Pedro Froilaz - Part I

[Bryant Smith]

On 31 August 1998 Antonio Calera González posted a descent
of Pedro Froilaz from a Mendo, near the beginning of which
he wrote:
"Mendo, de los longobardos, caso con Juana Romanez,
hija de Roman, hijo o nieto de Fruela I."
(Mendo, of the Lombards [or just Northern Italians?], married
Juana Romanez, daughter of Roman, son or grandson of
Fruela I.)
Assuming the reference to Fruela I means Fruela King
of Asturias 757-768, I have only these descendants
(through the grandchildren) for him:
1. Fruela I
1.1 Daughter, m Nepociano. (Maria Emma Escobar says
her name was Jimena but there is no documentary
proof of her existence.)
1.2 Fruela Froilaz. (TAF raises the objection to the
son's being named after the father at this period,
but suggests there are precedents for posthumous
sons.)
1.2.1 Vermudo I (This depends on the Vajay reconstruction.)
1.3 Alfonso II (ditto)
1.4 Rodrigo Froilaz
1.4.1 Diego Rodriguez
So the question arises, where might Roman fit into this
scheme?
Thanks
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

This descent was posted because I asked him to do so.
this is the semi-mythical origin of the early (11th
century) counts of Trastâmara, that lead to the Travas
and to the great Portuguese family of the Pereiras.

There is a beautiful book by the late Marquess de
Abrantes, _Pereiras Titulares e Titulares Pereiras_
(1990), that however does not delve on these rather
shadowy origins.

chico

--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: > On

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Bryant Smith wrote:

> On 31 August 1998 Antonio Calera González posted a descent
> of Pedro Froilaz from a Mendo, near the beginning of which
> he wrote:
> "Mendo, de los longobardos, caso con Juana Romanez,
> hija de Roman, hijo o nieto de Fruela I."
> (Mendo, of the Lombards [or just Northern Italians?], married
> Juana Romanez, daughter of Roman, son or grandson of
> Fruela I.)

There are several aspects of this descent that are problematic.
IIRC, though, the Fruela in question was actually Fruela II (not
that the descent is necessarily valid there either. It would not
surprise me if the root of this claim is nothing more than the
mistaken assumption that the patronymic Froilaz is indicative of
descent from King Fruela, which is false.

> Assuming the reference to Fruela I means Fruela King
> of Asturias 757-768, I have only these descendants
> (through the grandchildren) for him:
> 1. Fruela I
> 1.1 Daughter, m Nepociano. (Maria Emma Escobar says
> her name was Jimena but there is no documentary
> proof of her existence.)
> 1.2 Fruela Froilaz. (TAF raises the objection to the
> son's being named after the father at this period,
> but suggests there are precedents for posthumous
> sons.)
> 1.2.1 Vermudo I (This depends on the Vajay reconstruction.)
> 1.3 Alfonso II (ditto)

No, this ditto is wrong. Alfonso II is attested son of Fruela I
- it does not depend on the Vajay reconstruction. Likewise, as
Maria Emma has clarified, the king Vermudo I appears to be the
older man, and that if he existed as a separate person, this
Vermudo 1.2.1 was princeps, not King (in other words, no number).

> 1.4 Rodrigo Froilaz
> 1.4.1 Diego Rodriguez

This placement appears nothing but a crude attempt to derive the
earliest semi-autonomous Counts of Castile from the royal line.
However, the specific claim is that they were sons of Fruela
Perez (the brother of Alfonso I) and not of this (otherwise
overlooked according to Vajay) brother of Alfonso II. I think it
best that the chronicle evidence be consulted before trying to
place them anywhere in the pedigree.

> So the question arises, where might Roman fit into this
> scheme?

He doesn't.

taf

[Bryant Smith]

Can you give us a clue as to where it comes out of the
shadows into resonably well-establilshed genealogy?
My preliminary comparison of Calera's two posts
(August 31 & September 5, 1998) with whatI already
had found some support in two sources:

Jaime de Salazar Acha, Los Descendientes del
Conde Ero Fernandez, Fundador del Monasterio
de Santa Maria de Ferreira de Pallares,
(Galicia en la Edad Media (1990))

and

Maria del Carmen Pallares and Ermelindo Portela,
"Aristocracia y Sistema de Parentesco en la Galicia
de los Siglos Centrales de la Edad Media,"
El Grupo de los Traba in Historia: 53:823-840

which I think come from some citations by TAF.

Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica

dori...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in message news:<200203282031...@web20103.mail.yahoo.com>...

> This descent was posted because I asked him to do so.
> this is the semi-mythical origin of the early (11th

> century) counts of Trastāmara, that lead to the Travas

> and to the great Portuguese family of the Pereiras.
>
> There is a beautiful book by the late Marquess de
> Abrantes, _Pereiras Titulares e Titulares Pereiras_
> (1990), that however does not delve on these rather
> shadowy origins.

<SNIP>

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

The shadowy portion is the beginning, traditionally
given as ``Dom Mendo, irmão de Dom Desidério, último
rei dos Longobardos,'' Mendo, brother of Desiderio,
last King of Lombards. Mendo is short for Hermenegild,
but the rest is totally unsupportable. It appears in
Portuguese lineage books quite early, however.

I don't see how the descent of Ero Fernandes mingles
with those; Ero Fernandes is assuredly the ancestor of
the great Baião clan (there may be some doubt in a
couple of generations, but the crucial lordship of
Azevedo belongs to those people since quite early).

Best, chico

--- Bryant Smith <ski...@racsa.co.cr> escreveu: > Can

> > century) counts of Trastâmara, that lead to the

> Travas
> > and to the great Portuguese family of the
> Pereiras.
> >
> > There is a beautiful book by the late Marquess de
> > Abrantes, _Pereiras Titulares e Titulares
> Pereiras_
> > (1990), that however does not delve on these
> rather
> > shadowy origins.
> <SNIP>
>

_______________________________________________________________________________________________