info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Angelina de Grecia
257 views
Skip to first unread message
NiCubano
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
I am trying to identify a person known as ANGELINA DE GRECIA, (Angelina of
Greece). She was one of the captive "princesses?" of Tamerlane, that was sent
to Spain, where she married Diego González de Contreras y Guzmán.
Greece). She was one of the captive "princesses?" of Tamerlane, that was sent
to Spain, where she married Diego González de Contreras y Guzmán.
She was said to be the daughter of one Conde Juan de Ungría (Count John of
Hungary). And granddaughter of King Andrés(?).
And who was this Count John of Hungary?
Any ideas?
Thank you,
Nicolás de Cárdenas.
John Yohalem
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
NiCubano wrote in message <19990908094529...@ng-fl1.aol.com>...
Can you give us a year on this?
The last King Endre of Hungary died in 1301, sine prole.
It is unlikely that he would have had a granddaughter young enough to have
been captured by Tamerlane. WHere is he said to have captured a European
princess? He never was in Europe in his life.
The whole thing sounds mighty mythical to me.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Opera depends on the happy fiction that feeling can be sustained over
impossibly long stretches of time." -- Joseph Kerman
NiCubano
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
>WHere is he said to have captured a European
>princess? He never was in Europe in his life.
>princess? He never was in Europe in his life.
According to the information that I have she was first capture by "Bayaceto"
when he raided Hungary, 1395-1396. "Bayaceto" in turn was defeated in 1397 by
Tamerlane, near the "monte Estela", and took her prisoner, along with tw
others, maybe sisters: Maria and Catalina. All ended up in Spain. Maria
married Payo Gomez de Sotomayor and Catalina married Hernan Sanchez de
Palenzuelos.
I don't know who this "Bayaceto" was, nor the location of "monte Estela" were
Tamerlaine defeated him.
Thank you,
Nicolás.
Brant Gibbard
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
On 11 Sep 1999 20:42:43 GMT, nicu...@aol.com (NiCubano) wrote:
>I don't know who this "Bayaceto" was, nor the location of "monte Estela" were
>Tamerlaine defeated him.
>
That would be the Turkish Sultan Bayezid I, who ruled from 1389 to
1402. He was defeated and captured by Tamerlane at the battle of
Ankara.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.
NiCubano
Sep 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/12/99
to
Thank you Brant!
Nic.
John Yohalem
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
--
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Saepe fidelis"
NiCubano wrote in message <19990912080257...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>Thank you Brant!
>
>Nic.
The capture of Bayezid "the Thunderbolt" was a major event in European
history -- he was about to conquer Constantinople, which instead held out
for another half century. Tamurlane is said to have kept the Sultan in a
cage until the poor man committed suicide. Tamerlane died abruptly in 1405,
as he was about to undertake the conquest of China, and his empire promptly
fell apart. This permitted the squabbling sons of Bayezid to put their
empire together again.
Legends that Bayezid had a daughter or other female companions along for the
ride, and that these ladies married Tamurlane or his sons, or had other
adventures, have filled European lore ever since, inspiring many a classic
tragedy and opera libretto.
There is no truth to any of them, and Angelina, Maria and Catalina are quite
fictitious.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Saepe fidelis"
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2016, 10:13:16 AM7/17/16
to
El dijous, 16 setembre de 1999 9:00:00 UTC+2, John Yohalem va escriure:
I know that it's been a long time since this post was started, but I wanted to clarify some facts. According to historians and scholars, Angelina and her sister* Maria did exist. We have different documented sources ("many" taking into account the times) in which she is depicted as a real character, from Argote de Molina's investigation to Seville's municipal accounts (where they disembarked and were included in the register of the city, even recording what they had eaten for meals) to documents such as those found in King Felipe IV's counsil and a letter to Francisco Imperial's poems referring to Angelina, and others found in the Cancionero de Baena, to recent studies by reputable experts like Malkiel or Nepaulsingh. So in this case we find many texts that attest to the veracity of the facts.
Thus, Angelina had a very important influence in medieval Spanish literature and even in the XIX century she was mentioned in novels such as Larra's El doncel de don Enrique el Doliente.
Sadly, it is difficult to know more about her identity, since she could be part of the royal family of either Hungary, Wallachia, Galicia (in Eastern Europe, not Spain) or any other kingdom of the period. Malkiel proposes that Angelina was probably related to the Angelos dynasty from Greek origins and to another prominent/royal family from Hungarian (or surrounding territories) origins.
I hope this gives more information on this interesting topic. Obviously, the possibilities mentioned above about their origins are simple assumptions, but what is clear is that they existed.
_____
*Some historians state that they were not sisters, but that Angelina was a member of a royal family and Maria a maiden (based on some writings and records). However, we will not be categorical on this and follow the oldest text, which says that they were sisters.
