Nuno Ordonez, infante de Galiza
M.Sjostrom
about the parentage of the famous Muniadomna, countess-consort of Castile, the mother of count Fernan Gonzalez:
what is the state-of-art knowledge about the alleged fatherhood of some 'Nuno Ordonez, infante de Galiza'
and was THAT sort of infante Nuno actually even an existing person in history, as opposed to a later genealogical fancy:
Nu�o Ordo�ez
Infante de Galiza
wife: NN de Castilla
Children
1. Muniadona Nu�ez
Sources 1. [S02448] A Heran�a Gen�tica de D.Afonso Henriques Luiz de Mello Vaz de Sao Payo, Universidade Moderna, Porto, 2002.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00515445&tree=LEO
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
http://gw2.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=loic15&lang=es;i=14335
Out of memory (sorry, no time to check) it seems the scheme adopted by
Vaz de São Payo.
The wife would be different, an unamed daughter of a count of castile,
Rodrigo if my memory didn't fail me.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
On 22 Maio, 14:13, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> about the parentage of the famous Muniadomna, countess-consort of Castile, the mother of count Fernan Gonzalez:
>
> what is the state-of-art knowledge about the alleged fatherhood of some 'Nuno Ordonez, infante de Galiza'
> and was THAT sort of infante Nuno actually even an existing person in history, as opposed to a later genealogical fancy:
>
> Nuño Ordoñez
> Infante de Galiza
> wife: NN de Castilla
> Children
> 1. Muniadona Nuñez
> Sources 1. [S02448] A Herança Genética de D.Afonso Henriques Luiz de Mello Vaz de Sao Payo, Universidade Moderna, Porto, 2002.
>
> http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00515445&tree=LEO
t...@clearwire.net
> about the parentage of the famous Muniadomna, countess-consort of Castile, the mother of count Fernan Gonzalez:
>
> what is the state-of-art knowledge about the alleged fatherhood of some 'Nuno Ordonez, infante de Galiza'
> and was THAT sort of infante Nuno actually even an existing person in history, as opposed to a later genealogical fancy:
>
> Infante de Galiza
> wife: NN de Castilla
> Children
> Sources 1. [S02448] A Herança Genética de D.Afonso Henriques Luiz de Mello Vaz de Sao Payo, Universidade Moderna, Porto, 2002.
>
> http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00515445&tree=LEO
I have never seen this before, and can only guess at its origin, not
having seen the source cited. I do not believe this represents the
consensus.
Let's address the questions separately. There does appear to be an
infante of this name, the son of Ordono I. He appears as Munio, but
at this time, Nuno the two names may have been simple regional
variants. It is now generally accepted that this infante is identical
to the Nuno who is founder of the counts of Cea: I don't recall the
exact details off hand, but one of the family of Vermudo Nunez, count
of Cea is called kin of a royal, and the preferred explanation is that
Vermudo Nunez was son of this infante Nuno/Munio. I was never fully
convinced, but given the fragmentary and frequently dubious nature of
the surviving 10th century record, this is as reasonable a hypothesis
as the alternatives.
As to Muniadomna, as I said, I have never seen her made sister of
Vermudo, and I find it unlikely. What we know about her is that she
was powerful enough that the Muslim chroniclers called her descendants
the Banu Mamaduna - the descendants of Muniadomna, and that she had
children Ramiro and Fernan (order uncertain). Fernan is a paternal
family name, bur Ramiro was a name not seen in the region previously.
Also, Muniadomna appears in at least one document closely associated
with Urraca, apparently wife of infante Ramiro. This last was the son
of Alfonso III, who married the widow of his brother Fruela II, and
launched an unsuccessful challenge for the throne against the sons of
Fruela II and Ordono II. These facts led Perez de Urbel to conclude
that Muniadomna was daughter of Ramiro (who he made illegitimate,
distinct from the legitimate Ramiro), and this has been followed by
several subsequent authors (who usually reject the dual Ramiros and
make her daughter of the legitimate Ramiro). This has served as the
basis for a Muslim descent, as Urraca was of the Banu Qasi, but this
is impossible, as Fruela did not die until too late for his widow to
remarry and have a daughter who had a son as old as Fernan Gonzalez.
As I said, I cannot evaluate this alternative further as I have not
seen the cited reference (nor am I likely to any time soon).
taf
M.Sjostrom
well, the infante Munio Ordonez is already present in Genealogics as a totally separate entry:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00199434&tree=LEO
and, the non-consensical (as well as unlikely...) assignation of this infante as father of Munia domna, countess of Castile, ???would be a genealogical fancy found from Portugal, right?
I have to ask: is that Vaz de Sao Payo regarded highly as reliable genealogist, or is this a fancy typical to his works, or what ?
M.Sjostrom
so, basically,
Muniadona, countess of Castilla, was daughter of
either Ramiro, son of king Alfonso III
or Munio/Nuno Ordonez, Ramiro's uncle, son of king Ordono I
nephew Ramiro:
* for some quirk, Ramiro appears to have two different entries
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00472568&tree=LEO
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00331887&tree=LEO
* Ramiro was active in the 920s
uncle Munio:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00199434&tree=LEO
* Munio was active in around 870
Muniadomna's son, count Fernan Gonsalvis, was allegedly born in about 910
M.Sjostrom
well, the infante Munio Ordonez is already present in Genealogics as a totally separate entry:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00199434&tree=LEO
and, the non-consensical (as well as unlikely...) assignation of this infante as father of Munia domna, countess of Castile, ???would be a genealogical fancy found from Portugal, right?
I have to ask: is that Sampayo regarded highly as reliable genealogist, or is this a fancy typical to his works, or what ?
t...@clearwire.net
> so, basically,
> Muniadona, countess of Castilla, was daughter of
> either Ramiro, son of king Alfonso III
> or Munio/Nuno Ordonez, Ramiro's uncle, son of king Ordono I
. . . or of Nuno of Branosera, or of none of the above.
taf
M.Sjostrom
Nuno de Branosera:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120958&tree=LEO
I hear it's commonly believed that Nuno de Branosera, also known as 'Nuno Rasura', was count Gonzalo Fernandez's grandfather. I.e, Munia domna's HUSBAND's grandfather.
I understand they practised first-cousin marriages, but nephew-aunt marriage is not something supported at all by what is known of their customs. On this account, I think Muniadomna very highly likely was NOT Nuno de el Branosera's daughter.
Besides, chronology in that would be very uneasy.
t...@clearwire.net
I was referring to the son of Nuno Rasura, frequently called Munio
Nunez, making them first cousins. This was an older theory. The real
point is that everyone is guessing.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> The real point is that everyone is guessing.
>
That's a basic truth for most of this epoch with signifiant exceptions
amongst souverains and negligible exceptions in nobility.
Just two points.
1. Between conflicting guesses, after some basic filtering I choose
the last newest guess if the guesser is somehow reliable, trusting
that he knew and evaluate all the prior guesses. For this people 'lato
sensu' those are Vajay and São Payo.
I know the risks as I always remember Étiennete "de Longwy" but most
of the times the risks are acceptable and even desirable when the
alternative is ES or Salazar y Castro.
2. Even when the evidence is almost none like in the recently
discussed line
1st García Fernández, conde de Castilla, d. 995.
2nd Gonzalo García
3rd Munio González
we must consider the alternatives and if there is none, why not? Only
because it was only knonw in the XIIIth or XVIIth?
In first place, people in the XIII or XVII could well had access to a
document or a tradition lost in our days. And, in this particular
case, what is the alternative?
We know that García Fernández held Lara and if Lara was given out by
García himself or by Sancho that should have been documented in the
chancellery; even if that document was lost, Lara was important enough
to such a fact be mentioned in a chronicle as it would have certainly
been a reward of a very relevant service. As nothing is known the most
probable is that García or Sancho gave Lara unformally and here
Gonzalo fits very well both in onomastics and chronology. And when one
Gonzalo confirms a donation of García just after Sancho - even on the
unprobable but not impossible age of 10 - like a younger brother
would, I think we have a case.
But when I have time I will look for the arguments - or the guesses -
of São Payo for the "Cometissima"s parentage.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Maio, 23:11, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > The real point is that everyone is guessing.
>
> That's a basic truth for most of this epoch with signifiant exceptions
> amongst souverains and negligible exceptions in nobility.
>
Even the Astur-Leonese royalty has at least two points that are not
fully satisfactorily documented. As has been discussed here several
weeks back, the linkage between Ramiro I and Alfonso I and II is not
definitive. Likewise, while general consensus makes Vermudo II son of
Ordono III, there is minority opinion that he was son of Ordono IV, or
of Ordono Fruelaz, or both (with Ordono IV being Ordono Fruelaz), and
his mother is another can of worms.
> Just two points.
> 1. Between conflicting guesses, after some basic filtering I choose
> the last newest guess if the guesser is somehow reliable, trusting
> that he knew and evaluate all the prior guesses. For this people 'lato
> sensu' those are Vajay and São Payo.
> I know the risks as I always remember Étiennete "de Longwy" but most
> of the times the risks are acceptable and even desirable when the
> alternative is ES or Salazar y Castro.
I guess my only response to this would be that newer is often better
than older, but 'we don't know' may be the best, in some cases.
Take Agatha of [pick one: Hungary, Russia, Friesland, Bulgaria,
etc.]. People have been batting this around for centuries, and while
some of the earliest solutions are clearly false (like 16th century
Scottish author who made her daughter of Canute), the newest solutions
(those of Parsons and Mladov) are becoming more and more elaborate and
farther away from the evidence. In her case, I suspect that the real
answer is that the chroniclers writing about it didn't know
themselves, and that is the reason for the conflicting information
given in the primary record, and that if the solution is one of those
propounded, it is more likely to be a solution first outlined more
than 50 years ago rather than one put forward since 1960.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Note previous:
For future consistency if I will keep the names exactly as published.
Muniadona has 8 entries in São Payo's book but before any quote or
rationale, here is the general frame, taken from different trees.
