is possible that Leo's source was the Ancestry of Henri de Monpezat (Prince Consort of Denmark) by William Addams Reitwiesner. If I am correct - names and spelling are almost identical - Reitwiesner's source was a serial of articles published by Hansmartin Decker-Hauff under a long title, something like "The German bourgeois ancestry of the heirs of the Danish crown."
> > Decker-Hauff was a famous genealogist but after his death some independent researchers proved without margin for doubt that he had used false sources in some of his works. He was the author of at least three different bastard lines to the dukes and counts of Württemberg, one of them this Bidembach line, another a Volland line through Antonia von Dagersheim that was proved wrong.
> >
> > For everything, I keep my opinion that Johannes Wirttemberger was an illegitimate son of Ludwig I. but some additional evidence is needed for his daughter Margarethe.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Francisco
> > (Portugal)
>
> Brigitte Gastel Lloyd is (or was?) indeed a descendant of Johann Wirtemberger and Walburg von Reischach. In fact the descents to Brigitte are the ONLY descents from this couple that are shown in Leo's database. That's why it seems likely that her work was Leo's source for the lines. I doubt that Leo had any information on whatever her sources may have been.
>

You are (again) whright. Brigitte was indeed a descendant of Johannes Wirttemberger. I have her pedigree in an unformatted file and I looked for Wirttemberg, Wirttemberger and Bidembach while she had Wuerttemberger and Bidenbach.

>
> Leo does not show the possible Wirtemberger connection of Henri, Prince of Denmark because he appears to have relied on the book on the Laborde de Monpezat family that is cited by Reitwiesner, but not the other source that WAR used to continue the line back to Ludwig I of Württemberg (which connection Leo does not show). I'd guess that Leo was unaware of the Reitweisner article, which is now available here (the original wargs.com website has apparently been taken down in recent months):
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170616223427/http://www.wargs.com/royal/laborde.html
>

Leo does not show the line to Henri de Mompezat only because he had no time for everything. But he did knew the work of WAR that I have sent him (not because this line) with the old link then operational.

>
> WAR cites somewhat different information for the German source that continues the line back to Ludwig I. Specifically: "a series of articles by Dr. Gerd Wunder titled "Die deutschen bürgerlichen Vorfahren des dänischen Thronfolgers", published in Archiv für Sippenforschung. starting in the February 1969 issue." I don't have access to these articles, but WAR was quite meticulous and I have no reason to doubt his citation.
>

Yes the series of articles are exactly those I have cited but my memory confused Gerd Wunder with Hansmartin Decker-Hauff possibly because Decker-Hauff's line von Dagersheim-Lyher was in Brigitte's pedigree and when it was known that it was not only wrong but quite probably forged she overreacted and published some bitter/angry comments on her site.

Best regards,
Fancisco
Portugal

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

Hello Peter,

Nice to hear of you even if only to pull my leg (J. Brahms 1833-1897 when Hans, Johann and Johannes were already distincts).

Francisco

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

domingo, 13 de Agosto de 2017 às 01:46:51 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> For much of Germany late 1500s onward, Johannes is generally a standalone name.
>
> Johann is typically used in conjuction with a baptismal name like Johann Georg Miller. (Never Johannes Georg Miller)
>

I agree with "generally" but I disagree with "never". From my Schlumberger file (uncomplete) Johannes Leonhard Schlumberger bap. 11 Oct. 1568 Öllingen and Johannes Friedrich Schlumberger *14 Jul 1764 Gruibingen.
To be specific, I do not think that Johann was typically used with a second name. In older times one baptismal name was the rule and the second name appeared when there was already a Johann of that surname and it was necessary to distinguished them. This was firstably made with a nickname, typically "The Elder/Older" or the "The young(er)" but when the family had already several branches and two or more Johann were nearly contemporary the second name appeared in baptism (this is valid to protestant southern Germany and I do not know if true in other places).
In my cited file I have 14 Johann Schlumberger in the XVIIIth. and XIXth.
The double name appeared before when both surname and name were common. Your Johann Georg Miller is a good example as Miller/Müller with Schmid/Schmied/Schmidt and other surnames originated in common professions were the most common surnames. I believe there is a good chance that your Johann Georg was commonly referred as Hans Georg or only Georg.
The feminin equivalent of Johann would be Anna but not so expressive as there are large numbers of Maria and Elisabeth.