Thus, Angelina had a very important influence in medieval Spanish literature and even in the XIX century she was mentioned in novels such as Larra's El doncel de don Enrique el Doliente.
Sadly, it is difficult to know more about her identity, since she could be part of the royal family of either Hungary, Wallachia, Galicia (in Eastern Europe, not Spain) or any other kingdom of the period. Malkiel proposes that Angelina was probably related to the Angelos dynasty from Greek origins and to another prominent/royal family from Hungarian (or surrounding territories) origins.
I hope this gives more information on this interesting topic. Obviously, the possibilities mentioned above about their origins are simple assumptions, but what is clear is that they existed.
_____
*Some historians state that they were not sisters, but that Angelina was a member of a royal family and Maria a maiden (based on some writings and records). However, we will not be categorical on this and follow the oldest text, which says that they were sisters.
taf
Jul 17, 2016, 3:12:53 PM7/17/16
to
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:13:16 AM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that it's been a long time since this post was started, but I wanted
> to clarify some facts. According to historians and scholars, Angelina and
> her sister* Maria did exist. We have different documented sources ("many"
> taking into account the times) in which she is depicted as a real character,
> from Argote de Molina's investigation to Seville's municipal accounts (where
> they disembarked and were included in the register of the city, even
> recording what they had eaten for meals) to documents such as those found in
> King Felipe IV's counsil and a letter to Francisco Imperial's poems
> referring to Angelina, and others found in the Cancionero de Baena, to
> recent studies by reputable experts like Malkiel or Nepaulsingh. So in this
> case we find many texts that attest to the veracity of the facts.
I would be hesitant to take these accounts at face value. Argote de Molina was writing 200 years after the fact, and I doubt the municipal records specified the genealogy of the women being fed. There is a historical trope that tends to elevate the status of foreign strangers, such that a noblewoman becomes a princess. Likewise a simple story tends to be built upon and elaborated, connecting the people to the most famous individuals in the region from which they derived. I don't think the existence of these women need be doubted, but I remain skeptical of their supposed biographies and genealogies.
> I know that it's been a long time since this post was started, but I wanted
> to clarify some facts. According to historians and scholars, Angelina and
> her sister* Maria did exist. We have different documented sources ("many"
> taking into account the times) in which she is depicted as a real character,
> from Argote de Molina's investigation to Seville's municipal accounts (where
> they disembarked and were included in the register of the city, even
> recording what they had eaten for meals) to documents such as those found in
> King Felipe IV's counsil and a letter to Francisco Imperial's poems
> referring to Angelina, and others found in the Cancionero de Baena, to
> recent studies by reputable experts like Malkiel or Nepaulsingh. So in this
> case we find many texts that attest to the veracity of the facts.
> Thus, Angelina had a very important influence in medieval Spanish literature
> and even in the XIX century she was mentioned in novels such as Larra's El
> doncel de don Enrique el Doliente.
> Sadly, it is difficult to know more about her identity, since she could be
> part of the royal family of either Hungary, Wallachia, Galicia (in Eastern
> Europe, not Spain) or any other kingdom of the period.
taf
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2016, 4:23:33 PM7/17/16
to
El diumenge, 17 juliol de 2016 21:12:53 UTC+2, taf va escriure:
Thanks for your answer, taf.
I just wanted to clarify that this figure really existed (being Angelina a princess, a noblewoman, or belonging to any other social class), according to texts of her times. Yes, Molina is not contemporary of hers, since he published his text in 1782, you are right. However, the letter written by a "Greek prince" dates of her times (this letter is now in El Escorial). Was he a prince? We will never know.
It is true that they arrived to the king of Spain and that she was registered in Seville. The document of her arrival does contain the dishes they ate, highlighting above all the "horseradish thistles", which she loved. (This document was published in an edition for the public by Mercedes Gaibrois de Ballesteros in 1940 with information on the embassy). And in the same city Imperial wrote the poems about her.
As you said, the existence of these women does not need to be doubted. All the same, the only thing we can know about them is that these women were captured by Timur from Bayezid I and that Angelina married Diego González de Contreras, the governing of Segovia. Their offspring have Hungarian, Greek and Spanish names until today.
Did Bayezid take these women in the battle of Nikopolis? In a siege of a city or a village? Were they princesses? Were they nobles? Undoubtedly, it is rather impossible to know their origins.
PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the granddaughter of the king of Hungary. Maybe this refers to a governor or another charge even in another region such as Galicia (region which coincides with the coat of arms of her tomb)? Again, we cannot know.
I just wanted to clarify that this figure really existed (being Angelina a princess, a noblewoman, or belonging to any other social class), according to texts of her times. Yes, Molina is not contemporary of hers, since he published his text in 1782, you are right. However, the letter written by a "Greek prince" dates of her times (this letter is now in El Escorial). Was he a prince? We will never know.