1 Ordonho I, m. Munia, dau. of Munio Nunes 'de Brañosera'
1.1 Leudegundia
1.2 Afonso III
1.3 Nuno -->
1.4 Bermudo
1.5 Oduário
1.6 Froila
1.3 Nuno Ordonhes, m. N..., dau. of Rodrigo, conde de Castilla (d.
873)
1.3.1 Muniadona 'a Cometissima', m. Gonçalo Fernandes, conde de
Burgos, conde de Castilla, founder of Lara
1.3.1.1 Fernão Gonçalves, 1st conde soberano de Castilla
1.3.1.2 Ramiro Gonçalves
13.1.3 Argilo, m. Bermudo Nunes, conde de Cea
(also to help disambiguations) São Payo lists 6 Muniadonas in *4
generations* but 3 of them roughly contemporaries:
a) m. García, king of León (d. 914)
b) m. Fernando Ansures (II) conde de Castilla (mentioned 914-6,
929-30)
c) m. Nuno Fernandes de Amaia, conde de Castilla (ment. 926, 927)
d) A Cometissima
e) m. Gondemar Piniolis (ment. 976, 1027)
f) m. Munio Moniz, conde de Bierzo (ment. 1057, 1097)
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
M.Sjostrom
I have a feeling that this Vaz de Pao Payo has not done source-critical research on these wives, but rather copied from miserable materials some untenable filiations.
Some such filiations simply appear as speculation and some even discredited.
Some of the highly suspect filiations concocted or stupidly-copied by Sao Payo, according to Francisco's referat:
I Munia, wife of king Ordono I, would have been daughter of Munio Nunes 'de Bra�osera'
wondering, whether it means this:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120958&tree=LEO
* this feels like discreditable concoction.
* primary evidence of her birth family connection points to Bierzo, and no contemporary document afaik indicates Branosera
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120411&tree=LEO
II marriage of Nuno Ordonez allegedly to daughter of Rodrigo, count of Castile
* this feels like just a concoction to add genealogical claim to heritage, by adding one more count of Castile
III Munia domna the Countess' parentage
* suspect, this thread already has reports why
t...@clearwire.net
> I have a feeling that this Vaz de Pao Payo has not done source-critical research on these wives, but rather copied from miserable materials some untenable filiations.
> Some such filiations simply appear as speculation and some even discredited.
>
> Some of the highly suspect filiations concocted or stupidly-copied by Sao Payo, according to Francisco's referat:
>
> wondering, whether it means this:http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120958&tree=LEO
> * this feels like discreditable concoction.
> * primary evidence of her birth family connection points to Bierzo, and no contemporary document afaik indicates Branoserahttp://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120411&tree=LEO
>
Primary evidence doesn't even go that far.
> II marriage of Nuno Ordonez allegedly to daughter of Rodrigo, count of Castile
> * this feels like just a concoction to add genealogical claim to heritage, by adding one more count of Castile
>
That's what it looks like to me, but San Payo would not be alone in
such speculation. Most of the reconstructions of early Castile show
some sort of descent from Rodrigo.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
This is interesting - he is doing something different than I thought.
Torres Sevilla concluded that Bermudo Nunes was son of Nuno Ordonoez.
Here San Payo makes him son-in-law, suggesting that one of his wives
was the child of Nuno Ordonez. Given that it was the child of Vermudo
who claimed kinship with the royal family, this is a valid solution,
but given that Vermudo is known to be Nunez, while Argilo's patronymic
is unknown, I am left wondering the reason.
taf
M.Sjostrom
Taf,
instead of 'son-in-law', wouldn't that tree as in Sao Payo,
actually make him 'grandson-in-law'.
As I read the table from Sao Payo, it alleges that Bermudo Nunes of Seia's wife were saughter of the 'independent count' Fernan Gonzalez
[and that's not so supportable]
M.Sjostrom
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
As soon as I will have time I will try to 'translate' São Payo. But I
can imagine some motives for the preferred filiation of Argilo than of
the husband.
As you know Nuñez is commom enough and for itself, no valid basis for
Bermudo's filiation, so all must be thought with basis in Bermudo's
son claim for wich I do not know details.
But if Bermudo's son was an agnatic grandson of Nuno Ordoñez -
eventually with dinastic rights if by chance the elder line become
extinct - something more 'strong' then mere kinship should be
expected.
And once Argilo's birth is unknown and could well be younger than
Bermudo, this reconstruction could be chronologically smoother.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
> I have a feeling that this Vaz de Pao Payo has not done source-critical research on these wives, but rather copied from miserable materials some untenable filiations.
> Some such filiations simply appear as speculation and some even discredited.
>
> Some of the highly suspect filiations concocted or stupidly-copied by Sao Payo, according to Francisco's referat:
>
the limits of rudeness.
People like São Payo - or others from Vajay to Salazar Acha - have a
strong support of historical, geographical, linguistic, onomastic,
sigilography? and so on. Their capacity to analysis of the
environment, the political frame that conditionated any marriage and,
when politics change could determine an elder daughter married to the
present enemy and the younger daughter married to the old enemy
surpasses all you and I can achieve and, I think, even what Todd can.
What these people do in each of their reconstructions was most aptly
called 'educated guess' by a genealogist that I admire.
Of course they err and they err many times but the idea that they
'copied miserable materials' is just preposterous. Specially
preposterous coming from someone that asked why dr. João das Regras'
daughter did not inherited the father's surname. 'das Regras' *could*
be a corruption of 'de Aregas' a byname given to his father by I think
the contrary is more problable as 'das Regras' literally is 'from the
Rules' an apt nickname for a jurist without surname. Besides, 'regras'
is also the popular word to mean something that comes periodically to
women, no 'surname' that could have been inherited by a female.
This is the same sort of thing that leaves me uneasy with ES - to
choose a meaningful example - and reflected in Charles Cawley's
Medlands. Henry, is in portuguese Henrique, in Spanish Enrique; the
surname Noronha, portuguese is Noroña in spanish. When I see in ES one
Enrique de Noronha I know that ES's source did not know the basics of
spanish or portuguese so was not expected to have an adequate
knowledge of history and circunstancial environment. And I see even
portuguese kings mangled in ES and Medlands.
I am not denying you the right of intervention and to opine in iberian
questions but I think we could take profit from a milder tone.
Regards,
Francisco
Portugal
t...@clearwire.net
You are right - I misread it.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Todd,
I would like to know what do you have for Ordoño I's wife. São Payo
has schocked mr. Sjostrom with Munia dau. of Munio Nuñez 'de
Brañosera' and ES - as seen in Genealogics - has Munia without further
information.
I have only seen 2 out of some 30 paragraphs but São Payo has
interesting considerations, rejecting the old Salazar y Castro and
Trelles conviction that count Rodrigo was a brother of Ordoño, son of
king Ramiro and Queen Paterna. But he does not accept the idea of
purely dismissing that relationship based in the assumption that the
word used by al-Andaluz chroniclers meant brother but also brother-in-
law or cousin, in fact a close but indetermined relationship.
He accepts Perez de Urbel identification of count Rodrigo with the one
that in 862 makes a donation to the convent of Losa 'for his soul and
his parents's Bermudo Alvarez and Gontrode' and advances the
hipothesis that Gontrode, after being a widow of Bermudo Alvarez -
who's 'praenomen' also denounces a relationship with the royal house -
could have married Ramiro, making Ordoño and Rodrigo half brothers. As
a second possibility, Bermudo Alvarez or Gontrode, one of them, could
have been maternal oncle or aunt of Ordoño.
And he also rejects - more exactly disbelieves - that Munia, Ordoño's
wife was also a daughter of Bermudo Alvarez and Gontrode but does not
identifies who has before advanced that hipothesis.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
M.Sjostrom
Francisco, that's ridiculous and stupid, and you should understand it.
You basically say that things you describe as 'educated guesses', should not be criticized except in mild tone.
That's a very ridiculous demand.
I have observed that some iberian people appear to be allergic to even reading critical views.
And I have observed that there seem to be even iberian 'academically' published genealogies, even nowadays, which have a number of even such filiations which are pretty convincingly demolished.
Correlation between these could possibly be a causality. such as, the requirement of 'politeness' and such, too often means that concocted filiations remain too uncriticized.
Actually, iberian genealogy seems to have a bad name, surely in part because of this sort of phenomena within it.
----
Of course such 'educated guesses' could be demolished in very clear words. and I think they also should.
should, because those are spread in a way that they may easily find their way to a number of uncautious genealogies.
Particularly, *here* that family tree, ALSO its such filiations which you now admit to be 'educated guesses', has been rattled as if every part of the tree is as reliable as other part of the same tree.
I cannot see that you have in your posting of that family tree given any cautionary note. In other words, the educated guess filiations were given here to us as strong as any other in that tree.
-------------------------
I have not become convinced that this Vaz de Sao Payo would be a respectable genealogist.
Francisco appears to be demanding much deference to Sao Payo, and seems to say that Sao Payo's weak-looking genealogies shall not be criticized fully, but possibly only in mild tone.
I think it would be useful to know about what sort of genealogical researcher Sao Payo is. His education and degrees. Experience. Merits.
Has he published in peer-reviewed genealogical research journals ?
Has his articles published internationally, or only in Iberia ?
Has he found and proved any mistakes in 'traditional' medieval pedigrees ?
How relied-on by qualified genealogists, are his those research results which are 'educated guesses'?
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Perez de Urbel, followed by Rodriguez Marquina and ES, concluded that
Gonçalo Fernandes, was a paternal grandson of Nuno (=Munio Nunes) 'o
de Brañosera' (d. ca. 860) and Argilo, by the father Fernando (Nunes)
'o Negro' called de Castrosiero being the mother Godinha (Gudina) who
in 1.8.870 made a donation to Losa with the husband Fernando 'o
Negro'. Gudina would a dau. or gdau. of count Rodrigo.
But the modern genelogists compiled by Vajay proved documentally that
Gudina was co-heiress of some salt marshes with her brother Nuno Moniz
'de Castrogeriz', and probably with another brother, Diogo Moniz,
ancestor of 'el Cid' and as he now suggests with a sister, queen
Munia, wife of Ordoño I, mother of another Nuno - charactheristic name
in the family - all children of Munio Nunes 'de Brañosera'.
(I am jumping interesting data about Munio Nunes, why he became Juiz
de Castela, all enclosed in the main theme 'The formation of Castile"
until then Bardulia.)
He points that Nuno Moniz 'de Castrogeriz' was father of Munio Nunes
'de Roa', Muniadona (prob. m. count Nuno Fernandes de Amaia) and
Rodrigo. This name Rodrigo, also according with modern historians
reenforces the idea that Nuno Moniz should have been married to a
daughter of count Rodrigo and São Payo adds that this was accepted in
old traditions but confounding him with a son of Ordonho I.
