Garci Gomez Carrillo, el de los Garfios (and a Sancha de Ayala royal line)

[taf]

Back in the 1990s when we explored the possible royal lines of Sancha de Ayala, we found that most were severely flawed, but proposed two possible lines. One traced through the Osorio to Alfonso VI. The other traced through the Carrillo to Alfonso IX. Neither of them was as well documented as we might have hoped - indeed both involved links that were nothing but guesswork.

In the intervening years, the Osorio line has come to be fully accepted. Several additional scholars have published papers that recapitulate the early generations of the Osorio family, and all who addressed it present the same line we used, proposed by Sanchez Pagin, connecting count Alvar Rodriguez Osorio back through Rodrigo Rodriguez Osorio, Rodrigo Osorio, Osorio Gonzalez and Gonzalo Osorio to count Osorio Martinez, who married Alfonso's granddaughter.

[As a brief aside here, I recently came across a novel possible royal line here. Osorio's father-in-law, count Fernando Fernandez, who was son-in-law of king Alfonso VI, is of unknown identity, but I have now seen two scholars identify him as the man of this name who was son of Aldonza Gomez of the Banu Gomez. This would provide a royal descent from king Ramiro III, who was deposed, leaving a sole son Ordono Ramirez, husband of Cristina Vermudez, daughter of king Vermudo II by his repudiated first wife. Descent from Ramiro III is not very common, and would add two new kings, (also Ramiro's father, Sancho I), and four new queens (Sancha Gomez, wife of Ramiro; Teresa Ansurez, wife of Sancho; Velasquita Ramirez, wife of Vermudo; Urraca Sanchez, wife of Ramiro II - Sancho I and Ordono III, father of Vermudo, were half-brothers).]

As to the Carrillo descent, the critical generation is attested by the 14th century genealogy written by Sancha's grandfather, Fernan Perez de Ayala, but it is at the margin of the historical horizon for his writings on his wife's ancestry. Specifically, he says that he married Elvira Alvarez de Cevallos, daughter of Juana Garcia de Carrillo, daugther of Garci Gomez de Carrillo, lord of Mazuelo and his wife Elvira Alvarez Osorio. He then says that Garcia Gomez was son of another Garci Gomez, el de los Garfios (a nickname garnered at the unsuccessful defense of Jerez de la Frontera). The latter in known to have married a bastard daughter of Alfonso de Molina, brother of Fernando III.

The problem is that in various genealogical compilations written between Fernan's time and the present, the husband of Elvira Alvarez Osorio has been placed in a different branch of the Carrillo family, in no way descended from the daughter of Alfonso de Molina. Still we decided that these 'traditional' stemma had no historical basis either, and that in the absence of further evidence to the contrary, the fact that Garci 'de los Garfios' likewise held Mazuelo (as did his namesake Elvira's husband) seemingly supported the claim made in the writing of Fernan Perez de Ayala. We thus concluded, tentatively, that Sancha de Ayala had this much more recent royal line.

At the time we went with this, were were flying in the face of established consensus on the reconstruction of the lineage, although the poor quality of the work underlying the consensus made it a weak consensus. Still, it would have felt better were we to have found a scholar more familiar with the sources who fell in line with our version. In the intervening time, I have looked periodically but not found any such source. However, this morning I turned one up. Writing in 1928 in her Historia del reinado de Sancho IV de Castilla, Volume 2, Mercedes Gailbrois de Ballesteros includes in a footnote (p. 237) an account of these generations, and accepts that the husband of Elvira Alvarez was son of Garci de los Garfios. For this she cites a ms in the collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (unfortunately, I only can see a Google snippet). This could be a copy of the same genealogy of Fernan Perez, but at a minimum this represents another author willing to accept this derivation (and hence the royal descent that comes with it) over the more traditional fodder.

taf

[Jordan Vandenberg]

Great find. Solidifying this line for Sancha d'Ayala would be fantastic.

I think the link below is to the full version of the source you mentioned that was in snippet view on google.

https://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069263

It is in Spanish so I cannot read it, but it seems to be what you were referring to.

Thanks again for sharing your find.
Jordan.

[Jordan Vandenberg]

You may have come across this already, but it might be helpful if you are looking for something related to Luis de Salazar y Castro.

ÍNDICE DE LA COLECCIÓN DE D. LUIS DE SALAZAR Y CASTRO

http://dokuklik.snae.org/salazar.php


I also found this text about Salazar's works that might be useful.

EL PRINCIPE
DE LOS GENEALOGISTA S ESPAÑOLES
DON LUIS DE SALAZAR Y CASTRO
ESTUDIO DE
DON MARCELINO GUTIÉRREZ DE L CAÑO

https://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10067846

Hope they are some help.

Jordan.




On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 5:19:29 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7, Jordan Vandenberg wrote:

>
> I think the link below is to the full version of the source you mentioned
> that was in snippet view on google.
>
> https://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069263
>

Thanks. I will give it a look and see if I can garner anything more.

For what its worth, the following is the proposed descent involving Ramiro III. It is a measure of the degree to which these families interbred that the earliest generations add very few actual novel ancestors - I will mark those already in Sancha's pedigree via Alfonso VI's ancestry as 'A6'.

1. Ramiro II, King of Leon (A6), m.2 Urraca Sanchez, daughter of Sancho I Garces of Pamplona (A6) and Toda Aznar (A6).

2. Sancho I, King of Leon, m Teresa Ansurez of Castile, daughter of Ansur Fernandez, Count of Castile.

3. Ramiro III, King of Leon, m. Sancha (probably Gomez, daughter of Gomez Diaz, Count of Saldana of the Banu Gomez [son of Diego Munoz (A6) and Tegridia (A6)] by Muniadomna Fernandez [daughter of Fernan Gonzalez of Castile (A6) and Muniadomna (A6)].

