Paternity of Vermudo II of Leon

[taf]

I have previously raised the issue here of the paternity of Vermudo II. He is known from chronicles and contemporary documents as the son of king Ordono. The problem is that there were two kings of that name in the preceding generation, Ordono III, son of king Ramiro II, and Ordono IV, son of king Alfonso (usually identified with Alfonso IV, brother of Ramiro II, both being sons of Ordono II, although a minority opinion would make Ordono IV the son of Alfonso Fruelaz, son of Fruela II and briefly king or anti-king in opposition to the sons of Ordono II). The traditional derivation of Vermudo II has been as son of Ordono III, but from time to time a scholar will argue that his father was instead Ordono IV.

Not so. A published charter has come to my attention that makes the relationship explicit. A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II). This allows us to dismiss the alternative descent, and the various implications that would flow from it.

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:34:07 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> I have previously raised the issue here of the paternity of Vermudo II. He is known from chronicles and contemporary documents as the son of king Ordono. The problem is that there were two kings of that name in the preceding generation, Ordono III, son of king Ramiro II, and Ordono IV, son of king Alfonso (usually identified with Alfonso IV, brother of Ramiro II, both being sons of Ordono II, although a minority opinion would make Ordono IV the son of Alfonso Fruelaz, son of Fruela II and briefly king or anti-king in opposition to the sons of Ordono II). The traditional derivation of Vermudo II has been as son of Ordono III, but from time to time a scholar will argue that his father was instead Ordono IV.
>
> Not so. A published charter has come to my attention that makes the relationship explicit. A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II). This allows us to dismiss the alternative descent, and the various implications that would flow from it.

Spectacular. Thank you for reporting this discovery.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:34:07 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> Not so. A published charter has come to my attention that makes the relationship explicit. A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II). This allows us to dismiss the alternative descent, and the various implications that would flow from it.
>

Todd: Do you have an opinion on how far the male-line ancestry of Vermudo (II) can be extended reliably? Back to Vermudo I? His father Fruela, or grandfather Pedro? Or even farther?

--Joe C

[taf]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Todd: Do you have an opinion on how far the male-line ancestry of Vermudo
> (II) can be extended reliably? Back to Vermudo I? His father Fruela, or
> grandfather Pedro? Or even farther?

With absolute reliability, I would say Ramiro I. He arose as kinsman of Alfonso, but his pedigree comes from a chronicle not written until his grandson's time (traditionally, by his grandson). The situation is analogous to Ecgbert of England - the sources from Alfred the Great's time place him in the male line of king Ine, but there is some concern that the pedigree was massaged. The same applies here. Is the pedigree given him authentic, or have liberties been taken? Chronology of the traditional pedigree seems a little off, Ramiro seemingly significantly younger than Alfonso II, yet supposedly of the same generation. The other questions raised are due to him being referred to as nephew of Alfonso II, which if you use the word in the modern sense would require a revision of the pedigree, but at the time in question, 'nephew' could extend to 'younger male kinsman' so this doesn't seem a strong reason to overturn the pedigree. Also the description of the battle in 816 lost by Velasco the Gascon, it seems to be calling Alfonso II the maternal nephew of Vermudo, which likewise does not match the accepted relationship, leading some to suggest that the Vermudo who was supposedly father of Ramiro was not the same as king Vermudo.

My opinion on all of this is that if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound. If you are willing to accept the late source, you are pretty much committed to it. Once you start rejecting pieces of it, you can't trust any.

Finally, as to the ancestry of Pedro, none of it is trustworthy, full stop.

taf

[taf]

A year ago I posted about this charter in which Vermudo II of Leon names his father Ordono, confirming a grant made by "avus nostro dominus Ranemirus" - our 'grandfather' Ramiro, seemingly resolving the dispute about which king Ordono was his father, that it was Ordono III Ramirez and not Ordono IV Alfonso. Well, as might have been expected, the proponent of the alternative hypothesis has decided to explain this away as meaning something different. Indeed, he gives two alternative explanations, both relating to the imprecision of the term 'avus' and its cognates.