>
> Prior to 1600 the situation is much more muddled. "Hans" would be one of dozens of name variants that someone may be known by including Henne, Henkel and many many others.
>

Again to be specific I disagree. Hans, Johann and Johannes are correct forms that are still used nowadays while Hanns, Hanss, Hansss, Henn, Henne and many others are bad spelling of ignorant scribes and pastors.
And I strongly doubt that Henkel was correctly Hans. It could be a nickname but I would bet in Heinrich. Heinkel was undoubtly Heinrich.

Kind regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Hi guys, thank you for all of the information. A lot of it is clearer now. Does anyone know of any sources on the Bidembach family that confirm that Johannes' mother was Margaret Wirtemberger? The only source I've seen has been the Wikipedia article on the family. I wasn't sure if there was any further record of this. The wiki article also says his father was unknown, which is odd to me, that they'd know the mother and her name, but not the father. I wasn't sure if there was a will or some other record being the reason behind that.

Also, assuming she was a Wirtemberger, is Ludwig I who we would be looking at, as father, or Ulrich?

Thanks-

Nick

[John Higgins]

Although I haven't seen them, it's possible that the articles cited earlier by Dr. Gerd Wunder titled "Die deutschen bürgerlichen Vorfahren des dänischen Thronfolgers", published in Archiv für Sippenforschung, might discuss the Bitembach family more fully. But you'll likely have to ask your library to get them via interlibrary loan - if your local library provides such a service. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able find find a complete citation for the series of articles. All I know is that they seem to have appeared in volumes 33 through 37, but I don't know which segments appeared in which volumes and on which pages. There is conflicting information on the web.

The issue of Margarete Wirtemberger being known (or at least reported) to be the mother of Johann Bitembach (or Bidenbach) while his father's name is unknown is one reason why I (like Francisco) am uncomfortable with this generation. There may well be a good reason for this - but it's a red flag.

With respect to Margarete's father Johannes (or Hans) Wirtemberger, the ESNF table on the Württemberg family cited earlier says that he was an illegitimate son of Ludwig I - not Ludwig's brother Ulrich V. But, as mentioned before, the ESNF table does not give Johannes a wife named Walburg von Reischach, upon which marriage the Bitembach connection is said to depend. Thus, another red flag....

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Ah, thank you John. Do you know if Brigitte Gastel Lloyd is available for contact? As it seems she was a source of Margarete being Johannes' mother. Also, I know that sadly William Addams Reitwiesner has passed away, but it was mentioned he also referenced the Bidembach family as being descended from the Counts of Wirtemberg, although some of his sources may not have been the best. Is the work he put out about it available online?

Thanks-

Nick

[John Higgins]

I have no idea how to contact Brigitte Gastel Lloyd. I don't believe that her web pages have been updated in at least 10 years.

The work by WAR was cited earlier in this thread - here is the link again:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170616223427/http://www.wargs.com/royal/laborde.html

Francisco at first questioned one of WAR's sources (the second one in the article above) but later realized that he had misidentified the author of WAR's source and confused him with another author, about whose other work he had some doubts. For the moment, WAR's source seems to be acceptable.

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thanks again John. I have a distant cousin in Germany I'm currently in contact with, who I could as if he has access to Dr. Wunder's articles, which might shed light on the subject. Do you think the fact that W.A.R. mentioned Margarete and her unnamed Bidembach husband in that Ahnentafel may give more credence to that line?

Thanks-

Nick

[John Higgins]

WAR's reference to Magarete and her Bidembach husband is only as reliable as the source he used - the articles by Dr. Wunder.

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thanks, well, I'll see if I can't get hold of any of those articles in the coming weeks. W.A.R. seems to have been pretty good about his sources from what I've seen before. Maybe the article has some explanation as to how Johannes' mother and her maiden name were somehow known, but not his father.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

Just a few clarifications.

When an article exposed the false line von Dagersheim-Lyher, Brigitte was already in her nineties. I think she died when or shortly after her website ceased to be regularly actualised more than 10 years ago.
Brigitte had payed two professional genealogists to investigate her ancestry. Based on the similarity of information I am convinced that Günther Todd and/or prof. Günther Schweizer used the same source than WAR, the articles of Gerd Wunder.

