Genealogics - Early Iberia
Todd A. Farmerie
take a look at what Leo's site had for the various early Iberian
families, and I noticed several problems. Perhaps going over them here
rather than a private email may engender discussion outside of the
English nobility rut the group has been in of late.
1. Ramiro Alfonso, (probably shouldn't be refered to as Ramiro I)
unsuccessful competitor for the throne of Asturias, married Urraca and
had a daughter Muniadona Ramirez. However, there is reason to believe
that Urraca was widow of his brother King Fruela II, and as such could
not have been mother of Muniadona, whose own son Fernan is thought to
have been born before Fruela's death.
2.The wife of Hermengildo Gutierrez and his mother, Hermesenda Gatonez
and Elvira Agatomes appear to be confused versions of the same woman,
the wife of Hermengildo. Also, Hermengildo's daughter should be Ildonca
Menendez, not Gutierrez.
3. Vermudo II is shown as illegitimate son of Ordono III by Aragonta
Pelaez. This is a theory of longstanding, but unsupported by the
contemporary record. At it's heart, it was proposed by Justo Perez de
Urbel to explain a charter in which Vermudo refers to his
'great-grandfather' Gonzalo Betotez, from whom neither Ordono not his
wife descend. It was then suggested that he was illegitimate, that this
explains why he was passed over in favor of his uncle, and why his son
was described by a muslim chronicler as "son of a mule". Perez de Urbel
then searched the likely families from which the mother may have derived
for one with known daughters, descended from Gonzalo, and lit on the
family of Pelayo Gonzalez, great-grandson of the earlier Count. Two of
his daughters were unmarried at the time Vermudo was born, and he
decided the mother was likely one of them. Subsequent works have
adopted this, picking one or the other of the daughters (usually
Aragonta Pelaez) to remove the disconcerting ambiguity over which the
mother was.
However, some big names in the field, most notably Emilio Saez Sanchez,
who knew more about the royal family of this period than any other
scholar of his generation, never accepted this solution. Vermudo was
obviously passed over because of his youth, not illegitimacy, and
further, if you look at prior generations, at the time of Vermudo's
accession, of the previous 11 kings, only two followed his father, so
the failure of Vermudo to succeed hardly needs some special circumstance
to account for it. Likewise, a big hole in the theory involve the
Asturian practice of not distinguishing ancestors from ancestors-in-law,
and the first wife of Vermudo, Velasquita, was of unknown parentage.
Were she, rather than Vermudo, the descendant of Count Gonzalo, Vermudo
would still have called him "great-grandfather", without having to
postulate that Vermudo himself was illegitimate. Recent work on
Velasquita has concluded exactly that - that she was daughter of Count
Ramiro, either brother or uncle of Pelayo, and hence there is no reason
whatsoever to conclude that Vermudo was illegitimate or that he was son
of anyone other than Urraca Fernandez.
4. The wife of Sancho Garcia, Count of Castile is shown as Urraca
Salvadorez. This derived from the invented pedigree making her daughter
of a Salvador Perez, son of Fernan Gonzalez. neither of these last two
actually existed. She is shown as daughter of Gomez Diaz, which is the
currect 'best guess', but if so, the Countess would have been Urraca
Gomez. (Not that inaccordance with this, Pedro Fernandez, son of Count
Fernan Gonzalez, should be removed - I don't know if there is evidence
for the daughter Toda Fernandez also shown as daughter of Urraca Garces,
second wife of Fernan.)
5. Raymond (Raimundo) II, Count of Ribagorza, is given the wrong
pedigree entirely. He was son of Bernard I, Count of Ribagorza, by one
of the daughters of Galindo Aznar II of Castile, a half-sister of
Endregota Galindez, Queen of Navarre. Bernard was son of Raimund I,
Count of Pallars and Ribagorza, son (apparently) of Count Lope. He
(Raimond I) was brother of Dadildis of Pallars, who married as his
second wife, Count Garcia Jimenez, and by him was mother of Sancho I
Garces, who was not, as is shown, son of Garcia by his first wife,
Oneca, Rebel of Sanguesa. Oneca was, however, mother of Sancha Garces,
wife of Galindo Aznar II and mother of Endregota Galindez. This is all
documented by the Codice de Roda, which is thought to have been compiled
at the time of the marriage of Garci Fernandez of Castile to Ava of
Ribagorza, daughter of Raimund II.
6. The parentage of this Garcia Jimenez is entirely invented. He was
son of a Jimeno, as shown by the name, but nothing more is known (the
father is sometimes called Jimeno the Strong, but that man lived too
much earlier to be the same as Garcia's father). The pedigree as shown
was one of several concocted to provide a legitimacy to the usurpation
of the royal title by the family which held a regency during the
extended captivity of King Fortun Garces. In fact, there is no reason
to hypothisize a close relationship, and certainly not the specific one
shown. He should just be given as son of Jimeno (no patronymic).
Likewise, Inigo, father of Inigo Arista, should not have a father. He
himself is only known through his son's patronymic, and the Jimeno shown
either results from confusion or invention.
7. There is no basis of a wife's name for Inigo Arista. Likewise, his
relationship to Muza ibn Qasi is problematic. A near-contemporary
muslim chronicler calls them half-brothers on their mothers side, while
the Codice de Roda indicates that Muza married the daughter of Inigo
Arista. There are several possibilities here. The most obvious is that
they are both right - that Muza married his half-niece. Alternatively,
one or the other (or both) of these sources could be mistaken. It could
be that the Roda document has placed the girl in the wrong generation,
and that Muza married a half-sister of Inigo Arista (this is what is
shown). Alternatively, these could both be shadow memories of a single
relationship via a female, in which case we are like the man with two
watches, with no basis to conclude which is right (or if both are a
little off).
Well, that's a start.
taf
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> She is shown as daughter of Gomez Diaz, which is the currect 'best
> guess'
Bravo, Todd - although I have nothing to offer on this subject, I
applaud you for opening it and lifting the newsgroup's collective
sights out of the "English nobility rut".
And in doing so, I applaud also your classic typo above, "currect".
Perfect for changeable guesswork, not quite "current" and at the same
time not "correct", but wishing to be both.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
Current was intended.
taf
Guy Vincent
predictive meteorology.
Guy Vincent
Peter Stewart
"Guy Vincent" <g.vi...@bom.gov.au> wrote in message
news:431E16C0...@bom.gov.au...
> This new word will be perfect for my role in the off-line world of
> predictive meteorology.
An advance in scientific communication - as well as "currect" predictions,
you might experiment with "corrent" forecasts. They could use these in FEMA.
Peter Stewart