4. Ordono Ramirez, m. Cristina Vermudez, daughter of Vermudo II (A6) by Velasquita Ramirez, daughter of (probably) Ramiro Menendez [son of Hermenegildo Gonzalez (A6) and Muniadomna Diaz (A6)] and Adosinda Guterrez [daughter of Gutier Menendez (A6) and Ilduara Eriz (A6)]

5. Aldonza Ordonez, m. Pelayo Fruelaz

6. Elvira Pelaez, m. Munio Fernandez of the Banu Gomez

7. Aldonza Munoz, m. Fernando (?)

(proposed)

8. Fernando Fernandez, m. Elvira Alfonso, daughter of Alfonso VI

9. Teresa Fernandez, m. Osorio Martinez

10. Gonzalo Osorio

11. Osorio Gonzalez

12. Rodrigo Osorio

13. Rodrigo Rodriguez Osorio

14. Alvar Rodriguez Osorio

15. Elvira Alvarez Osorio

16. Juana Garces de Carrillo

17. Elvira Alvarez de Ceballos

18. Inez Alfonso de Ayala

19. Sancha de Ayala

Note: in typing this up, I realize there is a chronological problem in the reconstruction of the Banu Gomez. The wife of Ramiro III (gen 3) is thought to have been daughter of Gomez Diaz, son of Diego Munoz and Tegridia. The husband of Elvira Pelaez (gen 6) is thought to have been Sancho Fernandez, son of Fernando Diaz and grandson of the same Diego Munoz and Tegridia. This would be an intermarriage with 5 generations on one side and only two on the other. While not completely impossible, this type of generational displacement raises serious concerns with a reconstruction. Definitely have to look into this more.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 4:41:16 PM UTC-7, Jordan Vandenberg wrote:
> You may have come across this already, but it might be helpful if you are looking for something related to Luis de Salazar y Castro.
>
> ÍNDICE DE LA COLECCIÓN DE D. LUIS DE SALAZAR Y CASTRO
>
> http://dokuklik.snae.org/salazar.php

Gailbrois de Ballesteros is indeed citing a copy of the Fernan Perez de Ayala genealogy (a late copy, with notes by antiquarian Joseph Pellicer de Tovar y Osau).

taf

[taf]

Correction:

I accidentally flipped pages when I was typing up the summary and created a chronological problem where there isn't one. Here is the corrected descent, with some additions:

1. Ramiro II, King of Leon (A6), m.2 Urraca Sanchez, daughter of Sancho I Garces of Pamplona (A6) and Toda Aznar (A6).

2. Sancho I, King of Leon, m Teresa Ansurez of Castile, daughter of Ansur Fernandez, Count of Castile.

3. Ramiro III, King of Leon, m. Sancha (probably Gomez, daughter of Gomez Diaz, Count of Saldana of the Banu Gomez [son of Diego Munoz (A6) and Tegridia (A6)] by Muniadomna Fernandez [daughter of Fernan Gonzalez of Castile (A6) and Muniadomna (A6)].

4. Ordono Ramirez, m. Cristina Vermudez, daughter of Vermudo II (A6) by Velasquita Ramirez, daughter of (probably) Ramiro Menendez [son of Hermenegildo Gonzalez (A6) and Muniadomna Diaz (A6)] and Adosinda Guterrez [daughter of Gutier Menendez (A6) and Ilduara Eriz (A6)]

5. Aldonza Ordonez, m. Pelayo Fruelaz

6. Teresa Pelaez, m. Gomez Diaz, son of Diego Fernandez and his wife Marina (speculated to be Anzurez - she would be great-granddaughter of Ansur Fernandez, above, gen 2), Diego being son of Fernando Diaz, son of Diego Munoz and Tegridia (both A6, see gen 3 above) by Mansuara Fafilaz, daughter of count Fafila Olaliz

7. Aldonza Gomez, m.2 Fernando (? speculated to have been count Fernando Midiz)

(proposed)

8. Fernando Fernandez, m. Elvira Alfonso, daughter of Alfonso VI by Jimena Munoz - any discussion of her ancestry quickly devolves into a quagmire of contemporaries named Munio Rodriguez, Rodrigo Munoz, Munio Munoz, etc.

9. Teresa Fernandez, m. Osorio Martinez, son of Martin Flainez [son of Flain Fernandez of the Flainez clan, and Toda] and Sancha Fernandez [daughter of Tegridia Gutierrez, of the family of Alfonzo Diaz, by an undocumented husband who must have been name Fernando]

10. Gonzalo Osorio

11. Osorio Gonzalez

12. Rodrigo Osorio m.Elvira Fernandez (nothing known about her but her name, which is too common to allow her identification)

13. Rodrigo Rodriguez Osorio

14. Alvar Rodriguez Osorio m. Elvira Nunez, daughter of Nuno, Bishop of Astorga (this connection fascinates me, but the Bishop seems to have been of relatively obscure origin)

15. Elvira Alvarez Osorio m. Garci Gomez Carrillo (speculated to be grandson of Alfonso de Molina, and great-grandson of Alfonso IX of Leon)

16. Juana Garces Carrillo m. Diego Gutierrez de Ceballos

17. Elvira Alvarez de Ceballos m. Fernan Perez de Ayala

18. Inez Alfonso de Ayala m. Diego Gomez (de Toledo)

19. Sancha de Ayala m Walter Blount

As a note on the key generation, a charter of Aldonza Gomez names her children Elvira Munoz and Fernando Fernandez, meaning that she must have married men named Munio and Fernando (but not necessarily in that order). Given the proximity and certain land ownership, it has been speculated that this Fernando Fernandez is identical to the count of that name. Separately, it is speculated that Fernando may be son of Fernando Midiz. If both of these are correct, that would make Fernando Midiz the husband of Aldonza.

