Descendants of Don Pelayo?

[JOHN de CELIS]

In a previous post I indicated the Ramiro I was the son-in-law of Bermudo I
marrying Bermudo I's daughter Urraca.

Todd Farmerie correctly questions that relationship. In reviewing my notes and
several sources it is clear that Ramiro I was the son of Bermudo I.

Possibly an out-of-body experience was to blame the night of the post.

John
jdec...@msn.com

[Jim Stevens]

"Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@PO.CWRU.EDU> wrote on Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:36:49
(in part)

>I. The chronology of this solution has always been problematic, as has
>mention of the nephew of Alfonso I as a monk. Szabolcs de Vajay, in his
>recent charts summarizing the connections of the spanish royalty and
>nobility, discusses it briefly, and returns to the earlier source,
>showing the descent as:

It appears from my quick perusal of these Don Pelayo postings that I may be
able to extend my Iberian lines back quite a bit using the lines in
Stuart's ROYALTY FOR COMMONERS as, at least at first glance, they seem to
jive with what is being posted.

Two questions:

#1. Can the early Iberian lines in RFC be relied upon. If so, but with
some exceptions, I would appreciated advice as to where to steer clear.

#2. Can you give me more information as to where I can obtain the Szabolcs
de Vajay recent charts summarizing the connections of the spanish royalty
and
nobility mentioned in this post that I'm responding to ? Are these charts
considsered to be the "latest word" on Iberian genealogy ?

TIA !

Today is the first day of the rest of your life ! (jste...@iquest.net) Jim

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Jim Stevens wrote:
>
> It appears from my quick perusal of these Don Pelayo postings that I may be
> able to extend my Iberian lines back quite a bit using the lines in
> Stuart's ROYALTY FOR COMMONERS as, at least at first glance, they seem to
> jive with what is being posted.
>
> Two questions:
>
> #1. Can the early Iberian lines in RFC be relied upon. If so, but with
> some exceptions, I would appreciated advice as to where to steer clear.

Some can, some can't. I have just looked at the lines themselves, not
dates and details, which may be botched:

20:Gutier - valid (but source is Saez, not Saly -
Stuart gets caught using Moriarty
and not the original. He misread
Moriarty's handwriting)
21:Hermengildo - valid
35:Early Castile- invalid
52:Leon/Castile - valid
54:Barcelona - valid (but 37 Guinidilda unlikely dau.
Baldwin I of Flanders)

55:Salvadorez - bogus (35,36 invented, chronology
impossible, 34 Urraca NOT
Salvadorez)

76:Navarre - valid up to 40:Inigo Iniguez Arista,
whose father must have been
named Inigo, but otherwise
unidentified - also 39 m)2
nothing more than a guess

83:Castile - valid (but Richilde NOT mother of
Sancho)

85:Portugal - valid (but Teresa dau Jimena Munoz,
who is NOT Zaida/Isabel)
86:Late Navarre - valid
94:Ivrea/Castile- valid
95:Kings Aragon - valid
151:Navarre - valid (but 31 Sancho Garces is NOT
Sancho IV, but a bastard brother
of the same name)
155:Burg/Castile- valid
164:Arag/Prov - valid
179:Calvo - valid (but wife 34 doubtful)

180:Gundemariz - valid up to 33. 34 is Piniolo
Gundemariz. (RFC 35 actually
brother-in-law of 33, RFC 34
nephew of 33).

181:Calvo II - unlikely, probably invented

195:Urgel - valid (but identity of wives, and
which mother of next
generation is debated)

223:Nav/Jimenez - valid up to 41, who is NOT Inigo
Arista (76:40) - before that
invented.

248:Castile/Leon- valid (but mistress mother of
Teresa is Ximena Munoz, NOT
Zaida/Isabel)

267:Vermudez - valid (I personally don't buy
39/40 link, but others do)

276:Astur/Leon - valid (but Visigoth ancestry of
Pedro is untrustworthy.
Note also the corrections
in early descent discussed
earlier in this thread)

277:Gonzalez - valid up to 36. 37 is bogus, and
should be Gonzalo Betotez,
as in the included Moriarty
(actually Saez) material
RFC incorrectly says is
wrong. (RFC 37 is confused
version of Hermengildo
Gonzalez, brother of 36, and
father of 35 husb. Gonzalo
Menendez.)

285:Castile - valid up to 37, but wife wrong.
Also 34 Urraca NOT
Salvadorez.