It is true that they arrived to the king of Spain and that she was registered in Seville. The document of her arrival does contain the dishes they ate, highlighting above all the "horseradish thistles", which she loved. (This document was published in an edition for the public by Mercedes Gaibrois de Ballesteros in 1940 with information on the embassy). And in the same city Imperial wrote the poems about her.
As you said, the existence of these women does not need to be doubted. All the same, the only thing we can know about them is that these women were captured by Timur from Bayezid I and that Angelina married Diego González de Contreras, the governing of Segovia. Their offspring have Hungarian, Greek and Spanish names until today.
Did Bayezid take these women in the battle of Nikopolis? In a siege of a city or a village? Were they princesses? Were they nobles? Undoubtedly, it is rather impossible to know their origins.
PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the granddaughter of the king of Hungary. Maybe this refers to a governor or another charge even in another region such as Galicia (region which coincides with the coat of arms of her tomb)? Again, we cannot know.
taf
Jul 17, 2016, 4:52:07 PM7/17/16
to
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote:
> PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count John
> (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count named John
> (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the granddaughter of
> the king of Hungary.
Is the tomb contemporary, or was it installed later on, after the legend may have begun to develop?
> PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count John
> (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count named John
> (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the granddaughter of
> the king of Hungary.
taf
Peter Stewart
Jul 17, 2016, 8:14:50 PM7/17/16
to
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jul 18, 2016, 5:09:13 AM7/18/16
to
Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph.
This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage.
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 18, 2016, 6:53:11 AM7/18/16
to
El dilluns, 18 juliol de 2016 11:09:13 UTC+2, Peter Stewart va escriure:
I guess it is contemporary of hers, as the epitaph already appears at the time of her children.
Yes, Juan de Contreras wrote this book in 1913, where he says that her husband and –later on– she were buried in a monastery next to the actual church (a monastery which is now the university of Segovia), but when the Catholic monarchs took ownership of the monastery, both tombs were moved to the church where they can still be found. It seems that the author of this book had documents related to the ladies since he was the owner of the household in which Angelina lived in Spain, but obviously I cannot say whether this is true or not. Moreover, the author had 18 years old at the time (I do not mean that one cannot be a good historian at that age) and 40 years later he published a revised version of this which seems to be more reliable. Regrettably it is in the museum of Segovia and I have not found a digital or any paper version of it in a library, just researches citing it.
Let’s take for example the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (I take this just as an example of the complexity of this topic and because Angelina’s coat of arms and the possible location near Hungary match, not because this is something I have explored in-depth). Angelina is a very common name for the members of the Angelos dynasty (before her arrival in Spain she was also known as Angelina, as Turkish documents concerning Bayezid I mention an Angelina and a Maria captured from a Hungarian count Janos), and this kingdom was once ruled by members of this Greek family. Could she be descendant of this family? Even more, maybe she was not a “granddaughter” but a “great-great-daugher” as a text suggests. Also, at the times it seems that the marriage between Greek/Byzantine princesses and Balkan lords was something usual, which makes things more complicated.
Either way, there are texts dealing with Angelina which are in private collections (at least two of them), and I do not think we can know more about it. I just wanted to share some texts I found and contrast opinions and views on it.
It is not that the fact of knowing more about these characters is something crucial, but I found this interesting while I was reading and so I started exploring on it.
Yes, Juan de Contreras wrote this book in 1913, where he says that her husband and –later on– she were buried in a monastery next to the actual church (a monastery which is now the university of Segovia), but when the Catholic monarchs took ownership of the monastery, both tombs were moved to the church where they can still be found. It seems that the author of this book had documents related to the ladies since he was the owner of the household in which Angelina lived in Spain, but obviously I cannot say whether this is true or not. Moreover, the author had 18 years old at the time (I do not mean that one cannot be a good historian at that age) and 40 years later he published a revised version of this which seems to be more reliable. Regrettably it is in the museum of Segovia and I have not found a digital or any paper version of it in a library, just researches citing it.
> This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage.
>
Yes. That is why some say that she could be from Wallachia or Transylvania (more exposed to the war) or whichever territory in Eastern Europe (which is not a small place, to say). But notice that the epitaph says “Here lies Doña Angelina of Greece, daughter of Count John (or Ivan), granddaughter of the king of Hungary, wife of Diego González de Contreras, governor of this city”. She is described most of the times as Greek or from Greece, and her offspring (until today) have both Hungarian and Greek names, which is something very peculiar in Spain. Why should we suppose that Count John was Hungarian and not Greek (maybe Angelina’s mother was Hungarian)? Also, it might even not be Hungary or Greece: she could come from any other territory from Bulgaria to Serbia to the Byzantine Empire, all of them could be called Hungary and Greece by Spaniards since these two distant countries were probably best known in Spain than any other from Eastern Europe (Hungary was a very big kingdom at the time in terms of territories).