Dr. Gerd Wunder is very reliable. Mainly a regional historian he is the author of two celebrated books "The Schenk von Stauffenberg, a Family History" and "'Bourgeois' of Hall, Social History of an Imperial Town 1216-1802" (titles freely translated by memory).
And it is quite possible that he knew Margarete's parents but not the name of the husband. Gerd Wund's area of interest is basically southern Germany and a source from Württemberg - a chronicle, a deed, etc. - may well ignore the first name of Johannes Bidembach, a very recent immigrant from Hessen.
So far so good but my problem subsist.

Also by memory (not very trustable) I had the idea that Decker-Hauff was the author of that line and if this correct, Gerd Wunder might have used Decker-Hauff's information in good faith because this last one was only exposed after his death and is his lifetime was a very considerate univerity professor of History with more than 70 works published.
FWIW I do not have "doubts" on Decker-Hauff. His manipulation of sources is public and published in Wikipedia
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansmartin_Decker-Hauff

As I said before, Gerd Wunder is reliable and it is possible that a source in Württemberg ignored Johannes' first name. As Johannes came from Hessen, there were not other Bidembach in Württemberg and the chronology is good, so if Margarethe did marry a Bidembach this one was undoubtly Johannes.

Where I see a red flag is in source that ignores Johannes name but knows about a necessarly very short marriage of Johannes Wirttemberger with Walburga von Reischach, a marriage unknown to ES. Walburga was also an immigrant from Hessen and his father died in Ulrichstein wich is less than 20km from Grünberg where Johannes Bidembach came from. From the same area and with the same social status the families shoud know each other.
So if (a big IF) Walburga did marry Johannes Wirttemberger the marriage of a daughter to a Bidembach was something almost expected.

We know why Johannes Bidembach came to Württemberg. The Count of Württemberg was at odds with the emperor and by personal decision, declared the Württemberg protestant. At the time the only important prince protestant was Friedrich, landgrave of Hessen who assisted Württemberg with troops but also with protestant ministers (the thre sons of Johannes Bidenbach were ministers and occupied high places in the hierarchy of Württemberg).
But what I do not see is why an obscure daughter of an officer of low nobility of Hessen is sento to marry a "royal" bastard of Württemberg.
It is possible of course but if I wanted to forge a line in a plausible way, I would create something like those two marriages.

Kind regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thanks Francisco, hopefully Dr. Wunder cites his sources for where he established this line from. Was he known for using primary sources or is there a good chance he used Decker-Hauff's works?

In the thread I linked in the OP, one of the commentators said that Walburga is described as "Jungfrau" on her tomb. I can't quite make out the writing:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Grabmal_der_Jungfrau_Walburga_von_Reischach.jpg

What are the sources ES primarily use? Is it possible if Walburga died very soon after her marriage it was missed?

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

This is possibly getting the cart before the horse. If you look at the entry in _Deutsche Inschriften_ for this tomb (http://www.inschriften.net/zeige/suchergebnis/treffer/nr/di025-0151.html#content) it becomes clear that both the identity of the deceased and her date of death are uncertain. All that is clear is that she was a Jungfrau von Reischach who died at earliest 1470, at latest 1499. The absence of any text naming a husband in the surviving inscription makes me suspect she wasn't married.

All the best,
Kelsey

[John Higgins]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 3:34:51 AM UTC-7, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
> segunda-feira, 14 de Agosto de 2017 às 02:07:11 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 5:13:40 PM UTC-7, pepeem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ah, thank you John. Do you know if Brigitte Gastel Lloyd is available for contact? As it seems she was a source of Margarete being Johannes' mother. Also, I know that sadly William Addams Reitwiesner has passed away, but it was mentioned he also referenced the Bidembach family as being descended from the Counts of Wirtemberg, although some of his sources may not have been the best. Is the work he put out about it available online?
> > >
> > > Thanks-
> > >
> > > Nick
> >
> > I have no idea how to contact Brigitte Gastel Lloyd. I don't believe that her web pages have been updated in at least 10 years.
> >
> > The work by WAR was cited earlier in this thread - here is the link again:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20170616223427/http://www.wargs.com/royal/laborde.html
> >
> > Francisco at first questioned one of WAR's sources (the second one in the article above) but later realized that he had misidentified the author of WAR's source and confused him with another author, about whose other work he had some doubts. For the moment, WAR's source seems to be acceptable.
>
> Just a few clarifications.
>
> When an article exposed the false line von Dagersheim-Lyher, Brigitte was already in her nineties. I think she died when or shortly after her website ceased to be regularly actualised more than 10 years ago.