São Payo goes on, now refusing Vajay's parentage for the wife of Munio
Nunes 'de Roa', what I mention just to show that São Payo is not
copying but making his own judgements and sometimes innovating at his
own risk.
For queen Munia's parentage I have to admit that São Payo is far from
giving any sound base. It seems he wrote his conclusion forgetting to
give the reasoning.
But due to the interventions of mr. Sjostrom I want to point that,
even if São Payo failed to substantiate his guess, he - not being the
first - proved ES once more wrong and I still want to see wich are mr.
Sjostrom's sources other then ES as read in Genealogics.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Continuing with Munia, wife of Ordoño I, São Payo says that Fr. Justo
> Perez de Urbel, followed by Rodriguez Marquina and ES, concluded that
> Gonçalo Fernandes, was a paternal grandson of Nuno (=Munio Nunes) 'o
> de Brañosera' (d. ca. 860) and Argilo, by the father Fernando (Nunes)
> 'o Negro' called de Castrosiero being the mother Godinha (Gudina) who
> in 1.8.870 made a donation to Losa with the husband Fernando 'o
> Negro'. Gudina would a dau. or gdau. of count Rodrigo.
For those unfamiliar, there is a long history to this line of
speculation. It has long been agreed that Fernan Gonzalez descended
from juez Nuno Rasura, although the exact historical individual to be
identified with that Nuno has been debated. Generally, though, it has
been Argilo's husband. (I should add that there are those who suggest
that legendary Nuno and Lain Calvo are inventions, and it is just
coincidence that there are early noblemen of those names.) This was
not entirely due to an attempt to link to the historical tradition,
however, as Fernan held land previously held by Nuno and Argilo.
The earliest speculation made Fernan's father, Gonzalo, into Gonzalo
Nunez, son of the juiz. note that while Gonzalo could be documented,
that his patronymic was Nunez was hypothesized, and hence a man of the
name Gonzalo Nunez was a construct of genealogists. The problem is
that there was no nobleman of this name appearing in charters, and as
more documents became available, it became clear that the father of
Fernan was named Gonzalo Fernandez. This means that there was a Fernan
(do) in the previous generation, so the obvious solution was to turn
him into Fernando Nunez, and make him the son of Nuno Rasura. I think
it was Perez de Urbel who first proposed this. This solution suffered
from the same problem, however, there was no documentation of a
Fernando Nunez, and given the value of the inherited properties, the
holder should have appeared in the documentation of the time. There
was, however, a Fernando Gonzalez, while Gutina appeared to take an
important role in the documentation, suggesting that it was she who
was the conduit for the Nunez inheritance. This leads to the modern
reconstruction:
> But the modern genelogists compiled by Vajay proved documentally that
> Gudina was co-heiress of some salt marshes with her brother Nuno Moniz
> 'de Castrogeriz', and probably with another brother, Diogo Moniz,
> ancestor of 'el Cid'
More than just him - this is Diego Munoz, founder of the Banu Gomez
clan. At least in this conclusion, Vajay is in the minority, most
making Diego the son of a count Munio Gomez (although I do not agree
with their reasoning why this should have been the case).
> and as he now suggests with a sister, queen
> Munia, wife of Ordoño I, mother of another Nuno - charactheristic name
> in the family - all children of Munio Nunes 'de Brañosera'.
>
And this is where I have problems with the entire approach used in
these speculative reconstructions, by San Payo, Perez de Urbel,
Settipani, Vajay, etc. In the suggestion that a given name was
indicative of a specific family or relationship, it begs the
question. If you look at 17th century England, you could rattle off
about a dozen names that might appear in any family, simply because
they were part of the cultural font of names - John, William, George,
Anne, Elizabeth, Jane, etc. Other names were much more rare, but
still might used based on regional preferences (e.g. Anthony,
Thomasine). All of this without implying a genealogical
relationship. Where am I going with this?
9th century Castile must have had a font of names that might be used.
You start assigning individual names to specific families, and you
ignore the fact that there should have been some group of names that
were common to the culture. This has been done ad nauseum in early
Navarre. Garcia Iniguez named a son Fortun, so his wife must have
been a member of the Banu Qasi, completely ignoring that Garcia had a
paternal uncle named Fortun. Garcia had a brother named Galindo, so
there must have been an intermarriage with the counts of Castile.
There is a Velasco Garces, who must have been son of Garcia Iniguez,
by a kinswoman of Garcia el Malo (completely ignoring that Velasco
could be son of Garcia el Malo). The problem is we only know of the
male names Jimeno, Inigo, Fortun, Garcia, Aznar, Velasco and Galindo
in the region at the time, and if a family had five sons, they likely
would have used most of these names independent of who married whom.
As I said, this is a problem with all such onomastic connect-the-dots
hypothesizing.
> He points that Nuno Moniz 'de Castrogeriz' was father of Munio Nunes
> 'de Roa', Muniadona (prob. m. count Nuno Fernandes de Amaia) and
> Rodrigo. This name Rodrigo, also according with modern historians
> reenforces the idea that Nuno Moniz should have been married to a
> daughter of count Rodrigo and São Payo adds that this was accepted in
> old traditions but confounding him with a son of Ordonho I.
>
The problem I have with this is that as I understand it, this
'confusion started with Rodrigo being called brother of Alfonso. Now
we can argue what the chronicler might have had in mind when he said
this but this does not sound like a confusion that would have arisen
from a wife's brother marrying the daughter of Rodrigo. (And, of
course, there is the further confusion of an earlier mythical count
Rodrigo made younger son of Pedro of Cantabria.)
> For queen Munia's parentage I have to admit that São Payo is far from
> giving any sound base. It seems he wrote his conclusion forgetting to
> give the reasoning.
> But due to the interventions of mr. Sjostrom I want to point that,
> even if São Payo failed to substantiate his guess, he - not being the
> first
It looks to me like the almost exclusively onomastic approach of the
likes of Settipani. There is no problem with this, as long as it is
taken for what it is worth. The problem is that the caveats all tend
to be stripped away when it passes through a second level of
repetition, whether that be a compilation like ES, the Vajay charts,
or a database like Genealogics. All dotted lines, whether based on
evidence or guesswork, start to look solid.
taf
M.Sjostrom
"..... between conflicting guesses, after some basic filtering I choose the last newest guess...."
".....we must consider the alternatives and if there is none, why not? "
I find these to be very unsound in respect of what research should be.
A principle reflected in those quotations -i.e, what Francisco opined-
is practically the same as the one where all ancestral dots are desired to be filled, whatever flimsy is the reason.
It is really sad to see 'why not' and a drive to fill all the gaps.
Research generally requires proof,
not the attitude 'why not'.
I think it could be named 'fancy' (and not research, of course) if the guiding principle is 'why not'
-------
Have I understood correctly that this Vaz de Sao Payo is a so-called creative genealogist, inventive genealogist
M.Sjostrom
francisco, obviously you have not yet learned that
dismissal of a filiation as unproven
does not need proof;
rather, the proof shall be presented by the one who postulates a filiation. You know, the one who claims that a certain person was child of a named other person.
additionally,
So much of literature informs that queen Munia's parentage is not known to any acceptable likelihood; to present that point, does not need a source.
Rather, of her antecedents I have seen only a proposition somewhere that her family in her siblings' or parents' generation held El Bierzo, but I think that even that is somewhat weak.
As you now have even yourself learned that sao payo is not giving any tangible proof for his supposition that Munio de Branosera were the father of queen Munia,
I think you should realize nothing good can be come from your vigorous demand that Sao Payo must not be criticized.
This has apprised me
- that again and again, we can expect weak genealogies from Iberia
- that Sao Payo appears to be one who has not given evidence for the questionable filiation; indeed, rather Sao Payo would possibly just have presented a filiation which he desires
t...@clearwire.net
> This has apprised me
> - that again and again, we can expect weak genealogies from Iberia
Bit of a broad brush. We can expect weak genealogies from Iberia. We
can expect weak genealogies from England (descents from Companions of
William the Conqueror are as frequent as ever, over a century after
Round). We can expect weak genealogies from the US (it has not been
that long since I read one in a genealogical society journal that had
steam coming out of my ears over how the literature was going to be
tainted by such errant nonsense disguised as scholarship) . . . .
Before you write off an entire continent, read one of the papers of
Saez Sanchez or Ubieto Arteta, for example.
> - that Sao Payo appears to be one who has not given evidence for the questionable filiation;
It certainly appears that Sao Payo did not give evidence or argument
for this particular questionable filiation, but to judge an entire
book from a single circumstance is a bit harsh (In fact, to judge any
source that you have not seen yourself is problematic), particularly
when Francisco has indicated that the author justified in detail
another hypothetical filiation.
taf
M.Sjostrom
One of most important things in publication of medieval pedigrees, in my view is the qualifications (cautionary notes and such) in the filiations presented.
Quite a many filiation in medieval pedigrees are more or less uncertain. The readers of such pedigrees should -when reading it- get to know how ascertained, and what qualifications limiting, is each filiation.
If there are no qualifications expressed as to filiations there presented, the published genealogy supplies its filiations with the understanding that they all are of same reliability and that the filiations are reasonably reliable.
[That's face value....]
A genealogist publishing medieval pedigrees, should understand and appreciate that qualifying notes are necessary and indispensable; that the publication would generally be practically worthless, in uncertain filiations are not noted there with their qualifications.
And, if a genealogist's work, published, presenting medieval pedigrees, is found to lack an expressed qualification of some of its postulated filiations, in case where the filiation is uncertain;
then that genealogist' s work -justifiedly- tend to get regarded as untrustworthy.
t...@clearwire.net
have done this or that better, but I have yet to see this type of
genealogical work of comprehensive nature (showing the entire ancestry
of someone, rather than focusing on a specific relationship or
immediate group of relationships) such as this one that explains every
single conclusion in sufficient detail to leave me satisfied.
Brandenberg, Isenburg, Winkhaus, Turton, ES, Settipani, Keats-Rohan,
Paget. Name a well-published genealogist and I can probably show you
some point that was left insufficiently documented.
Out of curiosity, have you ever written anything for genealogical
publishing? Maybe it is just me, but any time I have attempted to
write a paper that explains everything in detail I consider to be
sufficient it loses any semblance of focus, collapsing under the
weight of the footnotes, and never gets finished. Every successful
author makes sacrifices, consciously or subconsciously. Have you ever
written something more than 200 pages long? In something that long,
everyone makes mistakes and oversights. If you judge every 200+ page
work on the weakest link, you will never find a satisfactory work.