>
Let’s take for example the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (I take this just as an example of the complexity of this topic and because Angelina’s coat of arms and the possible location near Hungary match, not because this is something I have explored in-depth). Angelina is a very common name for the members of the Angelos dynasty (before her arrival in Spain she was also known as Angelina, as Turkish documents concerning Bayezid I mention an Angelina and a Maria captured from a Hungarian count Janos), and this kingdom was once ruled by members of this Greek family. Could she be descendant of this family? Even more, maybe she was not a “granddaughter” but a “great-great-daugher” as a text suggests. Also, at the times it seems that the marriage between Greek/Byzantine princesses and Balkan lords was something usual, which makes things more complicated.
Either way, there are texts dealing with Angelina which are in private collections (at least two of them), and I do not think we can know more about it. I just wanted to share some texts I found and contrast opinions and views on it.
It is not that the fact of knowing more about these characters is something crucial, but I found this interesting while I was reading and so I started exploring on it.
Peter Stewart via
Jul 18, 2016, 7:43:34 AM7/18/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 18/07/2016 8:53 PM, tempusratio via wrote:
>
>> This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage.
>>
> Yes. That is why some say that she could be from Wallachia or Transylvania (more exposed to the war) or whichever territory in Eastern Europe (which is not a small place, to say). But notice that the epitaph says “Here lies Doña Angelina of Greece, daughter of Count John (or Ivan), granddaughter of the king of Hungary, wife of Diego González de Contreras, governor of this city”. She is described most of the times as Greek or from Greece, and her offspring (until today) have both Hungarian and Greek names, which is something very peculiar in Spain. Why should we suppose that Count John was Hungarian and not Greek (maybe Angelina’s mother was Hungarian)? Also, it might even not be Hungary or Greece: she could come from any other territory from Bulgaria to Serbia to the Byzantine Empire, all of them could be called Hungary and Greece by Spaniards since these two distant countries were probably best known in Spain than any other from Eastern Europe (Hungary was a very big kingdom at the time in terms of territories).
> Let’s take for example the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (I take this just as an example of the complexity of this topic and because Angelina’s coat of arms and the possible location near Hungary match, not because this is something I have explored in-depth). Angelina is a very common name for the members of the Angelos dynasty (before her arrival in Spain she was also known as Angelina, as Turkish documents concerning Bayezid I mention an Angelina and a Maria captured from a Hungarian count Janos), and this kingdom was once ruled by members of this Greek family. Could she be descendant of this family? Even more, maybe she was not a “granddaughter” but a “great-great-daugher” as a text suggests. Also, at the times it seems that the marriage between Greek/Byzantine princesses and Balkan lords was something usual, which makes things more complicated.
not a given name for them, it was rather the feminine form of the
surname Angelos.
If she was actually related to any former Byzantine imperial kindred,
yet her children thought that her most imposing relationship was to a
king of "Hungary", she would not be the only Greek lady who cultivated
mystery about her family background. Eudokia of Montpellier, for a
notable instance from a few centuries earlier, was closely enough
related to a Komnenos emperor to be considered worthy of marriage to a
foreign king, and a troubadour even called her "empress" suggesting that
she enjoyed if not initiated exaggeration of her bloodline, but we can
only guess at her parentage.
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 18, 2016, 8:42:44 AM7/18/16
to
I suggested the Angelos family because the text by Melkiel (by the way, thanks for sharing) exposes it as a possibility and I found members of this family named Angelina and the compound name Maria Angelina even centuries after the dynasty ended, but of course I am not an expert on this at all, it was just an idea. The text also suggests that she could be the daughter of an illegitimate son of the Hungarian royal family, but there is no reference on an illegitimate son that could correspond to her.
I looked for the coat of arms of her family (a rampant golden lion in an azur field), but I did not find it -at least in these colours- and it is far from similar to the Hungarian one, I think.
What we know for sure is that she was in Bayezid I harem (newer texts say that she was kidnapped in the battle of Nikopol (Nicopolis), but this could have happened in a siege of another city or even given to Bayezid as a concubine after been defeated by him, we cannot know) and that Timur captured her in the battle of Ankara, where the Spanish embassy sent by Henry III of Spain was. Timur gave different presents for the sympathy of the king, and among these gifts were Angelina and Maria (it seems that there were up to 4 women, but only Angelina of Greece is named by name in the registry of Seville, although it does say that there were other women). In Seville Francisco Imperial witnessed their arrival and wrote different poems which probably Angelina and her family would have never read. When the embassy entered to the king, he managed to marry Angelina with the governor of the city.
About her past... everything is a mystery, so we can only guess. If someday I find any interesting information I will share it here, so we can discuss further on this.
I looked for the coat of arms of her family (a rampant golden lion in an azur field), but I did not find it -at least in these colours- and it is far from similar to the Hungarian one, I think.