286:Ribagorza - valid up to 38. 39 up one of two
proposed lineages. 38
married neither Giniguenta
nor Banu Qasi dau.

287:Castile - no (line right, but invalid
connection.)
289:Gascony - valid
290:Gasc/Aragon - valid
292:Ct Aragon - valid
293:NavIniguez - valid
294:NavIniguez - valid
347:Besalu - ? (I cannot vouch for 35/34
connection

> #2. Can you give me more information as to where I can obtain the Szabolcs
> de Vajay recent charts summarizing the connections of the spanish royalty
> and nobility mentioned in this post that I'm responding to ? Are these
> charts considsered to be the "latest word" on Iberian genealogy ?
>

Yes. They are mostly based on the work of Masnata and Salazar Acha, who
are completely rewriting the early connections based on the original
material rather than the corrupted genealogical traditions.
Unfortunately, the work of the latter is unpublished.

Vajay, Szabolcs de. Structures de pouvoir et reseaux de familles du
ville au XII siecle. in Genealogica & Heraldica: Actas do 17o
Congresso Internacional das Ciencias Genealogica e Heraldica. Lisboa.
1986. pp.279-317 & charts.

taf

[Jim Stevens]

I just wanted to publicly thank you, Todd, for the thoroughness with which
you answered my inquiry. What you have done has made an otherwise
undependable tool into an invaluable one.

Might I suggest that anyone, especially those just beginning to research
their own medieval genealogy, who is even thinking of using RFC as a source
print out your post and save it for use with RFC.

>> #1. Can the early Iberian lines in RFC be relied upon. If so, but with
>> some exceptions, I would appreciated advice as to where to steer clear.
>
>Some can, some can't. I have just looked at the lines themselves, not
>dates and details, which may be botched:

Today is the first day of the rest of your life ! (jste...@iquest.net) Jim

[Jim Stevens]

"Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@PO.CWRU.EDU> wrote:

>151:Navarre - valid (but 31 Sancho Garces is NOT
> Sancho IV, but a bastard brother
> of the same name)

I'm a little confused. Which brother did Costanza of Moranon marry, Sancho
IV or the bastard ?

I take it you are telling me that Ramiro II's father was the bastard. Who
was his mother ?

RFC does not specifically call Sancho IV King of Navarre. Was he ?

Ditto for Ramiro II. Was he king ?

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Jim Stevens wrote:
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@PO.CWRU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >151:Navarre - valid (but 31 Sancho Garces is NOT
> > Sancho IV, but a bastard brother
> > of the same name)
>
> I'm a little confused. Which brother did Costanza of Moranon marry, Sancho
> IV or the bastard ?
>

The best name to give the father of Ramiro Sanchez is Sancho Garces
Mazeratiz. Mazeratiz was (it appears) born before his brother of Sancho
IV, King of Navarre, and thus assumed to be a bastard. Mazeratiz
married twicw, first to Constance Sanchez de Maranon, and second to a
sister (Sancha I think) of Count Gonzalo Salvadorez (again, I think.
This is from memory).

> I take it you are telling me that Ramiro II's father was the bastard. Who
> was his mother ?
>

Ramiro Sanchez, Count of Monzon (II should not be used for him, but has
been assigned based on the mistaken theory that he was son of another of
Sancho IV's brothers, named Ramiro, and there was a contemporary Ramiro
II with whom he is already too easily confused) was son of Constance.

> RFC does not specifically call Sancho IV King of Navarre. Was he ?
>

Yes, until he got pushed off a cliff in a family spat. At that time,
the kingdon was partitioned, and the crown (as well as the family of
Mazeratiz) went to Aragon. He was succeeded by Sancho (V) Ramirez of
Aragon, and then by sons Pedro I and Alfonso I. Following the death of
Alfonso, the kingdoms again split, and Navarre nominated as king Garcia
Ramirez, (who had succeeded his father Ramiro Sanchez as Count of
Monzon).

> Ditto for Ramiro II. Was he king ?
>

No. It is extremely difficult to find any record of Ramiro Sanchez,
since he was living at the Aragonese court at the same time that the
Kings (Pedro and Alfonso) had a brother of the same name (Ramiro
Sanchez, the monk, later Ramiro II of Aragon). It is possible that many
of the charter entries previously thought to refer to the Aragonese monk
really refer to the Navarran Count.

taf