Interesting.... I too was wondering whether Brigitte was still alive. I faintly remember Leo telling me many years ago that she had stopped work on her websites due to health issues. I believe he also said that the ownership of her websites had been transferred to someone else - and they are only partially functional today.

OTOH the entry in Leo's database for Brigitte (presumably provided by her) says she was born only in 1944 - and has no death date shown. Whatever the situation may be, she's unlikely to be able to be contacted regarding this matter - or be willing to respond.

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00272656&tree=LEO

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Ah, so this may not be Walburga's tomb at all?

And would Jungfrau rather than Fraulein, like mentioned earlier, not imply she had been married?

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

On Monday, 14 August 2017 17:41:56 UTC+1, pepeem...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ah, so this may not be Walburga's tomb at all?
>
> And would Jungfrau rather than Fraulein, like mentioned earlier, not imply she had been married?

My German is pretty rudimentary, but I would translate "Jungfrau" as "maiden" or "virgin" in this context, analogous to Die Jungfrau Maria, i.e., the Virgin Mary. Unless there's been some linguistic slippage between the fifteenth century and now?

All the best,
Kelsey

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

You're probably right, my German from high school is pretty rusty, though I always though 'frau' was the term for a married woman.

But I guess is she isn't named, there's no saying that this was Walburga?

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

I found this thread, on a German genealogy site. I had to put it through Google translate, so I might not be getting the full gist of it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://forum.ahnenforschung.net/showthread.php%3Ft%3D140410&prev=search

While I couldn't quite follow it, he quotes an essay from a Theodor Schoen, who says

"Hans (Wirtemberger) was married to one of Reischach, and had a daughter Margareth, who was the mother of the Brackenheimer Vogt Johannes Bidembach, who came from Hesse."

He's supposed to have based a lot of his information the work of Ulm's pastor Jakob Rieber in his elaboration on contributions to the Landeskunde in the Staatsanzeiger for Württemberg from 1901, pp. 159-160.

The poster also says that Schoen didn't believe Walburga was Margarete's mother, but possibly a Barbara or Juliana von Reischach, and Johannes/Hans Wirtemberger was Juliana or Barbara's second husband.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

segunda-feira, 14 de Agosto de 2017 às 17:41:56 UTC+1, pepeem...@gmail.com escreveu:
> Ah, so this may not be Walburga's tomb at all?
>
> And would Jungfrau rather than Fraulein, like mentioned earlier, not imply she had been married?

No it doesn't. I was plain wrong thinking Jungfrau = jung Frau. The Walburga in the "tomb" died unmarried. And her mother was not von Speth.

Francisco

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

segunda-feira, 14 de Agosto de 2017 às 17:41:56 UTC+1, pepeem...@gmail.com escreveu:

> Ah, so this may not be Walburga's tomb at all?
>

Undoubtely not "your" Walburga.

I had ignored your previous information on this epitaph because she could never be of interest concerning Johannes Wirttemberger. If she was a "virgin" she did not married and if she was married, Frau von Reischach would be a wife of an NN von Reischach.
Now I have looked to the epitaph (an epitaph contrary to a tomb may be placed in a different place from the corpse) and noticed something interesting in the heraldry.
(I am no heraldist and my limited English doesn't include heraldic vocabulary).
There are two couples of coats of arms and they are presented in courtesy(?) canted to each other and with the living (humans and animals) heraldic pieces turned to each other.
This is clear in the wild boar of the von Reischach here
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reischach_(Adelsgeschlecht)
and in the epitaph
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grabmal_der_Jungfrau_Walburga_von_Reischach.jpg
Two coats of armas in courtesy(?) is the representation of a married couple (I have seen many examples and never an exception).

The two coats of arms at the girls's feet are unreadable (to me) but to make it easier I will call them von Eagle and von Goat.
There is a very high probability that the girls' mother was a von Eagle and the coats of armas represent the grandparents.
1. Girl von Reischach
2. Father von Reischach
3. Mother von Eagle
4. Grandfather von Reischah
5. Grandmother von Speth
6. Grandfather von Eagle
7. Grandmother con Goat

Another marriage von Reischah/von Speth would be too much for a coincidence so this girl on epitaph would be a niece of "your" Walburga, but chronolgy becomes queer (at least).
My personal advice would be to forget the whole until you put your hands in Gerd Wunder's article.

Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thanks, do you know where I might be able to look for German sources online? My cousin is on vacation for the next ten days but when he gets back I can ask if he has access to a university library or something that could help.