What we know for sure is that she was in Bayezid I harem (newer texts say that she was kidnapped in the battle of Nikopol (Nicopolis), but this could have happened in a siege of another city or even given to Bayezid as a concubine after been defeated by him, we cannot know) and that Timur captured her in the battle of Ankara, where the Spanish embassy sent by Henry III of Spain was. Timur gave different presents for the sympathy of the king, and among these gifts were Angelina and Maria (it seems that there were up to 4 women, but only Angelina of Greece is named by name in the registry of Seville, although it does say that there were other women). In Seville Francisco Imperial witnessed their arrival and wrote different poems which probably Angelina and her family would have never read. When the embassy entered to the king, he managed to marry Angelina with the governor of the city.
About her past... everything is a mystery, so we can only guess. If someday I find any interesting information I will share it here, so we can discuss further on this.
Peter Stewart via
Jul 18, 2016, 7:23:03 PM7/18/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 18/07/2016 10:42 PM, tempusratio via wrote:
> I suggested the Angelos family because the text by Melkiel (by the way, thanks for sharing) exposes it as a possibility and I found members of this family named Angelina and the compound name Maria Angelina even centuries after the dynasty ended, but of course I am not an expert on this at all, it was just an idea.
and surname, not a compound name in the sense of two given names.
Most of the later members of the Angelos family did not even use this as
a surname, or at least not only this - they tended to draw on grander
connections, preferring to be known as Doukas and/or Komnenos (usually
both).
As this lady was buried under the name "Angelina de Grecia" it would
seem that her children considered Angelina to be her baptismal name and
did not know any other surname for her than a vague cultural/geographic
descriptor. This would appear to me rather strange if she actually came
from an important family. The present king of Spain, for instance, might
call his mother Sophia de Grecia (or Grecia y Dinamarca), but he would
be perfectly aware that this is just an outdated royal convention and
insofar as she has a definite surname this would be
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.
Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Jul 18, 2016, 10:16:07 PM7/18/16
to
Now, enter the realm of just unlikeness, had John lived to adulthood he would have probably been the ideal candidate for being the father of NN [Angelina] (I haven't touched this topic for more than 20 years, at one point I was interested because my maternal family descends more than once from the alleged sister, Maria, married or not to Payo Gómez de Sotomayor). To me it's easier to think that her first name was maybe unintelligible for Castilian speakers, so Angelina stuck with her, maybe pointing to her mother's lineage.
Anyway, as I said, I haven't been dealing with this for a long, very long, time. However, the new Enciclopedia Gallega, under Payo Gómez de Sotomayor and under the rather extensive article devoted to the Sotomayor family, calls Angelina's [alleged] sister Juana de Hungría-Eslavonia...as I'm immersed in other projects I just noted that and it's in a long list of "to do" things for the future (I'd like to check the sources used by the Enciclopedia Gallega).
Peter Stewart via
Jul 18, 2016, 11:06:36 PM7/18/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 19/07/2016 12:15 PM, J.L. Fernandez Blanco via wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:09:13 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:52:07 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count
>>>> John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count
>>>> named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the
>>>> granddaughter > > of the king of Hungary.
>>> Is the tomb contemporary, or was it installed later on, after the legend
>>> may have begun to develop?
>> Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333
>> Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph.
>>
>> This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> Yes, there was, but he died (apparently) in childhood. King Charles Robert of Hungary had, by his 4th wife (Elizabeth of Poland), Prince Stephen, Duke of Transylvania, Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia, who married Margareta, a daughter of Emperor Ludwig IV, his only son WAS called JOHN, he is registered as born in 1354 and died in 1363. John's sister, Elizabeth was the second wife of Philip II, Titular Emperor of "Romania" (Constantinople) and Prince of Tarento.
> Now, enter the realm of just unlikeness, had John lived to adulthood he would have probably been the ideal candidate for being the father of NN [Angelina] (I haven't touched this topic for more than 20 years, at one point I was interested because my maternal family descends more than once from the alleged sister, Maria, married or not to Payo Gómez de Sotomayor). To me it's easier to think that her first name was maybe unintelligible for Castilian speakers, so Angelina stuck with her, maybe pointing to her mother's lineage.
Slavonia", that was inherited and used by his elder sister Elisabeth. In
view of this, and his death at a young age, he is obviously not a
candidate to have been anyone's father and I repeat that there was no
count John in the Hungarian royal family.
In any case "Angelina de Grecia" is not equivalent to "NN [Angelina]".
As I pointed out before, Angelina was the given name under which she was
buried, i.e. her baptismal name by which she would be known in eternity,
not her own or her mother's surname.
The alleged sister Maria was a much later concoction, as discussed in
the article by Kahane and Malkiel that was cited (and linked) before.
Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Jul 19, 2016, 1:38:58 AM7/19/16
to
Peter Stewart via
Jul 19, 2016, 2:43:59 AM7/19/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Hungarian branch) was Charles the Lame's youngest son, who was count of
Gravina from 1315 before he became prince of Achaia by marriage.
Onomastics may be useful in narrowing down Angelina de Grecia's likely
place of origin - is there anywhere in Eastern Europe where Angelina
occurs as a given name in the late-14th century?
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 7:28:07 AM7/19/16
to
Exactly, this is the first John I found, yet he died in infancy.
He also says that in Hungary she was known as Sengil and that she was imprisoned in the battle of Nicopolis at the age of 15 (pages 38, 39; 18, 19 of the edition). However, the sources that the writer cites seem to be from a private library or collection, since I cannot find them. As I said, there is a new version of this book in Segovia and in the archives of the Royal Academy of History in Madrid.
Even if there were digitized documents concerning Maria and Angelina (which I doubt), they would be very difficult to find, as these would be handwritten and their names would not appear in such databases. It would be an arduous task looking for something that maybe has disappeared.
http://mobiroderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/50724/TESIS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
This document from the University of Valencia has some other possible origins (on page 131), even that Angelina could be Maria Radoslava Angelina.
__________
*She belonged to the Nemanjić family, which controlled territories of Greece, Serbia and other parts next to Hungary. Some daughters of this family were given/captured by Bayezid I, such as Mileva Olivera Lazarević (Lazarević is a cadet branch of the Nemanjić family). Would it be possible that Angelina, perhaps being just a child when she was captured and probably without any knowledge of Spanish, exposed her origins mentioning the names of the places in her own language and pronunciation, and that there was a confusion between Hungary and one of these territories?
There was also a Maria in the court of Bayezid, but she was the daughter of the Count of Salona and a Greek family (at the time Catalans had power in the area).
>> Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333
>> Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph.
In this book the author on page 21 (page 1 of the edition) states that they were the daughters of the cousin of King Sigismund, and on page 37 (page 17 of the edition) that their father was count Ivan son of king Andrew.
>> Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph.
He also says that in Hungary she was known as Sengil and that she was imprisoned in the battle of Nicopolis at the age of 15 (pages 38, 39; 18, 19 of the edition). However, the sources that the writer cites seem to be from a private library or collection, since I cannot find them. As I said, there is a new version of this book in Segovia and in the archives of the Royal Academy of History in Madrid.
Even if there were digitized documents concerning Maria and Angelina (which I doubt), they would be very difficult to find, as these would be handwritten and their names would not appear in such databases. It would be an arduous task looking for something that maybe has disappeared.
http://mobiroderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/50724/TESIS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
This document from the University of Valencia has some other possible origins (on page 131), even that Angelina could be Maria Radoslava Angelina.
> Onomastics may be useful in narrowing down Angelina de Grecia's likely
> place of origin - is there anywhere in Eastern Europe where Angelina
> occurs as a given name in the late-14th century?
Not quite sure. Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina (Serbia)* or Angelina of Marsciano (Italy) are two recurrent names in books concerning this period of history. Also, the name of her father Count John or Ivan is also found as Janusz and Janos (if they refer to the same person).
> place of origin - is there anywhere in Eastern Europe where Angelina
> occurs as a given name in the late-14th century?
__________
*She belonged to the Nemanjić family, which controlled territories of Greece, Serbia and other parts next to Hungary. Some daughters of this family were given/captured by Bayezid I, such as Mileva Olivera Lazarević (Lazarević is a cadet branch of the Nemanjić family). Would it be possible that Angelina, perhaps being just a child when she was captured and probably without any knowledge of Spanish, exposed her origins mentioning the names of the places in her own language and pronunciation, and that there was a confusion between Hungary and one of these territories?
There was also a Maria in the court of Bayezid, but she was the daughter of the Count of Salona and a Greek family (at the time Catalans had power in the area).
Peter Stewart via
Jul 19, 2016, 8:06:35 AM7/19/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 19/07/2016 9:28 PM, tempusratio via wrote:
> Exactly, this is the first John I found, yet he died in infancy.
>>> Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333
>>> Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph.
> In this book the author on page 21 (page 1 of the edition) states that they were the daughters of the cousin of King Sigismund, and on page 37 (page 17 of the edition) that their father was count Ivan son of king Andrew.
1301, and his only legitimate offspring was his daughter St Elisabeth, a
nun. Even if he had an illegitimate son named John/Janos/Ivan made a
count (by whom, when?), this putative son would have been ancient when
Angelina de Grecia was born.
> He also says that in Hungary she was known as Sengil and that she was imprisoned in the battle of Nicopolis at the age of 15 (pages 38, 39; 18, 19 of the edition). However, the sources that the writer cites seem to be from a private library or collection, since I cannot find them. As I said, there is a new version of this book in Segovia and in the archives of the Royal Academy of History in Madrid.
> Even if there were digitized documents concerning Maria and Angelina (which I doubt), they would be very difficult to find, as these would be handwritten and their names would not appear in such databases. It would be an arduous task looking for something that maybe has disappeared.
> http://mobiroderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/50724/TESIS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
> This document from the University of Valencia has some other possible origins (on page 131), even that Angelina could be Maria Radoslava Angelina.
>> Onomastics may be useful in narrowing down Angelina de Grecia's likely
>> place of origin - is there anywhere in Eastern Europe where Angelina
>> occurs as a given name in the late-14th century?
> Not quite sure. Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina (Serbia)*
time delighted in such compound surnames that advertised their
connections. It must be remembered that Angelina de Grecia's children
used only this name to identify her on her tomb - medieval people were
not consigned to rise at the resurrection of the dead under their
surnames without their baptismal names. The fact that a Byzantine family
named Angelos had been important long before her time is most probably
quite irrelevant to this individual. The closest link I can find to the
royal family of Hungary is that the first wife of King Charles Martel's
younger brother Philippe belonged to the Angelos family - however, she
did not use Angelina as her surname, calling herself Komnene Doukaina
instead.
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 9:30:26 AM7/19/16
to
> This is chronologcally most implausible - Andrew the Venetian died in
> 1301, and his only legitimate offspring was his daughter St Elisabeth, a
> nun. Even if he had an illegitimate son named John/Janos/Ivan made a
> count (by whom, when?), this putative son would have been ancient when
> Angelina de Grecia was born.
I think that he is referring to Andrew of Calabria, since he says that his wife was Joanna I of Naples. Although this, I believe that they had no surviving children, if I am not wrong.
> 1301, and his only legitimate offspring was his daughter St Elisabeth, a
> nun. Even if he had an illegitimate son named John/Janos/Ivan made a
> count (by whom, when?), this putative son would have been ancient when
> Angelina de Grecia was born.
> None of this comes from a contemporary source cited by anyone else.
If these papers were of his own property I doubt other authors could have read them. I am not saying that what is contained in this book is an indubitable fact, just that there is someone claiming that these are the origins of the ladies, the same others could claim a complete different origin.
> Again, Angelina is a surname here.
I did not intend to present Angelina as a relative of any of these women, just trying to find the name "Angelina" in figures of that times to see if it was a common name (which, as you said, results in a surname in the case of Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina). This is why I would refer to the footnote I previously wrote, that Angelina could belong to a different family, not the Hungarian one.
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 10:20:34 AM7/19/16
to
J. L. Fernandez Blanco maybe this forum entry is interesting for you, since there is information on Maria:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/qXeNNFIDHmo
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/qXeNNFIDHmo
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 5:49:57 PM7/19/16
to
I have to rectify something. When I said that Angelina was known by the same name before living in Spain according to a Turkish paper I thought it was a reliable source. Nevertheless, now I am not sure about this, so I do not want to mislead anyone if I was wrong. Angelina might have be known by another name before being captured by Timur or even while she was with his captives.
Peter Stewart via
Jul 19, 2016, 6:36:45 PM7/19/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 20/07/2016 7:49 AM, tempusratio via wrote:
> I have to rectify something. When I said that Angelina was known by the same name before living in Spain according to a Turkish paper I thought it was a reliable source. Nevertheless, now I am not sure about this, so I do not want to mislead anyone if I was wrong. Angelina might have be known by another name before being captured by Timur or even while she was with his captives.
>
>
existed) could be definitively tied to the same person who turned up in
Spain, unless she was weirdly described as "Angelina de Grecia" and said
to be on her way there.
She has the feel of an impostor to me. Frauds can fool a lot of people a
lot of the time - look at what is happening in Cleveland today. For all
we know she might have called herself Princess Cariboo before being
captured by Timur. If you haven't read about this famous character
before, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Caraboo.
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 20, 2016, 5:12:07 AM7/20/16
to
This document (it is a single one) deals about Bayezid I, and when describing his harem there is an Angelina. Angelina de Grecia had previously been in this harem, this is why she ended up in Timur's hands. So it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that they are the same ladies.
I do not think Maria and Angelina lied about their origins or that they were impostors, they had nothing to gain by lying. Maria and Angelina had different paths (Maria went to Galicia and even France and Angelina remained near the court of the king), and they both agreed on their story. Henry III was convinced of she being from an important family since he became her godfather and treated her carefully, and both Mohammed (sent by Timur) and Sotomayor exposed that Angelina had been part of a ruling family (which does not mean that this family had to be necessarily the Hungarian one or that they belonged to the royal house -they might have been relatives, but not from the royal family- or even this dynasty had ended time ago and they were descendants of the former rulings). Also, we have the letter sent by a Greek prince/nobleman inviting them to leave Spain and join him in his riches as they should because of their lineage.