The best possibility for an additional royal (or at least high-noble) descent would be through Ceballos, but the 'traditional' pedigree of this family is deeply flawed and in need of a total rebuild from scratch. They may descend from a Giron marriage, which would link them to Traba and some other interesting ancestry, while Canal Sanchez-Pagin derives them in the male line from Gomez Gonzalez, the lover of Queen Urraca (though they had no children together - the descent would be from his wife Urraca Munoz, apparent sister of Alfonso's mistress, Jimena Munoz). Unfortunately, though Canal began a study of the Ceballos, he had yet to publish at the time of his death.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:12:13 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> 14. Alvar Rodriguez Osorio m. Elvira Nunez, daughter of Nuno, Bishop of
> Astorga (this connection fascinates me, but the Bishop seems to have been
> of relatively obscure origin)

Since I raised the point, among other things the sourcing and chronology here are both problematic. The source is a completely unreferenced chart in Salazar y Castro's Casa de Farnese. All it says is that Alvar Rodriguez Osorio married Lady Elvira Nunez, daughter of Lord Nuno, Bishop of Astorga. Taking at face value a reference from 400 years after the fact is generally frowned upon, particularly when there is reason to question it, and there is.

Alvar's father is last seen at court in a span lasting through 1277. Alvar first appears in 1285 (clearly an adult by that time) and again in 1294. His children by Elvira included Juan Alvarez Osorio and Alvar Nunez Osorio, both active in the 1320s, and Gonzalo Osorio, Bishop of Mondonedo (1319-1326).

Looking at Astorga, there were two Nunos who served as bishops. The first held sway from 1226- 1241, and the second from 1346-1349. It would require awfully strange chronology for Gonzalo Osorio to serve as bishop two decades before his grandfather, so the second must be eliminated. However, a marriage to a daughter of the first is equally hard to contemplate. There would seem to be little benefit to marrying the illegitimate daughter of a non-connected bishop long after he was gone from his episcopal seat, yet it is hard to imagine a man we first see in 1285 having married prior to 1241. Likewise Alvar Nunez Osorio had a lone daughter married in 1334, which sets up ballpark rule-of-thumb chronology that would put the marriage of her grandparents in the 1270s-1280s range, when it is hard to imagine there being a daughter of a bishop gone since 1241 still being a marriage prospect. Almost all marriages of the time were for either money/land or socio-political connections. If the Bishop left her a large dowry, she would seemingly have snapped up already, if she had no such dowry, being illegitimate daughter of a non-connected bishop decades before hardly seems a social recommendation. Nuno could have had a long run after stepping down from the see, but unless he managed to pad his nest something fierce, it is hard to imagine there being a benefit to such a marriage whether Nuno still lived or not.

This is not to say it is impossible, but were we to rank the following five scenarios:

1. Salazar y Castro got confused, that Elvira was daughter of a Bishop of Astorga, but not named Nuno.

2. Salazar y Castro got confused, that Elvira Nunez was daughter of a Nuno who was not Bishop of Astorga (I have not gone through all of the episcopal sees in Spain to see if there are any candidates).

3. Salazar y Castro got confused regarding which Alvar Rodriguez was involved in the marriage, and it was some other Alvar Rodriguez who married Elvira Nunez, daughter of Nuno, Bishop of Astorga - of note regarding this explanation, our Alvar had an uncle with the same name, Alvar Rodriguez Osorio, and the chronology could be bent just enough to have him marry in the last years of Bishop Nuno's sway.

4. Salazar y Castro is just plain confused, and there was never an such marriage.

5. the marriage is authentic

I definitely would not place option 5 at the top of the list in terms of likelihood to be the true situation, I would place it at the bottom.

taf

[Steve Riggan]

Jordan, the link to the Biblioteca Digital is not loading up for me. Did you have difficulty as well? I speak and read Spanish so wanted to take a look at the link. Obviously, since you and I both descend from Joan Griffith Dymoke who descended from Sancha de Ayala, I am interested in Todd's information on the possible descent from Alfonso IX. I have been reading Todd and Nathaniel Taylor's paper from some years back on the Ayala family and the three proposed royal descents for Sancha. I have to say I am hopeful that more will come out on the Alfonso IX descent.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPad

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:04:23 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote:
> Jordan, the link to the Biblioteca Digital is not loading up for me. Did you have difficulty as well?

Worked for me - it is just a detailed bibliography of his work.

taf

[Jordan Vandenberg]

Steve,
I just tried the two Biblioteca links and they seemed to work, but the pdf's do take a little while to load.

[Jordan Vandenberg]

Thanks so much for posting this line.

[Jordan Vandenberg]

I am not sure, but is this the de Ayala genealogy with notes by Joseph Pellicer de Tovar y Osau that you were referring to?

http://reinodemurcia.decascales.com/2014/06/genealogia-casa-ayala.html

Cheers,

Jordan.




On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 5:19:29 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 9:16:51 PM UTC-7, Jordan Vandenberg wrote:
> I am not sure, but is this the de Ayala genealogy with notes by Joseph Pellicer de Tovar y Osau that you were referring to?
>
> http://reinodemurcia.decascales.com/2014/06/genealogia-casa-ayala.html

That is certainly it. There are two modern editions of this genealogy. The first in a small book by Juan Contreras y López de Ayala, Marqués de Lozoya, Introducción a la biographía del Canciller Ayala (1950). The second is in a work by Michel García. Obra y personalidad del Cancillor Ayala. (1983). The latter is the better edition, as the editor took pains to track down the versions of the genealogy closest to the original manuscript. Notably, the Lozoya edition misnames Sancha's grandfather, wrongly showing him as Pedro Suarez de Toledo, while Garcia's, based on the earliest editions, shows it to have been Gomez Perez. The Pellicer edition at the link above has the corrupted, incorrect version (image 44).

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:03:06 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:12:13 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> > 14. Alvar Rodriguez Osorio m. Elvira Nunez, daughter of Nuno, Bishop of
> > Astorga (this connection fascinates me, but the Bishop seems to have been
> > of relatively obscure origin)
>
> Since I raised the point, among other things the sourcing and chronology
> here are both problematic. The source is a completely unreferenced chart
> in Salazar y Castro's Casa de Farnese. All it says is that Alvar Rodriguez
> Osorio married Lady Elvira Nunez, daughter of Lord Nuno, Bishop of Astorga.
> Taking at face value a reference from 400 years after the fact is generally
> frowned upon, particularly when there is reason to question it, and there
> is.

Salazar y Castro's Indice de las glorias de la Casa Farnese, where this appeared, was published in 1716. Writing 20 years later in 1736, Miguel Eugenio Muñoz in Discurso sobre la antiguedad y prerrogativas de la rica hombria de Castilla would write that Alvar married Elvira Nunez, daughter of Lord Nuno, "who it appears was Bishop of Astorga" - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the connection.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:12:13 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> The best possibility for an additional royal (or at least high-noble)
> descent would be through Ceballos, but the 'traditional' pedigree of this
> family is deeply flawed and in need of a total rebuild from scratch.

This thread got me looking again, and I came across an alternative account of Cevallos/Ceballos that presents a possibility that seems less flawed than the Ayala version, but likewise presents an intriguing possibility.

First, let me make clear the authorship of the Ayala account. Fernan Perez de Ayala wrote an account of the House of Ayala, that traced it back to the 11th century. It is not to be viewed as reliable beyond, say, 5 generations. Subsequent to his death, his son Pedro Lopez de Ayala wrote a continuation of the account that begins with a record of the death of Fernan Perez (not likely to have been the work of the original author) then describes the ancestry of Fernan's wife (Pedro's mother), Elvira Alvarez de Cevallos, including a long pedigree of Cevallos, and brief mention of connected families such as Carrillo and Osorio.

The line for Cevallos that is given in this pedigree is as follows (reversed - it is presented in retrograde fashion):

1. Gonzalo Pelaez de Cevallos m. Maria Diaz de la Vega, daughter of Dia Gomez de la Vega

2. Roy Gotierrez/Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Estevania Gotier daughter of Gotierre Roiz de Langueruela

3. Gotier Diaz de Cevallos m. Ynes Gonzalez Giron

4. Diego Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Maria Nunez de Finestrosa, daughter Nuno Diaz de Finestrosa (son of Diego Lopes de Haro)

5. Gonzalo Diaz de Cevallos m. Antolina de Hoz, daughter of Martin Antolinez de Hoz and Godo Galinda de Gordejuela

6. Roy Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Maria de Caviedes

7. Diego (Dia) Gutierrez de Cevallos m. Juana Garcia Carrillo, daughter of Garci Gomez Carrillo and Elvira Alvarez

8. Elvira Alvarez de Cevallos m. Fernan Perez de Ayala

Comments: in gen 2, the first time the man is given it is as Gotierrez, but then later it is Gonzalez. Given that the father was a Gonzalo, one would assume Gonzalez was intended and Gotierrez is a scribal error. However, the author seems unaware of patronymic usage a century before, so this assumption may not be legitimate.

gen 3: Gotier Diaz could not be son of Roy. To be consistent, either his patronymic must be Ruiz/Rodriguez, or his father must have been named Diego.

gen 4: same problem, Diego Gonzalez must have been son of Gonzalo; a son of Gotier Diaz must have been Gutierrez. Given the later pedigree, I would normally suspect the latter to be the case, that this man was need Diego Gutierrez, but that appears not to have been the case - there seems to have been a Diego Gonzalez de Cevallos living at this approximate time. It should also be noted that aspects of this early Cevallos pedigree, particularly in later publications, tends to be confused with similarly-named members of the Giron family. Also in gen 4, the link to Haro seems to be a necessary ingredient in these early pedigrees. I don't recall seeing one that doesn't link the family being traced to the Haro clan, who were either very prolific, else a popular target for pedigree invention.

And that brings us to the most recent male Cevallos, Diego Gutierrez. From the names of his children, it is clear that he had abandoned traditional patronymic use, so it is not unreasonable for him to have a patronymic not matching his father, but only if there was a Diego Gutierrez somewhere in the pedigree (see previous note), and I can't find one. Though the absence of information ion his supposed mother's family leaves open the possibility that it was in her tree.

Briefly addressing the names Diego gave his children may prove instructive. These were: Gutierre Diaz (traditional patronymic for a son of Diego); Diego Gutierrez (named in full for his father, name and patronymic); Ruy Gonzalez (named for the Ruy in the generation before his father, name and patronymic);Pedro Diaz (traditional patronymic); Maria Diaz (traditional patronymic), Elvira Alvarez (named in full for her maternal grandmother, Elvira Alvarez Osorio) and Guillerma (I have not found her patronymic). Was Diego Gutierrez then named for an ancestor with this combination? certainly a possibilty, but this has always raised a niggling doubt that even this recent the pedigree was authentic.

The first nugget I found is a in a listing of charters from Seville, that includes one from 1304 that names Diego Gutierrez de Cevallos. A second from 1307 names Estefania Gutierrez de Cevallos, mother of Juan Mate. This woman is clearly to be identified with the sister of Diego Gutierrez named Estefania, said to have married Fernando Mateos de Luna, but in most accounts she is given as Estefania Rodriguez, seemingly confirming her parentage but in fact it is probably the other way around, with her being assumed to be Rodriguez specifically because the reconstruction made her daughter of Ruy Gonzalez. Here, though, we have her explicitly given the same patronymic as her brother, and this shifts the balance of probabilities, and particularly given that he named his eldest known son Gutier, I have to think his father was not Ruy Gonzalez, but a Gutier de Cevallos.

Digging further, I stumbled upon a genealogy of the Cevallos family written in 1770 by a family member. As sources go, this is late, but it appears to be largely independent of the account of Ayala, perhaps reflecting information passed down in the family. As always, we have to view this with a skeptical eye, but at least in the earlier part of the pedigree, it avoids the obvious patronymical errors of the Ayala version.

It gives the following:

0. Ruy Gonzalez, Garcia Fernandez and Gonzalo Ruiz, appear as noblemen in documents 1168 to 1183, with no documented connection to each other (a good sign that he says this, as any dedicated genealogy-builder would at least have made Gonzalo Ruiz son of Ruy Gonzalez.

He then goes presents a pedigree from earlier genealogists.

1. Ramiro II (sic) of Leon

2. Ordono Ramirez m. Cristina Vermudez, daughter of Vermudo II

3. Ordono Ordonez

4. Garcia Ordonez

5. Fernan Garcia de Cevallos, m. Estefania Ermengol of Urgel (this is actually Fernan Garces de Hita, founder of the Castro family, in disguise)

6. Gutierrez (sic) Fernandez de Cevallos

7. Rodrigo Gutierrez de Cevallos

8. Gonzalo Ruiz, brother of Pedro Ruiz, who was uncle of Martin Ruiz de Cevalos, Master of Calatrava)


Note that at this time, a Martin Ruiz must, by definition, have been son of a Rodrigo or Ruy - he cannot possibly have been son of Pedro. The author notes that clearly Ramiro II is wrong, and that the first generation should be Ramiro III. While he comes short of defending the pedigree as exact, he does mount a defense of the general idea of the family descending from the kings of Leon.

Returning to the pedigree:

8. Gonzalo Ruiz de Cevallos (above), Master of Calatrava

9. Ruy Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Teresa Gonzalez Giron (side note: Teresa, daughter of Gonzalo Rodriguez Giron had a documented husband Rodrigo [i.e. Ruy] Gonzalez, but he is not further identified, and at least one modern scholar identifies him as a member of a different family)

10. Diego Gonzalez de Cevallos (brother Gutierre Gonzalez de Cevallos) m. Maria Ordonez de Aza (side note: this appears to reflect a popular confusion at the time that made the the Villamayor family scions of Garcia Garces de Aza [they were not] and in turn attached any Ordonez in this era to each other and to the Villamayor, who used the name Ordono.)

11. Gonzalo Diaz de Cevallos m. Antolina de Hoz

12. Ruy Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Maria Fernandez de Caviedes

13. Diego Gutierrez de Cevallos m. Juana Garcia Carrillo

14. Elvira Alvarez de Cevallon, m. Fernan Perez de Ayala.

Of particular interest is an aside. After saying that Diego Gutierrez was son of Ruy Gonzalez, the author states, "De Don Gutierre de Cevallos, hermano de dicho Don Diego, y en opinion de algunos el mayor, procede la Casa de Cevallos de las Presillas, unida hoi con la ilustrisima de Velasco, y continuando la succession por la linea de Don Diego Gutierres, que queda referida, es de adventir." 'From Don Gutierre de Cevallos, brother of said Diego, and in the opinion of some, the elder, comes the House of Cevallos de las Presillas, which united with the illustruous [daughter] of Velasco, and continued the succession by the line of Don Diego Gutierrez, to whom I referred, which is to come.'

If this is to be taken to read that Ruy Gonzalez had an eldest son Gutier, I can't help but make a proposal - that Diego Gutierrez and his sister Estefania Gutierrez were not, after all, children of Ruy, but instead grandchildren, children of this Gutier [Ruiz]. Let me add that this is presented as an avenue for investigation, not as a solution - it would be precipitous in the extreme for any of you to copy this suggestion into your databases.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:53:30 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

I mistakenly hit send before I had commented on the other patronymic violation in the more recent pedigree, or given the citation.

> 9. Ruy Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Teresa Gonzalez Giron
>

> 10. Diego Gonzalez de Cevallos (brother Gutierre Gonzalez de Cevallos)

Either these were actually brothers of Ruy Gonzalez, or there is some other type of flaw here, because their father had to have been named Gonzalo.

The source for the new pedigree is

Memorial Genealogico al Rei N. S. por Don Juan Joseph de Cevallos Ribera y Davalos, Conde de Las Torres, &c. (Madrid: Imprenta Real de la Gazeta, 1770)
https://books.google.com/books?id=JXcOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

taf

[Steve Riggan]

This is good info, Todd! Thanks for posting.

Sent from my iPhone

[taf]

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:53:30 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> 5. Gonzalo Diaz de Cevallos m. Antolina de Hoz, daughter of Martin Antolinez
> de Hoz and Godo Galinda de Gordejuela

I find that this family, who were from Hoz de Anero, near Santander, claimed descent from Martin Antolinez, a character in the Cid legend, an associate of Alvar Fanez, and a 'city father' of Burgos. This is alluded to in the Ayala genealogy, which says that Antolina's family derives from a nephew of El Cid. Given that there wasn't much more than 100 years separating this Martin Antolinez from the death of the earlier Martin at the Battle of Consuegra (1097), I am inclined to be less skeptical of this claim than I might otherwise be.