Should Sao Payo have explained the paternity he ascribed to Munia? of
course. Should one dismiss, out of hand, a complete survey of the
ancestry of Afonso I of Portugal because the author failed to provide
this information? to me it seems a bit less black and white.
taf
M.Sjostrom
Afonso I's maternal ancestry is not very diverse. On the contrary, it's so much a matter of sources of a pretty concise geographical area and its families that, really, it's pretty much like a set of very related research questions.
In addition to this,
due to many consanguineous marriages, the actual number of separate individuals in Afonso I's maternal ancestry is not that high.
thusly, not creating confidence.
-----
I am quite disappointed that
in a situation where apparently Sao Payo himself was the one to develop the discussed parentage hypothesis for queen Munia,
still he has neglected to either give any cautionary note about that in his publication, or to present grounds for that filiation link.
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> And this is where I have problems with the entire approach used in
> these speculative reconstructions, by San Payo, Perez de Urbel,
> Settipani, Vajay, etc. In the suggestion that a given name was
> indicative of a specific family or relationship, it begs the
> question.
>
Generally speaking you are right. In this particular case of Munia you
are undoubtly right.
Nevertheless I do not think that the onomastics approach can be so
easily dismissed when no other one seems possible.
This is arguable but for many respectful researchers and, I think,
most of educated|informed compilers, genealogy is not an exact science
and its methodology has little to do with mathematics or physics. In
this spirit I dismiss out of hand the black and white approach.
[Speaking frankly, I do not think mr. Sjostrom is such a
'fundamentalist' a sort of 'ayatollah' of genealogy as this is not
confirmed in other instances; most probably he is 'throwing stones' to
divert the attention from the fact that for medieval Iberia he relies
almost entirely in Genealogics and Medlands, e.g. ES]
With the peril of wandering, I have a feeling that most genealogy
addicted are from another profissional areas. I am a solicitor and an
accountant and I know what your area is (unnecessary to say that I am
not comparing me with you).
It's interesting that, while you have a very strict approach, São Payo
and Chico Dória are much closer to creative genealogy, the first being
a physic (doctorated in France and jubilated as rector of Vila Real
University) the second a mathematician, an university professor not in
his area but with a respectful number of published papers in his area,
so both well acquainted with precision and exactness.
Going back to onomastics my first observation is that depends on the
names. If I fully agree with you and mr. Sjostrom in this Munia's case
is because Nuno|Munio - incidentally in this epoch co-existed cases
where the name was the same with cases where the name was clearly
diferenciated - is such a common name that it is abusive to base a
filiation in it: on the contrary I accept without reserves this
approach for names like Inderquina or Vitiza and with small reserves
for Vela and Oveca or Piniolis, this to exemplify with names of this
epoch and region ('lato sensu' as it includes Navarra and Galicia).
The second observation is not so evident but, I think, more
signifiant. In this area the succession of lands and goods was not by
male primogeniture and younger brothers and sisters inherited even if
unequally. The consequence - observed by mr. Sjostrom - is that this
people many times married between cousins what was the obvious way to
'recuperate' old heritages keeping the property of lands in a certain
region within the family. On the other hand, history tend to omit
commonplaces and to register singularities and the marriage of a
prince with somebody of lower social standing or from a distant
country had a greater probability of beeing registered.
These circunstances often change what apparently seems a guess totally
devoid of support to a guess with a degree of probability that must be
evaluated case by case.
In the case Bermudo Nunes vs. Argilo that I intend to board next, São
Payo's reasoning is chronological.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
> Afonso I's maternal ancestry is not very diverse.
You say this as if either of his grandmothers had well characterized
pedigrees.
> I am quite disappointed that
> in a situation where apparently Sao Payo himself was the one to develop the discussed parentage hypothesis for queen Munia,
> still he has neglected to either give any cautionary note about that in his publication, or to present grounds for that filiation link.
Still haven't seen it, have you?
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
> Taf,
>
> As I read the table from Sao Payo, it alleges that Bermudo Nunes of Seia's wife were saughter of the 'independent count' Fernan Gonzalez
>
Argilo, wife of Bermudo Nunes, conde de Cea was sister of Fernando
Gonçlves, not daughter.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> Francisco appears to be demanding much deference to Sao Payo, and seems to say that Sao Payo's weak-looking genealogies shall not be criticized fully, but
> possibly only in mild tone.
>
Nothing of the sort. If I understood anything of São Payo he would be
the first to appreciate to be criticized; he leaves that quite clear
in his book's introduction.
But to 'fully criticize' there is no need to write:
"highly suspect filiations concocted or stupidly-copied by Sao Payo".
>
> I think it would be useful to know about what sort of genealogical researcher Sao Payo is. His education and degrees. Experience. Merits.
> Has he published in peer-reviewed genealogical research journals ?
> Has his articles published internationally, or only in Iberia ?
>
São Payo licentiated and doctorated in Physics. Besides he was more
historian than specifically genealogist and also left articles in
heraldry and study of seals, all in the medieval era. He was a member
of honour for life and former dirigent of both the portuguese society
of genealogy and the portuguese institute of heraldics and published
regularly in both their official reviews
He also published in France - his father fought there in WW1 married a
frechwoman and was an industrialist in France for some years - where
he doctorated.
>
> Has he found and proved any mistakes in 'traditional' medieval pedigrees ?
>
Most of his articles, mainly in _Armas e Troféus_ are correcting or
innovating old pedigrees. If he 'proved' in all cases it's highly
subjective but I would bet he did in the majority of cases.
I think his 'chef d'oeuvre' at least the most known of his achievments
was a church register of 1544 that proves that D. António, Prior do
Crato was legitimate, with the consequence that Cardinal-Infant D.
Henrique, later king and Filipe II, deliberately lied and most
probably destroyed documentation to drive him away from the throne.
But this is more history than genealogy.
>
> How relied-on by qualified genealogists, are his those research results which are 'educated guesses'?
>
In all Portugal he is highly respected and even those that may
disagree punctually with him - I do, for instance in the pedigree of
portuguese Lacerdas - do not ignore him in any instance.
In Spain he is known and considered as I have seen him regularly
cited. In other countries I don't know but at least Szabolcs de Vajay
has São Payo's citations mainly from _Armas e Troféus_.
Just for curiosity I had a look in BNL (portuguese national library)
and I found 13 titles of São Payo, all books in the medieval era:
A família de Martim Afonso de Sousa "O da Batalha Real" / Luiz de
Mello Vaz de São Payo. [S.l. : s.n.], 1966.
"Sousa Machado" em Vila Pouca de Aguiar / Luiz de Mello Vaz de Säo
Payo. Lisboa : Inst. Port. de Heráldica, 1977.
A varonia e os apelidos do 1o Visconde de São João da Pesqueira / Luiz
de Mello Vaz de São Payo. Braga : [s.n.], 1978.
As distracções de D. António Caetano de Sousa / Luiz de Mello Vaz de
São Payo. Lisboa : [s.n.], 1979.
Terá D. Afonso V tido um filho natural? : á margem dos "Carvalhos de
Basto" / Luiz de Mello Vaz de Säo Payo. Lisboa : [s.n.], 1986.
D. Nuno Soares, o que fez Grijó / Luiz de Mello Vaz de Säo
Payo. Lisboa : [s.n.], 1987.
Les établissements religieux portugais et la généalogie médiévale /
Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo. Lisboa : [s.n.], Lisboa :. 1990.
A pré-história da família Vanzeller / Luiz de Mello Vaz de S.
Payo. Porto : Universidade Moderna, 1999.
Sottomayor mui nobre / Luis de Mello Vaz de São Payo. [S.l :
s.n]. 1999. ISBN 972-98314-0-8.
Ramiro II, sobrinho da Condessa Mumadona e Ramiro II progenitor da
linhagem Maia / Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo. Porto : Universidade
Moderna, 2001.
A herança genética de D. Afonso Henriques / Luiz de Mello Vaz de São
Payo. 1a ed. Porto : Centro de Estudos de História da Família Da
UMP, 2002.
Diogo Freitas do Amaral e D. Afonso Henriques / Luiz de Mello Vaz de
São Payo. Vila Real : L.M.V. Sampayo, 2005. ISBN 972-98314-1-6.
O protonotário D. Pedro de Castro : segundo fundador de Vila Real /
Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo. Vila Real : Comissão de Festas de Nossa
Senhora de Guadalupe, 2005.
I feel somehow silly to post this but after I saw São Payo accused of
stupidly copy miserable material I thought I owned him this.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for curiosity I had a look in BNL (portuguese national library)
> and I found 13 titles of São Payo, all books in the medieval era:
> Ramiro II, sobrinho da Condessa Mumadona e Ramiro II progenitor da
> linhagem Maia / Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo. Porto : Universidade
> Moderna, 2001.
This, of course, is relevant to Chico Doria's pursuit. Have you seen
it? Do you know which countess Mumadona the title refers to? My
guess would be Mumadona Diaz and not the mother of Fernan Gonzalez.
It was published in _Genealogia & Heráldica_, v. 1, no. 5/6. Do you
know the page numbers?
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
It seems you got me there. As I saw no known articles in this list I
concluded they were all books.
Is is certainly Mumadona Dias as Vaz de São Payo wrote repeatidly
about the old counts of Portugal (Portucale) and the 'portuguese'
kings of León. I think that he was the first to inequivocally prove
Elvira Mendes, wife of Alfonso V de León as an agnatic descendant of
those (ES calls her Elvira Menendez and stops in her father count
'Menende González').
_Genealogia & Heráldica_ is a very expensive publication of "Centro de
Estudos de Genealogia, Heráldica e História da Famíla da Universidade
Moderna-Porto" and never saw it. But give me some time and I will try
to get the information.
