Als Herren von Limburg
werden genannt: Theodoricus et Riquinus de Lembrudi 1033 Zeugen bei
einem Tausch der Abteien Stablo und St. Martin bei Metz 46, Graf Udo de
Lemborch, der 1061 - nach der Indiktion 1064 - eine Hörige (propriam
ancillam) an St. Adalbert in Aachen schenkt 4', und zu 1083 Graf Henricus de Lembruch 47, den man für den 1119 gestorbenen Grafen und zeitweiligen Herzog von Niederlothringen hält. Die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen sind in den Urkunden nicht angegeben.
ZUR GRUNDUNG DES ERSTEN KLOSTERS. UND ZUR
VERWANDTSCHAFT DER GRAFEN VON ARE UND LIMBURG
UDO, son of --- (-[1065/75] or 1078). Graaf van Limburg: "Comes Udo de Lemborch" donated a serf to the church of St Adalbert, Aachen by charter dated 1061. Avocat of Saint-Trond: the Gesta Abbatem Trudonensium records in 1065 that, after âduce Fredericoâ [Frédéric Duke of Lower Lotharingia] was dead, confirmations were made regarding payments at the request of âdomno Udone successore eiusâ and in the presence of âdomni Adalberonisâ [Adalbero Bishop of Metz, brother of the deceased Frédéric Duke of Lower Lotharingia]. A charter dated 1065 records the same confirmation: âAdalbero Metensis Episcopusâ, noting the dispute between âgermanum meum ducem Lotharingiæ Fredericumâ and Saint-Trond regarding payments to the avocat, confirmed the situation in the presence of "domino Udone fratris mei successore [who had received âeamdem advocatiam in beneficio a nobisâ]...et Ottone subadvocato". Udo presumably died before [1072/75], the estimated date of a charter, under which âOsmuth et Warburgâ committed themselves to Saint-Trond, whose dating clause records â...Ottone advocatoâ [Otto de Looz Comte de Duras (see LOWER LOTHARINGIA NOBILITY, who was restored as full avocat of Saint-Trond after Udo died]. Kupper suggests that the following entry refers to Udo Graaf van Limburg: the necrology of Prüm records the death in 1078 of âUdo comesâ. This date appears incompatible with Udoâs earlier loss of the advocacy, unless this was due to long-term incapacity before death or, assuming that Alternative (1) of Udoâs possible marriages shown below is correct, the death of his wife which would presumably have removed Udoâs legitimacy as Duke Frédéricâs successor.
The question of Udoâs possible marriage is speculative: it is not indicated directly in any surviving primary source. As explained in detail further below, two possible alternative cases may explain the ancestry of Udoâs successor, Hendrik [I] Graaf van Limburg. In each case, a possible marriage of Udo forms part of the overall picture and may help explain the hypotheses.
Under Alternative (1), Hendrik [I] would have been the son of Waléran [II] Comte dâArlon. Consistent with this alternative, an explanation is needed for Hendrikâs predecessor in Limburg, Udo, succeeding Frédéric de Luxembourg Duke of Lower Lotharingia both in Limburg and in the advocacy of Saint-Trond. A marriage between Udo and an otherwise unrecorded older daughter of Duke Frédéric provides one possible explanation. If that is correct, Udo would have married before he was named at Limburg in 1061, and presumably his supposed wife would still have been alive in 1065 when Udo succeeded as avocat of Saint-Trond. For hyperlinking purposes only, this case would be: m ([before 1061]) --- de Luxembourg, daughter of Frédéric Duke of Lower Lotharingia [Luxembourg] & his first wife Gerberge de Boulogne ([1030/45]-after 1065).
Under Alternative (2), Hendrik would have been the son of Jutta [Judith], known daughter of Frédéric de Luxembourg Duke of Lower Lotharingia, by an unknown husband. Kupper suggests that Udo Graaf van Limburg was the unknown husband. For hyperlinking purposes only, this case would be: m Jutta [Judith] de Luxembourg, daughter of Frédéric Duke of Lower Lotharingia [Luxembourg] & his first wife Gerberge de Boulogne. Kupperâs hypothesis is not entirely satisfactory. While this possible identification is an obvious one as Udo was Hendrikâs immediate predecessor in Limburg, Hendrik inherited Limburg from his mother whoever his father was. In addition, the absence of the name Udo among Hendrikâs known descendants also appears to suggest some doubt about his possible identification as Juttaâs husband. A further point is that, after Udo died, Hendrik did not inherit the advocacy of Saint-Trond, which passed to Otto de Looz Comte de Duras. The advocacy in fact passed from Ottoâs son Giselbert to Hendrikâs son Walram in [1124/27], which suggests the resolution of a long-standing dispute which may be understandable if Hendrikâs right was not inherited from Udo in a direct line.
[Jutta & her husband (whoever he was) had [two] children]:
HENDRIK [I] van Limburg (-1119).
KONRAD von Merheim (-after 1088).
 Ernst (1847), Tome VI, XXI, p. 106.
 Gestorum Abbatem Trudonensium Continuatio Tertia 1060, MGH SS X, p. 386.
 Bertholet, J. (1743) Histoire de Luxembourg, Tome III, Preuves, p. xxix.
 Saint-Trond, Tome I, XVII, p. 24.
 Kupper âLimbourg-sur-Vesdreâ (2007), p. 624.
 Annales necrologici Prumienses, 1078, MGH SS XIII, p. 222.
 Kupper âLimbourg-sur-Vesdreâ (2007), p. 629.