Of the intervening generations, I have found nothing trustworthy, though there is a lot of untrustworthy material (in particular, the parentage given him, as son of Fernan Diaz and Maria Antolinez, is a sloppy forgery, as was done with other figures of the legend under pressure to make them all kinsmen of the hero). The Consuegra fatality is said to have married a Juana Garcia, had a son Antolin Martinez. He in turn is credited with two children, Juan Antolinez and Mayor Antolinez. She is identified with the Mayor Antolinez who married Pedro Fortunez de Vergara, a royal grandson, being son of count Fortun Ochoiz and Mencia Garcez, daughter Garcia Sanchez III of Navarre (a charter of queen Urraca attesting to Pedro's ancestry is found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=jL8-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA311 though aspects of the charter raise questions about its authenticity, or at least the quality of the transcription, for example it is dated to 'era MCIXL' [sic]). The Juan Antolinez is attributed to Salazer de Mendoza, but I only find the bare name among a list of nobles, so this is not the source for the genealogical connection.

Given that Mayor's son in the charter is called Pedro Antolinez rather than the expected Pedro Perez), it is possible that this unusual patronymic was in the process of transitioning into a surname, as happened with Osorio a generation later. Were that the case, Martin Antolinez may himself have been son of Juan Antolinez (and for that matter, 'Antolina' could be a confused representation of this surname rather than her given name). However, there is a Martinez de Hoz family that may be descended from Martin, and this suggests that the patronymic was still changing with generations. Do we need to look for an Antolin Yuanez to fill the gap between Martin Antolinez de Hoz and this Juan Antolinez (if he existed)?

taf




taf

[taf]

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:52:03 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> though aspects of the charter raise questions about its authenticity, or at
> least the quality of the transcription, for example it is dated to 'era
> MCIXL' [sic]).

It occurred to me that it may not be obvious how wrong this date is. Anyone familiar with roman numerals knows that the sequence IXL is flawed. At first I thought the last L was in error, and that 1109 was intended. This would seem to be a reasonable date, AD, but this is 'Spanish era' dating, which uses a starting date of 38 BC, so you have to subtract 38 from the given 'era' year to arrive at the AD year. This means that Urraca, ruling Leon and Castile from 1109-1126AD ruled from era 1071-1088, and I can't figure out any simple scribal error that gets to to an era date in that range from MCIXL. This makes me think forgery by someone using AD dating, who 'converted' to era dating by simply writing era in front of the AD date of 1109 (then at some point the last L got added). While fraudulent charters sometimes used authentic information as their basis, it certainly raises concerns (particularly when making Pedro Antolinez the son of Pedro Fortunez would violate standard patroymic).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to 1164. A
charter of her own for Cluny was dated 'era 1117', presumably a mistake
for AD 1117.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-Jul-17 4:49 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> On 28-Jul-17 4:29 PM, taf wrote:

> I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
> reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to 1164.
> A charter of her own for Cluny was dated 'era 1117', presumably a
> mistake for AD 1117.

The misdated charter referred to in my posting is here:
https://archive.org/stream/gri_33125008389666#page/n663/mode/2up.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-Jul-17 4:55 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 28-Jul-17 4:49 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On 28-Jul-17 4:29 PM, taf wrote:

>> I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
>> reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to
>> 1164. A charter of her own for Cluny was dated 'era 1117', presumably
>> a mistake for AD 1117.
>
> The misdated charter referred to in my posting is here:
> https://archive.org/stream/gri_33125008389666#page/n663/mode/2up.

Better yet, an image of the original charter is here:
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte1745/.

For some reason the editors have followed Giry's suggestion that the
correct date was 22 February 1109, but Urraca was not 'totius Galletie
domina' until July of that year.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-Jul-17 5:01 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 28-Jul-17 4:55 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 28-Jul-17 4:49 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28-Jul-17 4:29 PM, taf wrote:

>>> I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
>>> reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to
>>> 1164. A charter of her own for Cluny was dated 'era 1117',
>>> presumably a mistake for AD 1117.
>>
>> The misdated charter referred to in my posting is here:
>> https://archive.org/stream/gri_33125008389666#page/n663/mode/2up.
>
> Better yet, an image of the original charter is here:
> http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte1745/.
>
> For some reason the editors have followed Giry's suggestion that the
> correct date was 22 February 1109, but Urraca was not 'totius Galletie
> domina' until July of that year.

Apologies, I should have read the whole text - this was in the lifetime
of her father Alfonso ('uoluntate atque consilio patris mei, imperatoris
domni Adefonsi'), so that February 1109 is perfectly reasonable and
'infanta Urraka' did title herself 'totius Galletie domina' before she
became queen.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-Jul-17 5:11 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 28-Jul-17 5:01 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28-Jul-17 4:55 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 28-Jul-17 4:49 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28-Jul-17 4:29 PM, taf wrote:

>>>> I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
>>>> reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to
>>>> 1164. A charter of her own for Cluny was dated 'era 1117',
>>>> presumably a mistake for AD 1117.
>>>
>>> The misdated charter referred to in my posting is here:
>>> https://archive.org/stream/gri_33125008389666#page/n663/mode/2up.
>>
>> Better yet, an image of the original charter is here:
>> http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte1745/.
>>
>> For some reason the editors have followed Giry's suggestion that the
>> correct date was 22 February 1109, but Urraca was not 'totius
>> Galletie domina' until July of that year.
>
> Apologies, I should have read the whole text - this was in the
> lifetime of her father Alfonso ('uoluntate atque consilio patris mei,
> imperatoris domni Adefonsi'), so that February 1109 is perfectly
> reasonable and 'infanta Urraka' did title herself 'totius Galletie
> domina' before she became queen.

