Wrong father for Ulrich I von Württemberg?

+9 votes

We have Hermann von Württemberg (Württemberg-48) as father of Ulrich I mit dem Daumen von Württemberg. This appears to be based on Hansmartin Decker-Hauff whose theory is widely not accepted as insufficiently sourced. Many historians follow Paul Friedrich Stälin who holds Ludwig III as the likely father. Hermann should be disconnected as father and either Ludwig III attached as uncertain or the parents should be left unknown.

Edit: corrected typo.

WikiTree profile: Ulrich I von Württemberg
in Genealogy Help by Helmut Jungschaffer G2G6 Pilot (551k points)
edited by Helmut Jungschaffer

I agree, this should be replaced by someone with pre-1500 editing rights. This has been left unanswered for over two years, but maybe someone can do it now?

The probable father is Württemberg-44.

2 Answers

+6 votes
I just found this question, and as a Württemberger with roots in the Remstal, I looked to the tree of our old nobles.

I think, the whole old part of the tree should be reworked.

Basis should be the book of the actual noble family:

Robert Uhland, "900 Jahre Haus Württemberg" from 1984.

At the time of Ulrich I he was named "von Wirtemberg".

Württemberg is modern German Language.
by Michael Ruoff G2G3 (3.5k points)
+1 vote
Why is this lineage "widely not accepted"? I would suggest the following book as a basis:
Sönke Lorenz, Dieter Mertens, Volker Press: Das Haus Württemberg - Ein biographisches Lexikon. Kohlhammer, 1997.
There, too, Hermann is described as the most likely father of Ulrich I.
by Friedemann Kiedaisch G2G6 Mach 2 (25.0k points)

Ulrich's family relationship to his predecessors as Count of Württemberg has not been historically clarified. The thesis of the historian Hansmartin Decker-Hauff, who described Ulrich as the son of Hermann von Württemberg and Irmengard, daughter of Ulrich von Ulten, is considered to be insufficiently documented. See for instance Nicolai Wandruszka: Zur Herkunft Ulrichs (I) Graf von Württemberg (ca. 1222-1265) - eine späte Antwort auf die Thesen von Hansmartin Decker-Hauff In: Südwestdeutsche Blätter für Familien- und Wappenkunde, Band 39, 2021, Verein für Familienkunde in Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.), pp. 13-30

Well, I know that article, and I'm re-reading it right now, just to be sure. Hermann's paternity is not disputed there. On the contrary, the author's statements provide further evidence of their correctness. What is clarified there is how Ulrich's mother Irmgard, that is Hermann's wife, belongs to the Ulten family. But we don't even have this Irmgard in Wikitree. So there is nothing to correct here.
Whenever we have no documentary evidence for family relationships any such proposed relationship is by definition uncertain. The degree to which one might follow such proposals depends in my opinion on the reliability of the author of such proposals which, unfortunately, in the case of Hansmartin Decker-Hauff is zero, given his plunders with the Staufer family. Hence my preference for Paul Friedrich Stälin with the caveat that such relationship be marked as uncertain - or completely omitted because ultimately it is unknown.
(Sorry for the repeat comment, I had some technical issues - all but this most recent one will be hidden.)

Decker-Hauff should be effectively banned as a source, if you ask me. Considering how much of his research has been shown to be a forgery.

I don't have access right now to either of the articles/books you're discussing there, but does Stälin provide primary sources where Wandruszka (not to mention Decker-Hauff) doesn't? What is Stälin's reason to assume a different father, and why is that position accepted by many historians? Especially considering that Wandruszka's response was published years after you've asked the question, Helmut, I wonder if that is still true.

And if there is such a debate then obviously the link is far from secure. I would suggest to just not link any parents.


there are no primary sources for the parents of Ulrich I. Hermann von Württemberg has a single documentary appearance as Eremanus, filius comitis de Wirtenperg, there is no documentation about his father, Hartmann is just a guess. Decker-Hauff bases his conclusion regarding Ulrich on onomastics: Hermann is a witness in the above mentioned document issued at castle Ulten owned by Ulrich von Ulten and Ulrich von Württemberg is the first of this name in the house Württemberg. And Hartmann and Ulrich von Ulten have witnessed documents together. That's basically it. Hermann appears once in a document issued at castle Ulten whose owner is named Ulrich. Everything else is conjecture.

Unfortunately Stälin's attribution of Ludwig as Ulrich's father is not any better documented. Generally, Ulrich and his siblings are either attributed to Ludwig or to Hermann, following Stälin or Decker-Hauff respectively. It needs to be said that no relationship in house Württemberg prior to Ludwig and Hartmann is certain.

Then get rid of any connection (this not even warrants an "uncertain" connection, IMHO), and mention the possible parents, and why people think so, in the biography.

There was this urgency in the past, even in the 20th century, to rather present any genealogical connection than accept that the evidence doesn't allow a conclusion. I think many online family trees, especially those of nobility, suffer greatly from that.

If we don't know who the parents are, we shouldn't feel ashamed to say so, and embrace the gap (so to speak).

I agree with Daniel.

Related questions

+5 votes
2 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+10 votes
2 answers
160 views asked Jun 30, 2015 in Policy and Style by Cathy Harmon G2G3 (3.7k points)
+1 vote
1 answer
85 views asked Jun 21, 2020 in Genealogy Help by PE Rosner G2G6 (7.7k points)
+6 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright