Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063
WJho...@aol.com
gathered these facts from my 1985 edition (paper) of the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica. Please comment on any of these that may be false or true for that matter.
1) Sancho III Garces b c 992 - d 17 Oct 1035
King of Pamplona (Navarre) 1005-35; Emperor [of Spain ?] 1034-5
had four sons [mothers not named here]:
Eldest Garcia, second son Ferdinand, other two sons birth order not specified
were Gonzalo and Ramiro
2) Of these sons, Garcia IV, King of Pamplona 1035-54 d 1054
Ferdinand I b 1016/8 d 1065, King of Castile 1035-, Emperor of Leon ? 1039-
Gonzalo, King of Sobrarbeand and Ribagorza
Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063
3) This last Ramiro, had a son Sancho Ramirez d 1094
King of Aragon 1063-94, King of Navarre 1076-94
born before 1045
Now working with only these facts we see that since the eldest and second son
are both named, that Ramiro, later King of Aragon, must be the third or
fourth and thus born AFT 1016, which is the earliest year for his elder brother
Ferdinand. BUT, his own son Sancho was born "before 1045". This gives a birth
range for Ramiro of 1017/1027 allowing him to be at least 17 at the birth of
his own son.
Heraldry of the Royal Families says that Ramiro and Gisberga dau of Roger,
Count Bigorre were married in 1036 so that Sancho had to be born 1036/1044
I have this Roger born 1008/1013, so his daughter Gisberga had to be born AFT
1024 and since her son Sancho was born 1036/44, I have to shorten his range
to 1038/44 and fix hers at the very small range of 1025/31
Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
> Continuing on, in my desire to outline the early kingdoms of Spain, I have
> gathered these facts from my 1985 edition (paper) of the Encyclopaedia
> Brittanica. Please comment on any of these that may be false or true for that matter.
>
> 1) Sancho III Garces b c 992 - d 17 Oct 1035
> King of Pamplona (Navarre) 1005-35; Emperor [of Spain ?] 1034-5
> had four sons [mothers not named here]:
> Eldest Garcia, second son Ferdinand, other two sons birth order not specified
> were Gonzalo and Ramiro
>
> 2) Of these sons, Garcia IV, King of Pamplona 1035-54 d 1054
> Ferdinand I b 1016/8 d 1065, King of Castile 1035-, Emperor of Leon ? 1039-
> Gonzalo, King of Sobrarbeand and Ribagorza
> Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063
>
> 3) This last Ramiro, had a son Sancho Ramirez d 1094
> King of Aragon 1063-94, King of Navarre 1076-94
> born before 1045
>
> Now working with only these facts we see that since the eldest and second son
> are both named, that Ramiro, later King of Aragon, must be the third or
> fourth and thus born AFT 1016, which is the earliest year for his elder brother
> Ferdinand. BUT, his own son Sancho was born "before 1045". This gives a birth
> range for Ramiro of 1017/1027 allowing him to be at least 17 at the birth of
> his own son.
Sancho gave his patrimony, the Kingdom of Castile, to his eldest son,
Garcia. He gave the County of Castile (which was originally part of
Asturias/Leon, but had become an autonomous state - a kingdom in all but
name) to his son Fernando and elevated it to a Kingdom. Further, he had
married Fernando to the sister of Vermudo III, King of Leon (who was
himself married to one of Sancho's daughters), and shortly after his
father's death, Ferdinand then defeated and killed Vermudo, acquiring
Leon jure uxoris. Gonzalo was made King of Sobrarbe and Ribagorza.
These were children of Muniadona Mayor, heiress of the County of
Castile. Ramiro was illegitimate son of Sancho III by mistress Sancha of
Aybar. He was made Count of Aragon, but elevated himself to royal
status. He then (apparently) orchestrated the death of his brother
Gonzalo, King of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe, and absorbed those into his
kingdom. While I don't think there is any evidence on which to estimate
his age, it has been speculated that he may have been older than the
legitimate sons. (Note that Sancho also had a legitimate son Ramiro, who
d.v.p.s.p.)
As to the title Emperor used above with a question mark, this was
Emperor of Spain, a purely symbolic title first adopted, IIRC, by
Alfonso III of Asturias/Leon as an indication of his preeminence among
the reconquest monarchs. It was then used by subsequent Leon kings, but
after the death of Alfonso V and the union of Castile with Navarre
(through the Navarre-instigated assassination of Muniadona's brother
Garci Sanchez), Sancho III took this title for himself. I don't recall
if Fernando used the title after the union of the Kingdoms of Castile
and Leon, but his son Alfonso VI certainly did after reuniting his
father's kingdoms and absorbing a good part of Navarre when the latter
kingdom was partitioned by Castile/Leon and Aragon after the
assassination of King Sancho IV Garces by his siblings, and Alfonso I of
Aragon & Navarre also used it while he was married to Queen Urraca of
Castile/Leon, as did her son Alfonso VII. He too split his kingdoms
upon his death, and I don't know if the title was used later, after
Castile and Leon were reunited under Fernando III.
taf
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< While I don't think there is any evidence on which to estimate
his age, it has been speculated that he may have been older than the
legitimate sons. (Note that Sancho also had a legitimate son Ramiro, who
d.v.p.s.p.) >>
Even including his son being born "bef 1045" as EB has it?