Giry explained that the date was correctly given as 'era 1147' in a
Spanish hand, with 40 written as X joined to a horizontal stroke that
stood for L, hence XL, which the editor (and I) misread as 10.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Forgery may be the likeliest explanation in this case - it would be highly unusual for such a short charter, ostensibly rewarding Pedro for his support of Urraca in battle against her enemies, to mention by name his wife (also with a patronymic), his 'abuncula', his mother, maternal grandfather, son and daughter, and then to wish a curse on any of the queen's own descendants who might seek to interfere with the gift in perpetuity.

I would be surprised if another example like this could be found. Also, none of the proper nouns in the text seems to occur in either of the two editions of Urraca's charters, here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=whtpAAAAMAAJ or here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5E1pAAAAMAAJ.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:48:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

>
> I think you have subtracted from the years of Urraca's 1109-1126 AD
> reign when you meant to add, and that she ruled from era 1147 to 1164.

Wow, that was a pathetic display of simple math on my part. It occurred to me after posting that perhaps MCIXL was an error for MCLXI, which would be 1123, within the appropriate range. (Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that meant I had completely bulloxed the calculation in my earlier post.)

taf

[taf]

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 3:50:30 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Forgery may be the likeliest explanation in this case - it would be highly
> unusual for such a short charter, ostensibly rewarding Pedro for his support
> of Urraca in battle against her enemies, to mention by name his wife (also
> with a patronymic), his 'abuncula', his mother, maternal grandfather, son
> and daughter, and then to wish a curse on any of the queen's own descendants
> who might seek to interfere with the gift in perpetuity.

For what its worth, king Garcia did have daughters, Sancha and Mencia, and Mencia married a Fortun (Ochoiz). However, Mencia left a charter in 1057 that named sons Aznar, Iñigo, Sancho, Lope, and Ximeno.

> I would be surprised if another example like this could be found. Also,
> none of the proper nouns in the text seems to occur in either of the two
> editions of Urraca's charters, here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=whtpAAAAMAAJ or here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5E1pAAAAMAAJ.
>

In general character, it seems off. I wonder if this represents a 'sound-alike' linking of the later family of Vergara to Viguera, Fortun Ochoiz's holding.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 29-Jul-17 12:48 AM, taf wrote:
> It occurred to me after posting that perhaps MCIXL was an error for
> MCLXI, which would be 1123, within the appropriate range.

It looks to me as if the year in Roman numerals is a misprint, though
from the author's assertion that it was dated era 1141 this was
apparently meant to be MCXLI (AD 1103). If so, forgery would be even
more likely, since Urraca is titled 'queen' (rather than 'lady of all
Galicia' as her father's heiress) and she did not become queen until era
1147 (AD 1109).

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Back in July I posted a 'traditional'pedigree of the Cevallos/Ceballos clan, that included mention of a marriage that is placed ancestral to Diego Gutiérrez de Ceballos, and hence to Sancha de Ayala.

9. Ruy Gonzalez de Cevallos m. Teresa Gonzalez Giron (side note: Teresa, daughter of Gonzalo Rodriguez Giron had a documented husband Rodrigo [i.e. Ruy] Gonzalez, but he is not further identified, and at least one modern scholar identifies him as a member of a different family)

Looking at the catalog of the Colleción Salazay y Castro, I find two charters of this couple:

1242.03.31 (era 1280)
Escritura de donación de todos sus bienes, otorgada por doña Teresa Sánchez Girón a favor de su marido Rodrigo González de Ceballos. Copia autógrafa de Luis de Salazar y Castro, obtenida del original en pergamino del archivo de Uclés. Tiene dibujado a pluma por Salazar el sello de armas de la otorgante. M-8, fº 41.

1243.03.31 (era 1281)
Escritura de donación de los bienes que tiene en Potes, Liébana y otros lugares, otorgada por Rodrigo González de Ceballos a favor de su mujer doña Teresa Sánchez Girón. Copia autógrafa de Luis de Salazar y Castro, sacada del original en pergamino del archivo de Uclés. Tiene dibujado a pluma por Salazar dos fragmentos del sello de armas del documento. M-8, fº 41 v. y 42.

The take-home message is that this Ruy Gonzalez de Ceballos did indeed marry a Girón, but it was Teresa Sánchez Girón, not Teresa González Girón. This may create more problems than it solves, though, as I know of no Sancho in the Girón family during this period who could be called on to be her father.


Another point I raised dealt with a presumed sister of Diego Gutiérrez de Cevallos, called Estefanía Rodríguez in the pedigrees, but Estefanía Gutiérrez in a Seville charter from 1307. The Colleción includes a relevant charter as well:

1320.04.12 (era 1358)
Privilegio del rey Alfonso XI, por el que confirma la donación hecha en Sevilla, el 4 de enero de 1307, de la villa de Villalba de Don Falcón, otorgada por doña Estefanía Rodríguez de Cevallos, viuda en primeras nupcias de Juan Mathe, camarero mayor del rey Sancho IV, mujer de Enrique Enríquez, hijo del infante don Enrique el Senador, a favor de su hijo, Enrique Enríquez el Mozo, cuya donación se copia en este privilegio. Copia autógrafa de Luis de Salazar y Castro, obtenida de un pergamino autorizado del archivo de Zafra. M-5, fº 100 v. a 102.

The Seville charter referred to Estefanía Gutiérrez, mother of Juan Mathe, here we have Estefanía Rodríguez, widow of Juan Mathe. A couple of possibilities spring to mind. One is that one or the other of these charters is corrupt, either in its original surviving form or in the summaries placed on line. While I can perhaps see madre substituted for mujer, it seems odd that a scribal error would substitute Gutiérrez for Rodríguez, or vice versa. An alternative is that the catalog entry represents a summary that was attached to the entry by Salazar y Castro, and does not necessarily reflect the original document. Another possibility is that these really refer to two different women, aunt and niece perhaps, who married different men within the same Mathe family. Also of note, Estefanía Rodríguez married the illegitimate son of a royal prince. Spanish Wikipedia has an article on her husband under the name of Enrique Enríquez el Viejo, but for the marriage the best it can do is cite books from 1760 and 1779.