About Chico Dória I can have a look at his last phase but I recall
that he explicitly wrote somewhere something like "from now on I rely
entirely in Vaz de São Payo" so nothing new is to be expected.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
father of Vermudo, the infante Nuno Ordonez. Just look a the names he
gave his children: Vela, Suero, Oveco, Nuno, Munio, Vermudo and
Gontroda. Sure, Vermudo is one of the names of the royal family
(although not the most immediate of names), but the others? These is
not what one would expect from a royal scion for whom the royal
connections would be most prized. (Salazar Acha suggests that Nuno,
the father, was son of Vela Jimenez, count of Alava - this would
explain Vela, Munio and jimena, which appeared in the next generation
of both the Cea and Vela branches.) More tantiliizing from my
perspective is the Nuno/Munio pair. It was uncommon for a son to be
named after the father, yet here we have it. It is also unusual to
see both of these names (frequently confused) in the same set of
siblings. I have to wonder if this reflects a marriage of the
founding count Nuno with a female of the family of Nuno Rasura, where
by current reconstructions both names, Nuno and Munio, were being used
in alternating generations, and thus one son could have been named for
his maternal grandfather and the other for the uncle (and
coincidentally one of these would end up with the same name as the
father). Of course, Salazar Acha's solution would place a Nuno/Munio
pair in the preceding generation as well.
taf
M.Sjostrom
Francisco,
perhaps you one day will learn what means that 'granddaughter-in-law'.
Use that word to orient yourself, do not mind that one man had the reverse name (first+patronymic) than the other, which causes occasional lapses.
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
> It is certainly Mumadona Dias as Vaz de São Payo wrote repeatidly
> about the old counts of Portugal (Portucale) and the 'portuguese'
> kings of León. I think that he was the first to inequivocally prove
> Elvira Mendes, wife of Alfonso V de León as an agnatic descendant of
> those (ES calls her Elvira Menendez and stops in her father count
> 'Menende González').
Depending on what you mean by inequivocally, I don't think this is the
case. Saez Sanchez published the connection in his "Notas al
Episcopologio minduniense del Siglo X" in 1948, which seems to predate
Sao Payo's work. Along these lines, what does Sao Payo suggest for
the maternal pedigree of Elvira? Her mother Tutadomna is documented
to be granddaughter of count Fruela Gutierrez and his wife Sarracina,
but last I knew there was no explicit indication of her parents or the
other side of her pedigree. Of the names of the children, one stands
out as being, perhaps, informative, Egas, which has no obvious source
in the families of Menendo and Fruela.
Having given a negative expression of the use of names, let me give an
example where they can be helpful, by presenting a tentative solution
to the problem. The name Egas appears out of nowhere. We know that
either the father or mother of Tutadomna was granddaughter of Fruela
Gutierrez. It is likely that the name Egas came from the other side.
OK, now let's look at the known children of Fruela. Well, there is
one, called variably Mumadomna or Tutadomna. She married count
Gonzalo Munioz. This already looks promising, as Menendo Gonzalez and
Tutadomna had a son named Munio (and another Gonzalo, but this would
be expected). Who is this Gonzalo Munioz? He was first cousin of his
wife, the son of Munio Gutierrez, and it has been suggested (by de
Almeida Fernandes) that Munio Gutierrez had a son Egas. Thus, if
Tutadomna were the daughter of count Gonzalo Munioz and Tutadomna
Fruelaz, she would have named a son after her paternal uncle.
(Now the caveat. I have not investigated the hypothesis that Egas
Munioz, father of Portuguese nobleman Munio Viegas 'Gasco', was really
son of Munio Gonzalez. This could be a case of one hypothesis
supporting another, or it could be adding insult to injury.)
And while we are at it, does Sao Payo posit a legitimate Vermudo II
(like Saez Sanchez) or an illegitimate one (like Perez de Urbel)?
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
So now I have to learn what I have already forgotten to overcome your
lapses.
Really clever!
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
M.Sjostrom
these tests of your ability to comprehend things, dear francisco.
it's said that people are never too old.....
it's sad if you were extremely forgetful
by the way, did you consider specifically to leave one dot out of the table-formulaic number designation of Argilo's ?
is that your code to give note to others that the filiation would be suspect or uncertain ?
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
Basically I was interested by my own ancestry and in a very selective
way. As I have several "official" lines to D. Afonso Henriques I
bought São Payo's book but, basically, I use his trees for punctual
reference and rarely, until now, payed attention to the text.
It's a big book 20x28,5 cm with more than 450 paragraphs in 299 pages
followed by 9 pages of bibliography, 58 pages of onomastic index, 55
trees|pages and 2 pages with the index of chapters.
For 'unequivocally' and being 'the first' I have relied in portuguese
reviews randomly selected in google searches. Possibly both wrong
taking your information into account.
Elvira Mendes is found in tree XXVII, her mother Tutadona in XXVI. So
it would be
1. Tutadona
2. Munio Forjaz
3. Elvira Pais (previous? relation with Ordonho III king of León)
4. Froila Guterres
5. Sarracina
6. Paio Gonçalves
7. Ermesinda Guterres (sister to 4)
8. Guterre Mendes, conde na Galiza
9. Ilduara Eris (dau. of Ero Fernandes, conde de Lugo by Ausenda)
12. Gonçalo Afonso Betotes
13. Tereza Eris (sister to 9.)
14. =8
15. =9
Bermudo II 'o Gotoso' (b. 953 - d. 999) is presented as illegitimate,
son of the above mentioned relationship in 3..
Please give me a break and don't ask the reasoning. ;-)
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
Sorry.
> Elvira Mendes is found in tree XXVII, her mother Tutadona in XXVI. So
> it would be
> 1. Tutadona
> 2. Munio Forjaz
> 3. Elvira Pais (previous? relation with Ordonho III king of León)
OK. None of the sources I have handy know that Fruela had a son
Munio. (And I don't see a source for Egas among these families -
maybe through the mysterious Sarracina, or just one of those quirky
things.)
> Bermudo II 'o Gotoso' (b. 953 - d. 999) is presented as illegitimate,
> son of the above mentioned relationship in 3..
>
> Please give me a break and don't ask the reasoning. ;-)
Here I know the reasoning. There is nothing new here, I just wanted to
know which side of the fence he comes down on.
The reasoning behind the illegitimacy argument:
1. Vermudo did not succeed his father.
2. Arabic sources made a vague slur on Alfonso's parentage
3. Vermudo referred to Gonzalo Betotez as his grandfather, and neither
Ordono nor his wife descend from Gonzalo.
The counter arguments to these points (legitimacy being taken as the
default, unless there is sufficient reason to question it):
1. He was quite young, and between Alfonso III and Vermudo, you have
14 kings, of which only three succeeded their father.
2. Who knows what the Arabic writers meant, particularly when the idea
of legitimate marriage vs concubinage was not central to Al-Andalus
inheritance.
3. This was taken to be metaphorical, or else in reference to the fact
that Ordono II had been married to Gonzalo's daughter, but divorced
her within months. Since such usage was not usual practice, point 3
was the primary reason to favor an illegitimate Vermudo.
That is where it rested before a critical new piece of evidence
entered the argument. Specifically, while metaphorical grandparentage
was not typical (except the standard extension of the term grandfather
to great-grandfather, etc.), what was common was in-law usage, and
with the discovery that Velasquita, Vermudo's wife, was a descendant
of Gonzalo, it removes this strongest argument for his legitimacy. As
the others are not that strong to begin with (the isue never would
have been raised without this supposed descent from Betotez), this has
led several scholars to back off the illegitimacy position.
P.S. Is de Almeida Fernandes a close kinsman of your mother?
taf
M.Sjostrom
Francisco,
I think you have not considered enough the dangers of the approach you are propagating.
A spot, a parentage, in any genealogy, should not be filled on the strength of 'it could be possible', 'why not'
If you really appreciate so much the so-called 'creative genealogy', then unfortunately, your work is on very hollow ground.
------------------------
there's something a bit more sound in your thought about inheritance patterns of landed properties. Inheritances of lande properties have generally been positive proof for filiations and lineages of descent. But, again, that requires near-contemporary attestations of both ends of a hypothetized filiation to have actually held the same landed property. Circular is of course of no value.
To assume that a wedded couple are cousins of each others, practically on basis of a general trend to wanting to keep ancestral properties together, is not a valid way to ascribe parentage or certain grandparents to a spouse whose parentage is not known in contemporary sources.
I think I detected something troublesome in what you were ready to accept about inheritances. Please check the reasonability of yours that. I.e, the question, does it make sense.
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> P.S. Is de Almeida Fernandes a close kinsman of your mother?
>
You are making a great confusion with surnames. When surnames
stabilised in Iberia the rule was [name-N]+[father's name-FN]+
[mothers' name-MN] but spanish were much more rigorous than
portuguese. A spanish would always be N FN y MN even when the surname
was the same like Diego Goméz y Goméz but portuguese show a multitude
of exceptions and never a repeated surname.
When Napoleon's armies occupied both Portugal and Spain in the early
18th the Napoleon's Code was imposed and names became N FN; anything
in between was allowed but FN had to be the last.
After the french were expelled, while Spain with Fernando VII, joined
the Holy Alliance and rejected all that was french reverting to their
tradition, Portugal became liberal and kept french civil laws. So
nowadays in Spain it is N FN MN and in Portugal N MN FN.
So, without other factors, Almeida Fernandes' mother could be a
relative of my father; but there is another factor, the composed
surnames. I really don't know Armando de Almeida Fernandes' family but
my [Tavares de Almeida] are close to 400 years old. João Tavares de
Almeida was attested in 1657 as clerk of the royal properties in Beja
and he was probably born about 1620-1625; the composed surname was
kept until 1802 when a coat of arms in queen Mary I reign stabilised
it definetely. I have the family well studied by all descendant
branches so I know that I am not a relative of any Tavares or Almeida
that is not Tavares de Almeida unless the relationship is before the
early XVII.
Best regards,
Francisco
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
"When Napoleon's armies occupied both Portugal and Spain in the early
This was well in the early XIX.
And the message was meant to be sent in pvt but I pressed the wrong
button. Sorry.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 28 Maio, 01:35, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
t...@clearwire.net
> You are making a great confusion with surnames. When surnames
> stabilised in Iberia the rule was [name-N]+[father's name-FN]+
> [mothers' name-MN] but spanish were much more rigorous than
> portuguese. A spanish would always be N FN y MN even when the surname
> was the same like Diego Goméz y Goméz but portuguese show a multitude
> of exceptions and never a repeated surname.
> When Napoleon's armies occupied both Portugal and Spain in the early
> 18th the Napoleon's Code was imposed and names became N FN; anything
> in between was allowed but FN had to be the last.
> After the french were expelled, while Spain with Fernando VII, joined
> the Holy Alliance and rejected all that was french reverting to their
> tradition, Portugal became liberal and kept french civil laws. So
> nowadays in Spain it is N FN MN and in Portugal N MN FN.