Todd A. Farmerie
I just meant anything specific - he certainly was born early enough to
be able to proclaim himself king and assassinate his brother shortly
after his father's 1035 death.
taf
maria emma escobar
Sancho III and Munia had three sons: García, Fernando and Gonzalo. Ramiro was an ilegitimate son of Sancho.
When Sancho died, García inherited his kingdom: Navarra. Fernando inherited his mother "condado": Castilla. Sancho gives Aragón to his son Ramiro and the little countries of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe to Gonzalo, the youngest one.
Mee
---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< I just meant anything specific - he certainly was born early enough to
be able to proclaim himself king and assassinate his brother shortly
after his father's 1035 death. >>
He personally assassinated his brother? Or someone did it for him?
WJho...@aol.com
memae...@yahoo.es writes:
<< Sancho III, king of Navarra, married Munia or Mayor, daughter of the
"conde" of Castilla Sancho GArcía (D. 1.o17) and sister of of the "infante" don
García, the last conde, murder when he was young in 1.029. His sister Munia was
the new "condesa".
Sancho III and Munia had three sons: García, Fernando and Gonzalo. Ramiro
was an ilegitimate son of Sancho.
When Sancho died, García inherited his kingdom: Navarra. Fernando inherited
his mother "condado": Castilla. Sancho gives Aragón to his son Ramiro and the
little countries of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe to Gonzalo, the youngest one.
Mee >>
"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Louda and Maclagan
states that the eldest son Garcia was the son of Sancho III's first marriage
to Gaya of Gascony.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
This is reconstructed based on very little data, but he seems at least
to have instigated it. The Iberians weren't opposed to personal
involvement - Sancho IV of Navarre, Ramiro's nephew, is said to have
been pushed off a mountainside by either/or/both his brother, (Ramon or
Fernando, I don't recall which) and sister Urraca, while contemporary
Berenger Ramon II of Barcelona is said to have personally offed his
brother Ramon Berenger II, and their elder brother Pere was banished for
personally killing his step-mother Almodis.
taf
francisco.tav...@gmail.com
the last one prevailed.
The kings of Navarra could also be known as counts of Aragón or,
probably better, kings of Pamplona and counts of Aragón. The
territories of Sancho III were Navarra and Aragón, including Ribagorza
and Sobrarbe and some land formerly part of León in the Castilian
border.
It must be taken into account that the kings of Pamplona didn't had the
frankish tradition of division of the kingdom amongst the sons. So when
Sancho died his rightfull heir was Garcia and the other brothers, ruled
under Garcia's sovereignty. But Fernando's position was peculiar
because he inherited Castile from his mother (Garcia being son of
Sancho's 1st marriage and not of Munia of Castile) so he was a
sovereign in Castile, but ruled the once leonese territory under
Garcias's sovereignty. This he didn't accept and rebelled against
Garcia; they met at the battle of Atapuerca (1054) and Garcia was
killed.
As usually, history was written by the winners and Atapuerca is widely
referred as a battle between two kingdoms, Castile and Navarra.
Personally I regret this outcome as it was the basis of the prevalence
of Castile and I think that Spain under the prevalence of
Navarra/Aragón would have been a much better and gentle country for
portuguese, moriscos, jews and possibly, south american indians.
Aragón had "Cortes" (parliament) some centuries before England and
Navarra was remarkable by the "Fueros" (bill of rights given to towns
and depending territories).
Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)
maria emma escobar escreveu:
Todd A. Farmerie
> In that epoch a sovereign could use the title of count or king; later
> the last one prevailed.
> The kings of Navarra could also be known as counts of Aragón or,
> probably better, kings of Pamplona and counts of Aragón. The
> territories of Sancho III were Navarra and Aragón, including Ribagorza
> and Sobrarbe and some land formerly part of León in the Castilian
> border.
>
> It must be taken into account that the kings of Pamplona didn't had the
> frankish tradition of division of the kingdom amongst the sons. So when
> Sancho died his rightfull heir was Garcia and the other brothers, ruled
> under Garcia's sovereignty. But Fernando's position was peculiar
> because he inherited Castile from his mother (Garcia being son of
> Sancho's 1st marriage and not of Munia of Castile) so he was a
> sovereign in Castile, but ruled the once leonese territory under
> Garcias's sovereignty. This he didn't accept and rebelled against
> Garcia; they met at the battle of Atapuerca (1054) and Garcia was
> killed.
Are there any surviving charters of Fernando from between 1035, when the
supposed partition took place, and 1037, when he became King of Leon,
that would better indicate the status he claimed for himself? After
that point, it is moot to debate whether he was King of Leon & Castile,
or simply King of Leon and Count of Castile. Are there any charters of
Gonzalo after 1035?
> As usually, history was written by the winners and Atapuerca is widely
> referred as a battle between two kingdoms, Castile and Navarra.
>
> Personally I regret this outcome as it was the basis of the prevalence
> of Castile and I think that Spain under the prevalence of
> Navarra/Aragón would have been a much better and gentle country for
> portuguese, moriscos, jews and possibly, south american indians.
> Aragón had "Cortes" (parliament) some centuries before England and
> Navarra was remarkable by the "Fueros" (bill of rights given to towns
> and depending territories).
Perhaps if Alfonso I could have gotten along with his wife . . . . .
taf