Oh, I think I follow you, about this being the niece of the possible Walburga who was the alleged mother of Margarete Wirtemberger... I can't remember, did it say Margarete's grandmother was a von Speth?

Also, I'm not sure what it is, but in that thread from the German forum, the OP states that the original source for the idea that Margarete Wirtemberger was Johannes' mother was "the Biphemian tribe tree" (not sure what that means) from the 17th century. Is anyone familiar with this?

[John Higgins]

"Tribe tree" is simply Google Translate's poor translation of the German word "Stammbaum". A better translation for English speakers would be "family tree". Oddly GT sometimes does use the better translation.

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thanks John. Who or what is 'Biphemian?' Is it another family whose tree overlaps with the Bidembachs? Is it some sort of publication like the British visitations?

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

terça-feira, 15 de Agosto de 2017 às 16:11:37 UTC+1, pepeem...@gmail.com escreveu:
>
> Oh, I think I follow you, about this being the niece of the possible Walburga who was the alleged mother of Margarete Wirtemberger... I can't remember, did it say Margarete's grandmother was a von Speth?
>

Not von Speth (my mistake) but Speth gen.(known as) Mager von Dettlingen. It's in several DB on-line
http://gedbas.genealogy.net/person/show/1142946434
and the coat of arms is clearly the same seen in the epitaph
https://www.google.pt/search?q=von+speth+wappen&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTpuTW1dnVAhVH1hoKHRgJDxgQsAQIMQ&biw=1540&bih=875

>
> Also, I'm not sure what it is, but in that thread from the German forum, the OP states that the original source for the idea that Margarete Wirtemberger was Johannes' mother was "the Biphemian tribe tree" (not sure what that means) from the 17th century. Is anyone familiar with this?
>

Tribe is a peculiar translation of Stamm that could be translated as lineage (in general, not only for nobility). I guess that Biphemian is a very bad reading of Bohemian (from Bohemia, old kingdom and grand-duchy of Moravia, actual Czech Republic).
But 17th century is 2 centuries later so it doesn't make sense.

Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Oh, thanks, the DB you linked, when I go down a generation to Margarete lists as a source "ONHARD, OTTO-GÜNTER: Johann Bidenbach im 16. Jahrhundert, seineFamilie und Vorfahren. In: Südwestdeutsche Blätter für Familien- undWappenkunde, Band 30, 2012. Stuttgart 2012. S. 37 – 50"

Is that some sort of publication?

And I'll see if I can't find this tree. I guess it also depends on how early or late in the 17th century that tree was made. The DB says Margarete married NN Bidembach around 1500, so it may be a bit less than two centuries. I'm not sure if that's the original source, but that's what I interpreted the OP as meaning.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

terça-feira, 15 de Agosto de 2017 às 20:12:26 UTC+1, pepeem...@gmail.com escreveu:
> Oh, thanks, the DB you linked, when I go down a generation to Margarete lists as a source "ONHARD, OTTO-GÜNTER: Johann Bidenbach im 16. Jahrhundert, seineFamilie und Vorfahren. In: Südwestdeutsche Blätter für Familien- undWappenkunde, Band 30, 2012. Stuttgart 2012. S. 37 – 50"
>
> Is that some sort of publication?
>

Yes. A genealogical and heraldic publication for Southern Germany (mainly Baden-Württemberg, with some Bavaria and Palatinate.
Some years ago when I was starting my research I asked for some numbers, sent them 10 euros in a banknote by mail (illegal, I know) and a kind lady Frau Bosler, a secretary and I think the only staff, sent me back the publication by mail to Portugal.
I think that your cousin won't have any trouble in obtaining the issue you want but if it was like before, you will get it on paper, not digitised and you must provide the translation.

Dr. Otto-Günther Lonhard is well known an has works published. I think it is probable that he saw Gerd Wunder's article and with some luck, maybe he has comments about.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto-G%C3%BCnter_Lonhard

>
> And I'll see if I can't find this tree. I guess it also depends on how early or late in the 17th century that tree was made. The DB says Margarete married NN Bidembach around 1500, so it may be a bit less than two centuries. I'm not sure if that's the original source, but that's what I interpreted the OP as meaning.
>

Biphemian did return anything in a GG search and the same for Bohemian Stammbaum.

Kind regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

[pepeem...@gmail.com]

Thank you, you guys have been very helpful. Will update the thread when I'm able to find more info on the subject via those articles.

-Nick