Still, being the origins of the ladies a legend or not, it seems that it will remain a mystery.
I do not think Maria and Angelina lied about their origins or that they were impostors, they had nothing to gain by lying. Maria and Angelina had different paths (Maria went to Galicia and even France and Angelina remained near the court of the king), and they both agreed on their story. Henry III was convinced of she being from an important family since he became her godfather and treated her carefully, and both Mohammed (sent by Timur) and Sotomayor exposed that Angelina had been part of a ruling family (which does not mean that this family had to be necessarily the Hungarian one or that they belonged to the royal house -they might have been relatives, but not from the royal family- or even this dynasty had ended time ago and they were descendants of the former rulings). Also, we have the letter sent by a Greek prince/nobleman inviting them to leave Spain and join him in his riches as they should because of their lineage.
Still, being the origins of the ladies a legend or not, it seems that it will remain a mystery.
Peter Stewart via
Jul 20, 2016, 5:57:17 AM7/20/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Maria (IF she existed at all, which is not attested in contemporary
documents) was perhaps one of the ladies attending Angelina, and the
legend that they were sisters only arose much later among descendants of
Payo Gómez de Sotomayor.
Angelina clearly did exist, but if she had truly come from a royal
and/or comital family she would presumably have had some relatives or
friends elsewhere than in conquered territory. She could surely have
appealed by letter for help (or at least acknowledgement) to someone who
knew her background rather than simply throwing herself on municipal
charity and then finding herself a husband in Castille using the
effectively nonsensical style "de Grecia" and the unsubstantiated
promise of royal blood. If she had no-one to rely on, and she had
actually been raised from childhood in a harem, she was quite likely a
captive of no particular distinction, who may have been a Circassian or
from somewhere just as exotic and mysterious to her Spanish children.
Such a person would of course have every incentive to make up an
imposing back story when she found herself at large in the West.
Peter Stewart
tempu...@gmail.com
Jul 20, 2016, 8:58:13 AM7/20/16
to
> I think you had better reread the article by Kahane and Malkiel -
> Maria (IF she existed at all, which is not attested in contemporary
> documents) was perhaps one of the ladies attending Angelina, and the
> legend that they were sisters only arose much later among descendants of
> Payo Gómez de Sotomayor.
I know that Kahane and Malkiel explain that she might have not been Angelina's sister, but there were more women given as a present together with Angelina, and in Bayezid's harem there was a Maria (who, of course, could have been a Maria which had nothing to do with Henry's embassy).
> Maria (IF she existed at all, which is not attested in contemporary
> documents) was perhaps one of the ladies attending Angelina, and the
> legend that they were sisters only arose much later among descendants of
> Payo Gómez de Sotomayor.
> Angelina clearly did exist, but if she had truly come from a royal
> and/or comital family she would presumably have had some relatives or
> friends elsewhere than in conquered territory. She could surely have
> appealed by letter for help (or at least acknowledgement) to someone who
> knew her background rather than simply throwing herself on municipal
> charity and then finding herself a husband in Castille using the
> effectively nonsensical style "de Grecia" and the unsubstantiated
> promise of royal blood.
We do not know if she did that, and it was Henry III the one who decided to marry her with the governor of Segovia. She did not use any municipal charity since the king was the one who took care of her. And the letter shows that someone of her family or related to them contacted them (they mention some "Christiana" as being in Spain). The way the letter is written and its style seem to indicate that there had already been correspondences.
> and/or comital family she would presumably have had some relatives or
> friends elsewhere than in conquered territory. She could surely have
> appealed by letter for help (or at least acknowledgement) to someone who
> knew her background rather than simply throwing herself on municipal
> charity and then finding herself a husband in Castille using the
> effectively nonsensical style "de Grecia" and the unsubstantiated
> promise of royal blood.
> If she had no-one to rely on, and she had
> actually been raised from childhood in a harem, she was quite likely a
> captive of no particular distinction, who may have been a Circassian or
> from somewhere just as exotic and mysterious to her Spanish children.
> Such a person would of course have every incentive to make up an
> imposing back story when she found herself at large in the West.
That she had been captured while a child was just a possibility of the thousands we could find, amoung these possibilities we could say that her family was murdered, that her grandfather was not a king but a despote of any part of Eastern Europe, or that she simply made up it all.
> actually been raised from childhood in a harem, she was quite likely a
> captive of no particular distinction, who may have been a Circassian or
> from somewhere just as exotic and mysterious to her Spanish children.
> Such a person would of course have every incentive to make up an
> imposing back story when she found herself at large in the West.
I believe that until we have something substantial (if it is possible someday to have it, and I am sure there are very remote possibilities of this) we should leave this matter with the qualifying "legend", a legend which could have been true or false, like so many others. While we are discussing it, we cannot accept that she was the granddaughter of a king nor deny it, just say that it is a legend until someone proves otherwise.
0 new messages