In a 2014 article on the ancestry of Vermudo II, Manuel Carriedo Tejedo concludes that avus here does not mean grandfather. First he points to other cases where the term is used for a great-grandfather. He takes this to mean that in the charter in question, he may have been referring to great-great-great-great-grandfather, Ramiro I, in other words, that it is being used as 'ancestor'. (This seems unlikely to me, in that I don't recall ever seeing the word used for a relationship this remote.) Secondly, he points to a charter in which Vermudo refers to 'auus noster domnus Rudesindus episcopus' - calling Saint Bishop Rosendo avus when clearly 'grandfather' in the biological sense is not an option. He raises the possibility that the term might be used as ancestor to refer more broadly to a predecessor in the family - that it might refer to Ramiro II not as a direct ancestor but as first cousin of his grandfather.

I would say that this cannot be definitively answered unless a charter is found naming Vermudo's mother, but even that would likely fall short - Ordono III and Ordono IV married the same woman, Urraca Fernandez of Castile.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5710005

taf

[Peter Stewart]

The full article is available here:

http://www.annuariumsanctiiacobi.org/sites/annuariumsanctiiacobi.org/files/la_ascendencia_de_vermudo_ii_982-999.pdf

Peter Stewart

[MaraGM]

Just wanted to mention another charter which would confirm that Vermudo was the son of Ordoño III and grandson of Ramiro II of León. On 29 June 997, Vermudo confirms to the Mon. of San Vicenzo de Pombeiro (charter 3, pp 56-58) various donations made by his ancestors. He explicitly mentions two "amitas" (paternal aunts), Teresa and Elvira. Teresa (Ramírez) would be his paternal aunt, daughter of Ramiro II and Adosinda who was married to García Sánchez I of Pamplona, whereas Elvira (Ramírez), also his paternal aunt, was the daughter of Ramiro II and his second wife, Urraca (daughter of Sancho Garcés I of Pamplona.

Mara González

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 9:57:18 AM UTC-8, MaraGM wrote:
> Just wanted to mention another charter which would confirm
> that Vermudo was the son of Ordoño III and grandson of
> Ramiro II of León. On 29 June 997, Vermudo confirms to
> the Mon. of San Vicenzo de Pombeiro (charter 3, pp 56-58)
> various donations made by his ancestors. He explicitly
> mentions two "amitas" (paternal aunts), Teresa and Elvira.
> Teresa (Ramírez) would be his paternal aunt, daughter of
> Ramiro II and Adosinda who was married to García Sánchez
> I of Pamplona, whereas Elvira (Ramírez), also his paternal
> aunt, was the daughter of Ramiro II and his second wife,
> Urraca (daughter of Sancho Garcés I of Pamplona.

Nothing that can't be dismissed with another convoluted increasingly-desperate ad hoc explanation.

Seriously, though, we don't know much about Ordoño IV's siblings, particularly when we take into account the alternative view that he was son of Alfonso Fruelaz. He may well have had a sister Elvira. However, Teresa was an unusual name. I am unaware of any prior example of the name's use in the royal family (please let me know if I am wrong here), nor its use in any other branch.

That being said, we do have Teresa Eriz, wife of Gonzalo Betotez, who lived through the 930s. She was part of the Galician nobility from which the Astur-Leon kings drew their domestic wives. Notably, Teresa Eriz was mother of queen Aragonta Gonzalez, who was briefly wife of Ordoño II, Ramiro's father. Though Aragonta was not mother of Ramiro II, he may still have formed a familial relationship with his 'step-grandmother' that inspired his daughter's name. That being said, Alfonso IV was similarly step-grandson of Teresa Eriz, so if this served as motivation for Ramiro, it could just as well have served as motivation for Alfonso, and Ordoño IV could have had such a sister. And I am unaware of anything documented regarding whom Alfonso Fruelaz may have married, if he even married.