I was unaware of the Napoleanic reforms to the traditional system (the
man did get around, didn't he). Obviously, he never got as far as
Brazil. Did they retain the more traditional system, or did they copy
the Portuguese?
> So, without other factors, Almeida Fernandes' mother could be a
> relative of my father; but there is another factor, the composed
> surnames. I really don't know Armando de Almeida Fernandes' family but
> my [Tavares de Almeida] are close to 400 years old.
Ah. I knew this was a possibility.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> I was unaware of the Napoleanic reforms to the traditional system (the
> man did get around, didn't he). Obviously, he never got as far as
> Brazil. Did they retain the more traditional system, or did they copy
> the Portuguese?
>
their first Constitutional Law maintained full validity for all
portuguese laws that were not explicitly revoked.
We gave them the people, the system and the Prince.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
> maybe through the mysterious Sarracina, or just one of those quirky
> things.)
>
native of West Pyrenees as she also gave a basque name to the daughter
Toda. Mattoso noted that this lady is identified in some documents as
Mamodona that could be a bad transcription of Tutadona or a variant of
Amuna wich in another document seems te be referred to the same
person.
São Payo advance the hipothesis that she had a doble name Toda-Amuna
and was reverencially called sometimes Todadona (=Tutadona) other
times Amunadona (=Mamodona).
Then São Payo agrees with Saez and Mattoso (the last one more
cautious) that countess Tutadona mother-in-law of Alfonso V was her
niece.
> > 1. Tutadona
> > 2. Munio Forjaz
> > 3. Elvira Pais (previous? relation with Ordonho III king of León)
>
> OK. None of the sources I have handy know that Fruela had a son
> Munio.
The patronymic of the above Tutadona is not known except for a note of
Perez de Urbel that makes D. Elvira, wife of Alfonso V, daughter of
galician count Mendo Gonçalves and the portuguese Toda Muñoz. Between
the extremely rare noblemen in this epoch with the patronymic Forjaz -
to be a son of Froila Guterres - there is a Nuno Forjaz, confirming
the donation to the monastery of Guimarães by the great countess
Mumadona. Similarly to his uncle Munio Guterres this Nuno Forjaz could
well be Munio Forjaz.
Also the king call her in a document of 3.9.1025 "tya nostra et mater"
being "mater" as usual, mother-in-law. Almeida Fernandes, proposed
that she was a sister of Bermudo II, daughter like him of Ordonho III
and his quasi-legitimate woman Elvira Pais.
São Payo rejects that she was a daughter of Ordonho as no source ever
mentioned her, but sees no problem that she was a daughter of Elvira
Pais, who, after the death of Ordonho III (d. 956) did not went to a
convent as admitted by Almeida Fernandes, but could have married this
Munio (=Nuno) Forjaz, her first cousin and have from him countess
Tutadona, or D. Toda Moniz.
If I understood well, the document is a relationship (tya nostra).
The assumptions are two: 1. a daughter of Ordoño III would not have
passed unnoticed; 2. Nuno=Munio.
And the guess: between other Munios, if any, her first cousin Forjaz.
No problems of chronology unless any reason - not visible - to make
Elvira too old to be a mother after Ordoño's death.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
P.S. This is passionating but my professional life is worse than
chaotic and I still have two children in school (gym and univ.) and
have to pay for it.
F.
t...@clearwire.net
Hmm, the Brazillians I worked with did not follow the system you
described, but one of them probably 'Americanized' it, and the other
was named Schmidt. They did both have that particularly Brazillian
ability to have a good time.
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>> 2. Munio Forjaz
>> 3. Elvira Pais (previous? relation with Ordonho III king of León)
>
> OK. None of the sources I have handy know that Fruela had a son
> Munio. (And I don't see a source for Egas among these families -
> maybe through the mysterious Sarracina, or just one of those quirky
> things.)
>
- but I would like to comment further.
I found 2 assumptions and 1 guess in São Payo but not what is - in my
opinion - the weakest point: Perez de Urbel’s note stating that D.
Elvira, wife of Alfonso V was daughter of count Mendo Gonçalves and
the ‘portuguese’ Toda Muñoz. Nothing that I could find identifies
Perez de Urbel’s source for this and if it is not true all the
reconstruction collapses. However I never saw any contestation to this
(possibly Todd may correct me in any of both points).
It could be interesting to make an attempt to a mathematical approach.
A) D. Elvira as a daughter of Toda Muñoz or D. Toda Moniz.
Without any clue to any source we have to rely in Perez de Urbel
reputation as an university professor in this area. Optimistically,
considering that it was never denied or even denounced I would give it
50%;
B) A daughter of Ordoño, would not have passed unnnoticed. Here I
would give more but not more than 2/3 or 67%;
C) Nuno=Munio. This could well be the case but Todd found an example
out of hand where Nuno and Munio were differentiated and I had also
pointed that it was possible and could provide even another example.
Besides, the differences made sense if regional what is doubtfull that
we could apply in this case; on the other hand, one as close as an
oncle was mentioned both ways. All considered I would apply the same
2/3.
D) After the death of Ordoño in 956, Elvira Pais married Nuno|Munio
Forjaz. Also optimistically and for reasons better explained later I
would give 60%.
With this data the whole reconstruction had a probability of 13,3% and
should be dismissed without further discussion. These 13,3% could
easily became 3% or around, dividing D) in 3 independent questions:
did Elvira survived Ordoño? ... did she married again? ...to her first
cousin Nuno|Munio Forjaz?
Most of medieval genealogy would not survive to such a method (I know
it is not that simple). Being São Payo a physicist it is clear that in
genealogy he has a totally different approach.
We do not know documentally if Elvira Pais survived Ordoño III but we
may assume that this was the case not only because of chronology but
also considering that an surviving Elvira was not a matter for history
record but as she was a quasi-wife, her death before Ordoño’s had a
much better chance of being recorded.
Once Elvira survived and was not mentioned again, considering that she
certainly had goods and women did not administrated directly or lived
alone the two hypothesis are a convent or a new marriage. These are
directly related to the question B). Almeida Fernandes, saying yes to
B) opted for the convent, São Payo, saying no, opted for the marriage.
Of course she could have married a different person than Nuno|Munio
but, again a marriage in a distant place or a lower social standing
was very unprobable and a marriage without the family would imply the
possibility of patrimonial problems that could have arised even if
much later. Repeating myself: as observed by such an expert as mr.
Sjostrom, marriages of first cousins were quite normal; and I add that
a quasi-widow marrying for romantic reasons would be against all odds.
Perez de Urbel or São Payo, even if sometimes “creative” have a very
complete knowlege of circunstances, knew all the known documents and
evaluated what was written before them. I could say that if a
reconstruction showed a probability of 10% this is not 10 against 90
but 10 against other or others hypothesis, all with much less than 10;
the 90 could be an image for what nobody knows.
That reconstruction is São Payo’s hypothesis dated 2002. Can be
substituted anytime by a better one with the same data or proved false
by a new document until now ignored. Any of us can choose to reject
the all or accept it until something new is known.
Medieval genealogy is not black and white nor trace vs dots; it would
demand a ‘panoply’ of colours and thicknesses of lines and once
everybody is free to establish his own standards it seems to me quite
silly to criticize people that choosed differently being those myself
or M. Auréjac.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Maio, 01:35, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> >> 1. Tutadona
> >> 2. Munio Forjaz
> >> 3. Elvira Pais (previous? relation with Ordonho III king of León)
> I found 2 assumptions and 1 guess in São Payo but not what is - in my
> opinion - the weakest point: Perez de Urbel’s note stating that D.
> Elvira, wife of Alfonso V was daughter of count Mendo Gonçalves and
> the ‘portuguese’ Toda Muñoz. Nothing that I could find identifies
> Perez de Urbel’s source for this and if it is not true all the
> reconstruction collapses. However I never saw any contestation to this
> (possibly Todd may correct me in any of both points).
This is the kind of throw-away comment by a historian that drives
genealogists nuts. I have not seen it contested, but I have seen
three more recent detailed analyses of the family (by Mattoso, Garcia
Alvarez, and Torres Sevilla) that did not follow Perez de Urbel.
Unfortunately, with just the bold unsupported statement, there are any
number of possiblities, for example:
a) he had unpublished documentation that proved Toda was daughter of a
Munio, but as he was writing a historical article, he chose not to go
into detail or provide a citation for what was a trivial distraction
from the intent of the paragraph.
b) he had documentation, but had published it elsewhere and for this
reason chose not to provide it in the article.
c) it was a deduction, based on onomastics or some other foundation,
but for one of the reasons above, he chose not to give details (he
basically did this with the hypothesis that Oneca, wife of Diego Eriz,
was a princess of Navarre).
d) it was an editorial or authorial error, that did not get caught in
proofreading (I know of a case of this where Szabolcs de Vajay
erroneously reversed the name of count Berenguer Raimond, instead
calling him Raimond Berenguer, and hence gave someone the wrong
father, even though his intent is clear from the context).
Unfortunately, we just don't have any idea which of these was the
case, and one would be rash to assume that because he said it, he had
evidence sufficient to reach that conclusion.
That being said, Sao Payo seems to be making several other jumps.
First, he identifies this Munio, father of Toda who (if I understand
you correctly) he knows only from Perez de Urbel. If so, then this is
an unsupported leap. We know Toda was granddaughter of Fruela, and we
know that she was daughter of Munio, but Munio could just as well have
been son-in-law as son of Fruela. Then there is the mother he
assigns.
> A) D. Elvira as a daughter of Toda Muñoz or D. Toda Moniz.
> Without any clue to any source we have to rely in Perez de Urbel
> reputation as an university professor in this area.
What is his reputation though, when it comes to genealogy. He
certainly came up with some interesting hypotheses, but he was in
nature a 'joiner' - if given the choice between making a connection or
declining to due to insufficient evidence, he would rather err on the
side of making the link, and given the choice, he would make a link to
the most important person possible. Take, for example, his analysis
of Velasquita, wife of Vermudo II. On demonstrating that her father
was named Ramiro, he immediately began discussing which wife of Ramiro
II was the mother, without considering that she may have been daughter
of a Ramiro who was not king. When faced with Basque names in the
family of Diego Eriz, he doesn't conclude that the wife was Basque, he
concludes that she was of the second most powerful Basque family in
the kingdom, by the sister of Alfonso III. (He is not alone in this,
there being joiners as well as skeptics in each generation of
genealogists.)