And now for an added bonus:

1367.08.03
Noticia de la escritura de recibo de dote, otorgada por doña Elvira Alvarez de Ayala, mujer de Pedro Suárez de Guzmán, señores de Batres, a favor de sus padres, Fernán Pérez de Ayala, adelantado de Murcia, señor de Ayala, y doña Elvira de Cevallos, su mujer. Manuscrito de la misma letra y archivo que los anteriores. O-6, fº 167 y 167 v.

This would be a charter of the aunt of Sancha de Ayala.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 8:47:57 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Another point I raised dealt with a presumed sister of Diego Gutiérrez de
> Cevallos, called Estefanía Rodríguez in the pedigrees, but Estefanía
> Gutiérrez in a Seville charter from 1307. The Colleción includes a relevant
> charter as well:
>
> 1320.04.12 (era 1358)
> Privilegio del rey Alfonso XI, por el que confirma la donación hecha en Sevilla, el 4 de enero de 1307, de la villa de Villalba de Don Falcón, otorgada por doña Estefanía Rodríguez de Cevallos, viuda en primeras nupcias de Juan Mathe, camarero mayor del rey Sancho IV, mujer de Enrique Enríquez, hijo del infante don Enrique el Senador, a favor de su hijo, Enrique Enríquez el Mozo, cuya donación se copia en este privilegio. Copia autógrafa de Luis de Salazar y Castro, obtenida de un pergamino autorizado del archivo de Zafra. M-5, fº 100 v. a 102.
>
> The Seville charter referred to Estefanía Gutiérrez, mother of Juan Mathe,
> here we have Estefanía Rodríguez, widow of Juan Mathe. A couple of
> possibilities spring to mind.

Let me clarify Estefania/Juan Mathe situation so it doesn't remain, contaminating the archive.

I found a web page summarizing a charter in which Estafanía Gutiérrez de Ceballos, 'madre de Juan Mathe', was mentioned in 1307. On the page it immediately followed a 1302 reference to Diego Gutiérrez de Ceballos. Unfortunately, in spite of an hour searching this morning, I could not again find the web page. However, I did find a book from the 1790s that again mentioned two charters in succession, one from 1302 referring to Diego Gutiérrez de Ceballos, the next from 1307, naming 'Estefanía Gutiérrez, mujer de Juan Mathe'. Clearly, this is the source for the web page, and the page made a mistake in exchanging 'mujer' for 'madre' (or I made the mistake when I took my notes from the page). One way or the other, this simplifies the scenario - we have a single Estefanía, who married Juan Mathe, (als. Maté, Mateo).

The remaining question is her patronymic. In the 1320 charter summarized in the Colleción Salazar y Castro, she is Rodríguez. In the 1307 one, she is said by the 1790s source to have been Gutiérrez. I am not aware of any instance where someone regularly used different patronymics during their lifetime, but I suppose it could be an unlikely scribal error.

Anyhow, without knowing for sure that she was Rodríguez (or Gutiérrez), and also knowing for sure that she was sister of Diego Gutiérrez, we are left no farther ahead on the latter's parentage than when we started.

taf

[taf]

Returning to the original question of this thread, there is another interesting document in the Colleción Salazar y Castro. It has no date, but it is described as follows:

Extracto de la escritura de donación de unas casas en Talavera, otorgada por doña Inés de Ayala, señora de Casarrubios, viuda de Diego Gómez de Toledo, a favor de su parienta, doña Sancha Alfón Calderón. Manuscrito de la misma letra que los anteriores.

This is Sancha de Ayala's mother as a widow, referring to her relative Sancha Alfonso Calderón. I can find no reference that names this person's parentage, but the fact that they are called relatives points me to a possible connection. Alfonso Ordóñez Carrillo died before 1299, leaving children Juana Ordóñez, Juan Alfonso, and Sancha Alfonso, wife of Juan Ortíz. A 1318 estate division refers to the latter as Juan Ortíz Calderón. It would be perfectly fitting with contemporary onomastic practice for Sancha Alfonso Calderón to be a daughter or granddaughter of Sancha Alfonso Carrillo, wife of Juan Ortíz Calderón (perhaps daughter of his son Alfonso Ortíz Calderón).

Further, with Inés de Ayala being granddaughter of Juana García Carrillo, one might hypothesize that the kinship between the two women in the document reflects a close relationship between Juana García's father, Garci Gómez Carrillo and Alfonso Ordóñez Carrillo. Chronologically, of the children of Alfonso Ordóñez, Juan Alfonso Carrillo was a married adult by 1301, died 1341-1343, Sancha Alfonso Carrillo was married by 1299. Garci Gómez had two sons in law, who were both prominent noblemen in the first third of the 1300s. I just found what I believe to be another daughter, named by her own daughter in 1337. This would roughly put Alfonso Ordóñez in the same generation as Garci Gómez, though there is enough uncertainty in the date ranges that they could be uncle/nephew (either way).

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find anything relating to this Alfonso Ordóñez Carrillo that provides the slightest clue to his placement among the Carrillo clan, and the patronymic alone is from out of nowhere.

We are sort of at the 'blood from a stone' phase of this investigation, but I am hoping that with enough points here and there, a bigger picture will emerge.

taf

[Steve Riggan]

This is great, Todd!

Steve

Sent from my iPhone