An alternative ad hoc hypothesis is that the document is guilty of incorrect precision, that while Elvira was a paternal aunt, Teresa was a maternal aunt - that this was Teresa Pelaez, daughter of Pelayo Gonzalez (granddaughter of the same Teresa Eriz). I say this not as a serious proposal, just to try to think how this evidence will be explained away.

What is the precise language used? Is the order as you have given it above, Teresa then Elvira?

taf

[MaraGM]

Teresa is mentioned first (besides other relatives and ancestors). Here are the quotes:
"Intra utrasque eremitas parti dantur in ipso monte per medium, siue et omnes hereditates, quas testatuit amita nostra domna Teresia ad Palumbairo".

Mentions Teresa again in the same terms regarding another property he confirms to the monastery. Later, after he makes all the confirmations of these properties that had been donated by ancestors, he accepts from the monks a silver "vasuum" (glass) and an "imaginatum" "quod fuit de amita nostra regina domina Geluira diuae memoriae, quae dederat pro anima sua in ipso monasterio". This Elvira would be the nun who was regent and appears with the title of "regina" in several charters.

Mara

[MaraGM]

ps...you say: "...we don't know much about Ordoño IV's siblings, particularly when we take into account the alternative view that he was son of Alfonso Fruelaz" Teresa and Elvira would not be Ordoño IV's siblings, they would be Ordoño III's siblings, both daughters of Ramiro II and paternal aunts of Vermudo II.

[MaraGM]

Again, this would corroborate your first post in this thread: "A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II)."

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:00:49 AM UTC-8, MaraGM wrote:
>
> ps...you say: "...we don't know much about Ordoño IV's siblings,
> particularly when we take into account the alternative view that
> he was son of Alfonso Fruelaz" Teresa and Elvira would not be
> Ordoño IV's siblings, they would be Ordoño III's siblings, both
> daughters of Ramiro II and paternal aunts of Vermudo II.

Sorry I wasn't clear - I was going down Carriedo Tejedo's rabbit-hole. These documents are consistent with Vermudo being son of Ordoño III, who had known sisters Elvira and Teresa, but to be definitive it would require us to also know that Ordoño IV had no such siblings, and I don't think we know enough about IV's siblings to conclude the latter with certainty. Just playing devil's (or Carriedo's) advocate.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:07:26 AM UTC-8, MaraGM wrote:

> Again, this would corroborate your first post in this thread:
> "A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria de Carracedo,
> issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, . . .
> quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is
> Vermudo (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II)."

A document Carriedo Tejedo dismisses by concluding that "avus noster" was being used, not to refer to 'grandfather' but instead imprecisely to refer to 'ancestor', which he then extends even further to have it describe Ramiro II, not as literal grandfather or even literal ancestor, but kinsman-predecessor, his grandfather's first cousin and his forerunner as king (which would be a decidedly unusual usage of avus).

As we have talked about here before, one should make the hypothesis fit the data, not make the data fit the hypothesis, and I think the latter is what Carriedo Tejedo is doing.

taf

[MaraGM]

Yes, but... the fact that he calls Elvira (Ramírez) his paternal aunt "regina", which she was often called in charters even though she was not a queen but regent, I just can't think of any other "regina" Elvira who would fit that description. We know that Ramiro II was the father of that Elvira "regina" who was regent during the minority of Ramiro III after his father Sancho I's death in 966.

Mara

[MaraGM]

Our messages crossed, the above is replying to your your earlier message.

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:39:32 AM UTC-8, MaraGM wrote:

> Yes, but... the fact that he calls Elvira (Ramírez) his
> paternal aunt "regina",

Yeah, that's going to be hard to explain away, but I guess if 'avus' can mean grandfather's first cousin, who knows what 'amita' can be turned into.

taf