> Optimistically,
> considering that it was never denied or even denounced I would give it
> 50%;
I don't know that it was even noticed. If it was, it may have simply
been deemed not worth refuting, given that there was no indication of
its basis.
> D) After the death of Ordoño in 956, Elvira Pais married Nuno|Munio
> Forjaz. Also optimistically and for reasons better explained later I
> would give 60%.
This hides a whole lot of constituent hypotheses (some might say house
of cards). Last I knew, there was no evidence that Pelayo had a
daughter named Elvira. Elvira Paez is a genealogists' construct. The
argument goes as follows:
Ordono married Urraca Fernandez.
Vermudo calls Gonzalo Betotez his grandfather, but neither Ordono nor
Urraca descended from him.
Ordono fell out with Urraca's family.
The Portuguese nobility rose against Ordono, but Pelayo Gonzalez alone
stood by him, suggesting some special connection.
A 12th century interpolation into an older chronicle says Vermudo was
son Ordono by queen Elvira. This interpolator misnamed several other
queens.
Vermudo names 'amita' Teresa.
Pelayo descends from Gonzalo Betotez and had a daughter Teresa.
Based on this, Perez de Urbel concluded that Ordono separated from
Urraca and formed a laison with one of the daughters, either Adosinda
or Gontroda (with the interpolator being wrong about the name) of
Pelayo, and by her had Vermudo. While I have not seen the specific
paper in question, I would presume that Elvira Paez drives from the
same argument, except rather than the interpolator being in error,
instead Pelayo is given an otherwise unknown daughter Elvira Paez. As
far as I know, there is no direct documentation that such a daughter
of Pelayo actually existed at all, and there are problems with other
aspects of the argument that draw its conclusions into question (and
this entire hypothesis has to be right for there to be an Elvira to
marry after Ordono's death). As I have commented before, Velasquita,
Vermudo's wife, appears to have been descendant of Gonzalo Betotez,
explaining the use. Likewise, we now know that Vermudo had a paternal
aunt named Teresa (the queen of Pamplona), so this link to Pelayo's
family is also tempered by an alternative interpretation.
Now, if all of this is right, and Elvira existed, AND if Todadomna's
patronymic really was Munoz, AND of the father Munio really was a
completely undocumented son of Fruela Gutierrez, then we have the
hypothesis that Elvira was the mother. I don't see the slightest
evidence that this was the case. It looks like it is based on nothing
but the fact that endogamy was practiced. Even were this the case, it
is unclear why it is this particular kinswoman the hypothetical Munio
Fruelaz would have married. Why her, and not a daughter of
Hermengildo Gonzalez, or of one of the many siblings of Fruela
Gutierrez, or one of the other daughters of Pelayo Gonzalez. On top
of this, while endogamy was common, it was not universal, so why must
this have been an endogamous marriage and not an exogamous one?
> With this data the whole reconstruction had a probability of 13,3% and
> should be dismissed without further discussion. These 13,3% could
> easily became 3% or around, dividing D) in 3 independent questions:
> did Elvira survived Ordoño? ... did she married again? ...to her first
> cousin Nuno|Munio Forjaz?
I was never fond of such attempts to render probabilities
mathamatically. What differentiates a 50% chance from a 55% chance? a
75% chance? Obviously the latter are more likely to be true than the
former, but how much doubt does a 5% chance represent? The
probability figures seem arbitrary, which parts of the hypothesis get
numbers factored in for also is subject to debate (for example, as
above this solution is dependent on the illegitimate Vermudo solution,
do we need to facto in probabilities for each of these links as
well). It all seems an example of what scientists call inappropriate
precision.
> Perez de Urbel or São Payo, even if sometimes “creative” have a very
> complete knowlege of circunstances, knew all the known documents and
> evaluated what was written before them.
Certainly a knowledge of the primary and secondary documentation is
necessary, but there is another criteria that must be considered -
call it judgement, mindset or whatever. We have seen in this group
people with deep knowledge of the underlying information who still
argue a solution that cannot be supported.
> That reconstruction is São Payo’s hypothesis dated 2002. Can be
> substituted anytime by a better one with the same data or proved false
> by a new document until now ignored. Any of us can choose to reject
> the all or accept it until something new is known.
I have responded negatively to this 'most recently published is best',
but let me say something specific to this case. What is the benefit
of beign more recent? In theory, it means that the author has had the
benefit of new discoveries and the growing body of insight. However,
as I understand it, Sao Payo knows no better the source that Perez de
Urbel used for his conclusion than Mattoso would have. The two of
them were faced with the same bold statement and one chose to follow
it, the other did not. There appears to be no new sources or insight,
yet these two scholars appear to have reached opposing conclusions.
Is it really important who published their work first, given that they
were working fromt he same pool of information? (As a dramatic
example of this, Salazar Acha's most recently published hypothesis
regarding the parentage of Urraca, wife of count Sancho of Castile, is
not even his favored solution. He published his best theory and then
years later an older guess of his, rendered obsolete by the already-
published insight, was itself published. If you go by date, you miss
the boat here.)
taf
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
« Based on this, Perez de Urbel concluded that Ordono separated from
Urraca and formed a laison with one of the daughters, either Adosinda
or Gontroda (with the interpolator being wrong about the name) of
Pelayo, and by her had Vermudo. »
Perez de Urbel said Adozinda or Gontroda; Charles Cawley’s Medlands
say Aragunta (not married) based alledgedly in the Chronicon de
Sampiro but really in ES.
Both Almeida Fernandes and São Payo say Elvira, sister of Teresa.
São Payos arguments are closely related to the question of Vermudo’s
illegitimacy wich São Payo defends with counter arguments to the other
hipothesis. Here he starts following Perez de Urbel - based in 2
diploms of 29-6-997 where Vermudo II call aunt to a Tereza Pais and
5.1.999 where he calls grandparents to counts Gonzalo and Tereza -
acknowledges Sáez and Ruben’s critics of Perez de Urbel but rejects
them as fantasies to defend the former ideas as they had to deny
explicitly declared relationships. He also noted that Almeida
Fernandes, accepting Perez de Urbel, gives the paternity of this idea
to Pelaio de Oviedo who only undirectly contributed to it but approves
the “higly imaginative” but nevertheless with verosimilitude and a
‘taste’ of romance reconstruction of the ambient of the familiar
relationship of Ordoño II and Elvira Pais, first cousin to both his
parents.
« Now, if all of this is right, and Elvira existed ...»
Here I find difficult to understand you as São Payo says that nobody
had doubts that Vermudo’s mother was a queen Elvira that his father
had married after he repudiated Urraca Fernández; and atribute this
last bit - queen - to the wish of bishop Pelaio of be agreable to the
royal house making Vermudo legitimate. This was followed by
“everybody” like Treles, the portuguese Manso de Lima and even the
french _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_.
But São Payo accepts Risco’s demonstration in _España Sagrada_ that
Urraca Fernández was never repudiated as Ordoño could not afford to
give offense to his father-in-law.
He points that with the 2 exceptions of Ruben García Alvarez and
Emílio Sáez-Sanchez “everybody” followed the bastardy thesis,
including the illustrious spanish Sanchez-Albornoz and all the
genealogists that ES was based in.
Nevertheless, São Payo insists, remembereing that if Vermudo was
legitimate he would have been grandson of Fernán Gonzalez, count of
Castile and this one, a realistic politician, would have not supported
a distant relative, Sancho I, when he had the chance of dominate León
through his own grandson under the regency of his daughter [this is a
major argument in my opinion] nor this daughter would have not
supported her son when already a widow she became again a queen by her
2nd marriage with Ordoño IV.
São Payo says that Ordoño II was preparing his divorce - a completely
different thing than repudiate - and sudenly died in 956 being Vermudo
about 3 years old. Also that the bastardy was the main reason why
Vermudo did not succeed as this could have been an obstacle in older
times but was not anymore as it was not to his cousin Ramiro III and
his son Alfonso V.
He also rejects when Mattoso (i) points that there is no Elvira
mentioned by Emílio Saenz among the 8 children of Pelayo. São Payo
points that these eight were not mentioned together in a testament or
a deed of partition(?) but cherrypicked in several diploms leaving no
guarantee that other children existed. He also rejects vehemently the
ES’s Aragunta, undoubtely a daughter of Pelayo but forgetting that
bishop Pelaio clearly stated Elvira. He agrees that bishop Pelaio is
not a very trustable chronicler but finds no reason for him to lie in
such a non signifiant detail.
« ... AND of the father Munio really was a
completely undocumented son of Fruela Gutierrez... »
One Nuno Forjaz confirms a donation from countess Munadomna to the
monastery of Guimarães in 959. Now considering the rarity of this
patronymic I challenge you - in the good sense - to defend that a son
of an unknown Fruela|Froila other than Guterres had the status to
confirm such a donation.
« Even were this the case, it
is unclear why it is this particular kinswoman the hypothetical Munio
Fruelaz would have married. Why her, and not a daughter of
Hermengildo Gonzalez, or of one of the many siblings of Fruela
Gutierrez, or one of the other daughters of Pelayo Gonzalez. »
I think we must look at this the other way round. It is not who Munio
would have married but who Elvira would have married. An widowed but
not destitute Elvira if unwilling to retire to a convent had to be
married, preferably within the family. If another Munio|Nuno filling
the requisits will be found, than we will have to reject or devaluate
São Payo’s hipothesis but until then we can reject the whole or accept
it - with an orange-red dotted line if you wish - as the best known
hipothesis.
(i) For what is worth Mattoso is highly admired in Portugal as an
historian but he admittedly used genealogy to support his
interpretations in historical sociology and has a fair amount of
identified errors; in Portugal, as medieval genealogists, M. Antonino
Fernandes, Almeida Fernandes, São Payo or José Augusto Pizarro, are
ranked before Mattoso even if none of them is so widely known.
Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both Almeida Fernandes and São Payo say Elvira, sister of Teresa.
> São Payos arguments are closely related to the question of Vermudo’s
> illegitimacy wich São Payo defends with counter arguments to the other
> hipothesis. Here he starts following Perez de Urbel - based in 2
> diploms of 29-6-997 where Vermudo II call aunt to a Tereza Pais and
To be clear, he refers to his 'amita' Teresa, 'deo vota'. It was the
speculation of Perez de Urbel that this aunt, the nun Teresa, is
identical with the nun Teresa Pais, daughter of Pelayo Gonzalez.
> 5.1.999 where he calls grandparents to counts Gonzalo and Tereza -
> acknowledges Sáez and Ruben’s critics of Perez de Urbel but rejects
> them as fantasies to defend the former ideas as they had to deny
> explicitly declared relationships.
But not really. One 'rejected' relationship is to 'aunt Teresa', but
she is not further identified and Vermudo had a known paternal aunt
Teresa, so this is begging the question to call this a rejected
relationship. The other is really the sole datum that is worth
addressing, and the descent of Velasquita from them, along with the
practice of naming in-law relationships, makes this less than a
rejection as well.
> He also noted that Almeida
> Fernandes, accepting Perez de Urbel, gives the paternity of this idea
> to Pelaio de Oviedo who only undirectly contributed to it but approves
> the “higly imaginative” but nevertheless with verosimilitude and a
> ‘taste’ of romance reconstruction of the ambient of the familiar
> relationship of Ordoño II and Elvira Pais, first cousin to both his
> parents.
>
> « Now, if all of this is right, and Elvira existed ...»
>
> Here I find difficult to understand you as São Payo says that nobody
> had doubts that Vermudo’s mother was a queen Elvira that his father
> had married after he repudiated Urraca Fernández; and atribute this
> last bit - queen - to the wish of bishop Pelaio of be agreable to the
> royal house making Vermudo legitimate.
The reason for doubt is that Bishop Pelayo gives several wrong names -
Perez de Urbel lists four other cases where he misnames the wife of an
Asturias/Leon king. Thus, that her name was Elvira is not beyond
question (particularly when Ordono II did marry an Elvira). There is
not a single surviving contemporary document that names such a queen
Elvira in this period, and given that there was a powerful Elvira at
this time, one cannot safely dismiss the possibility that the Bishop
was confused.
> This was followed by
> “everybody” like Treles, the portuguese Manso de Lima and even the
> french _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_.
But not by Perez de Urbel, who concludes that just such a confusion
has occurred.
> But São Payo accepts Risco’s demonstration in _España Sagrada_ that
> Urraca Fernández was never repudiated as Ordoño could not afford to
> give offense to his father-in-law.
> He points that with the 2 exceptions of Ruben García Alvarez and
> Emílio Sáez-Sanchez “everybody” followed the bastardy thesis,
> including the illustrious spanish Sanchez-Albornoz and all the
> genealogists that ES was based in.
> Nevertheless, São Payo insists, remembereing that if Vermudo was
> legitimate he would have been grandson of Fernán Gonzalez, count of
> Castile and this one, a realistic politician, would have not supported
> a distant relative, Sancho I, when he had the chance of dominate León
> through his own grandson under the regency of his daughter [this is a
> major argument in my opinion]
When was the previous time that the kingdom had had a regency? Was
Odrono II followed by his young sons under their step-mother's
regency? There was no tradition of regency up to this point.
> nor this daughter would have not
> supported her son when already a widow she became again a queen by her
> 2nd marriage with Ordoño IV.
Support her son over her husband? Or do you mean when he and his
party were driven out by Sancho's, she and her still-young son were to
stand up to his coalition? Making these political whouldda, couldda,
shouldda arguments implies some set of rules and practices, but based
on different assumptions, you get a different outcome.
> São Payo says that Ordoño II was preparing his divorce - a completely
> different thing than repudiate - and sudenly died in 956 being Vermudo
> about 3 years old. Also that the bastardy was the main reason why
> Vermudo did not succeed as this could have been an obstacle in older
> times but was not anymore as it was not to his cousin Ramiro III and
> his son Alfonso V.
This argument is that since there was a regency later, then the
earlier case should have resulted in a regency, but the succession of
Ramiro III marked the first regency, ever. Setting aside 956 and
looking at 966, this timeline would still leave Vermudo aged 13 when
Ramiro succeeded. In other words, at this point, there was going to
be a regency, because there were no viable adult candidates, but ten
years earlier, there was, the king's adult brother. Was this the
recognized practice, by coincidence exercised for the first time in
966 because there had not been a legitimate infant heir in 956, or
instead was this 966 regency an ad hoc scenario that arose because of
the lack of an alternative at that date, thereby creating a precedence
for 999. From my perspective, in 956, 966, and 999, each decision
makes perfect sense in context, whether Vermudo was born to Urraca or
someone else. In 956, a kingdom that had a tradition of brothers
succeeding brothers, when faced with a prince who was three years old,
went with the vigorous (if somewhat portly) brother. In 966, you had
two juveniles. One represented a continuation of the party in power,
with the aunt, who already had played a certain administrative role in
the kingdom, playing regent. The other was still a youth, one whose
selection at this point would have required overthrowing the status
quo and sent the kingdom into another round of civil war. I have
little doubt that had Sancho had a younger brother, he would have
followed, and we still would not have had a regency. We get to 999,
and now there is precedence for regency, and the powerbase of the
branch in power would share in that regency, so it is just like 966.
In short, I just don't see the kingdom of Leon ruled by a three-year-
old, when they never had a tradition of regency, and the fact that
they later would adopt this practice in no way makes its adoption
earlier inevitable were it not for a supposed illegitimacy.
> He also rejects when Mattoso (i) points that there is no Elvira
> mentioned by Emílio Saenz among the 8 children of Pelayo. São Payo
> points that these eight were not mentioned together in a testament or
> a deed of partition(?) but cherrypicked in several diploms leaving no
> guarantee that other children existed.
Classic argument from absence. True, we have no evidence that there
wasn't a daughter Elvira, but that is not the same thing as having
evidence that there was. In the entire contemporary documentary
record, there is not a single mention of either an Elvira Pais nor a
Queen Elvira. She may be nothing but a house of cards built atop one
error by the error-prone Bishop.
> He also rejects vehemently the
> ES’s Aragunta, undoubtely a daughter of Pelayo but forgetting that
> bishop Pelaio clearly stated Elvira. He agrees that bishop Pelaio is
> not a very trustable chronicler but finds no reason for him to lie in
> such a non signifiant detail.
Not a lie, just possible confusion, as he did in so many other places,
(particularly, as I said above, given that Ordono II married an
Elvira).
> « ... AND of the father Munio really was a
> completely undocumented son of Fruela Gutierrez... »
>
> One Nuno Forjaz confirms a donation from countess Munadomna to the
> monastery of Guimarães in 959. Now considering the rarity of this
> patronymic I challenge you - in the good sense - to defend that a son
> of an unknown Fruela|Froila other than Guterres had the status to
> confirm such a donation.
I will have to look into this more, as I am unfamiliar with the
document in question, but these documents were not exclusively
witnessed by immediate kin. Which countess Munadomna is this?
Fruela's mother-in-law, and hence the hypothesized grandmother of
Nuno?
> « Even were this the case, it
> is unclear why it is this particular kinswoman the hypothetical Munio
> Fruelaz would have married. Why her, and not a daughter of
> Hermengildo Gonzalez, or of one of the many siblings of Fruela
> Gutierrez, or one of the other daughters of Pelayo Gonzalez. »
>
> I think we must look at this the other way round. It is not who Munio
> would have married but who Elvira would have married. An widowed but
> not destitute Elvira if unwilling to retire to a convent had to be
> married, preferably within the family. If another Munio|Nuno filling
> the requisits will be found, than we will have to reject or devaluate
> São Payo’s hipothesis but until then we can reject the whole or accept
> it - with an orange-red dotted line if you wish - as the best known
> hipothesis.
Here is the problem with working second hand. I am apparently missing
something important, because the argument above is predicated on
1) that Elvira Pais would have married into the family
2) that in so doing, it would have been a person named Munio/Nuno
3) this is the only Munio/Nuno found that she might have married
I don't see support for any of these. In particular, why is Elvira
involved in this web at all? We know that Tutadomna was granddaughter
of Fruela, and we have this Nuno Forjaz, so I can see this argument,
but I can't see the reasoning for Elvira being involved in the least.
You suggest that without an alternative Munio, it must have been this
one, but why would she be posited to have married a Munio at all?
How can any kind of reasonable hypothesis be constructed concerning
the marriage of a person only known from one document, marrying
another peson not known from any documents?
taf
t...@clearwire.net
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One Nuno Forjaz confirms a donation from countess Munadomna to the
> monastery of Guimarães in 959. Now considering the rarity of this
> patronymic I challenge you - in the good sense - to defend that a son
> of an unknown Fruela|Froila other than Guterres had the status to
> confirm such a donation.
I can address this better now. First of all, it begs the question by
setting up a false dichotomy. Either it is Fruela Gutierrez, or it is
an unknown Fruela. In fact, there is a known Fruela who was a member
of Muniadomna's family. Assuming the grand countess Munadomna Diaz is
intended here, her brother Jimeno DIaz had a son Fruela, who could be
father of a Nuno Forjaz witnessing his great-aunt's charter. There is
also a second Fruela Gutierrez, son of Gutierre Osoriz (although a
charter naming his suggests he had a sole daughter as heiress.
taf
taf
I have found two more Fruelas of this time, both counts. One was
Fruela Velaz, son of Vela Nunez, supposed son of the Nuno Ordonez for
whom the thread is named. One could argue that he had no connection
with Mumadomna DIaz. The other had such a connection, Fruela
Gundesindez. His father was Muniadomna's first cousin, while his
mother was aunt of the Fruela Gutierrez named above. Basically, we
have three counts Fruela who were cousins, sons of Gundesindo Eriz and
Enderquina Menendez, Gutierre Osoriz and Ildonza Menendez, and
Gutierre Menendez and Ilduara Eriz.
This cluster gave rise to one subsequent group of Fruelas (including
the Traba), while Fruela Velaz also appears to have contributed his
share of Fruelas. I have found just a small number that I have been
unable to place in one of these two families. One of them is a
mid-11th century count Fruela Arias, son of count Arias Tetoniz.
Anyone know his mother, or the lineage of his father?
taf
M.Sjostrom
not about infante Nuno/Munio, but about another Munio/Nuno, also talked in this thread:
---
was
Nuno 'Rasura', de el Branosera,
actually *more* authentically, nobleman Munio Nunez
?????
I am puzzled over which form of that name (this with two diverging variants) was the correct one for him in contemporary documentation.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00120958&tree=LEO
Here in the group archives, some posts claim he was Munio - or, at least, that Gontinha who is seen as daughter of the lord of Branosera, was daughter of Munio;
while other posts here assign him as 'Nuno'