Alfonso VI, Zaida, Elizabeth, etc. [part 2]
Reedpcgen
Alfonso married Beatrice, a French noblewoman, by 28 May 1108, when she was
named in a private document of the church of Astorga [Reilly, p. 345]. ES II
57 states that Alfonso's third wife Bertha died 19 May 1097/8.
SO, WAS ZAIDA QUEEN ELIZABETH?
The facts are not clear. Zaida arrived at Alfonso's court as part of a
political maneuver to gain support of the Spanish Arabs who were threatened by
the Berber armies from Morocco. She would have arrived between 26 March and
September 1091. She was the mother of a male child, Sancho, born about 1092 or
1093, who though illegitimate, was eventually named as his father's heir.
Levi-Provencal assumed Zaida died in childbirth on 1093, but there is no true
factual basis for this conclusion. We know that Zaida was named Elizabeth when
she was baptized as a Christian.
Alfonso's third wife, Bertha, did not die until 19 May 1097/8. So Alfonso
would not have been free to marry Zaida/Elizabeth until after that date. We
know a woman named Elizabeth was his consort and Queen by 14 May 1100. And we
know that this Queen Elizabeth was mother of two daughters, Sancha and Elvira.
Combined evidence suggests that Queen Elizabeth died 12 or 13 September 1107.
The very old Alfonso VI married his last wife, Beatrice, by 28 May 1108.
It is logical to conclude that Alfonso, after having decided that he wanted his
ONLY son Sancho to succeed him--instead of the legitimate son of his legitimate
daughter the Infanta Urraca--would do everything to try and legitimize him.
Marrying his mother, Zaida/Elizabeth, would be a logical step.
So it seems logical to me to conclude that Zaida was Queen Elizabeth, but this
is still in dispute, and barring the discovery of some ancient document, it is
likely to remain in dispute for the reasons spelled out in the above
discussion. David Kelley stated that Szabolcs de Vajay assured him that "the
concubine Zaida followed a not uncommon pattern in moving from a secondary
status to a primary status, i. e., she became the queen" [TAG 69:113].
WHAT IS DISTURBING is that this is the sort of detail that Roderick Stuart
SHOULD have discovered in his investigation. It is almost inexcusable, since:
(1) David Kelley's review of RFC specifically discussed the Zaida matter,
pointing out Charles Evans's articles in TAG.
(2) Stuart is thoroughly familiar with ES II (1984) which presents the
marriages and filiations as set forth above, though he for some inexplicable
reason omits citing ES II 57 in line 430.
(3) Stuart includes "Mateos, Ricardo, y Sainz de Madrano (Barcelona, 1984). A
ms in the possession of J. A. Stargardt, Marburg, Germany" and "Salazar, Jaime
de, y Acha (Madrid, 1984). A ms in the possession of J. A. Stargardt, Marburg
Germany" in separate entries in his bibliography.
I can only interpret this to mean that Stuart lifted (ineptly) the cite given
in ES II 57 as its source, which actually only means the information came from
those two men. No mention is made of any manuscripts, that the two separate
manuscripts were both drawn up in 1984, and both in possession of J. A.
Stargardt, or Marburg. This was actually the publisher of ES, and any
information likely would have arived well before the publishing date in 1984,
and rather than being in possession of the publisher, would have been in the
possession of Detleve Schwennicke, the compiler of the new series!
(4) LASTLY, Roderick Stuart includes "[Reilly, Bernard F.] _The Kingdom of
Leon-Castilla Under King Alfonso VI, 1065-1109_ (Princeton, NJ, Princeton
University Press, 1988." [sic] in his bibliography (RFC, p. 255), and cites to
this source under the line which includes the detailed account of Alfonso VI
(line 248). Stuart also cites "ES, II 1984:57" AND Mataeos AND Sanchez among
his sources for line 248. Stuart specifically touts that he has seen all these
sources and more. How did he have access to privately held manuscripts in
Germany?
And if Stuart had gone through Reilly's book looking for these facts (presented
plainly above), how could he have come to the conclusion that Teresa was a
daughter of Zaida, and that Zaida was the same as Ximena?
It is for incompetence such as this that I cannot recommend _Royalty for
Commoners_, which claims to be the "Complete" known lineage of John of Gaunt in
both the title and preface.
Sorry for venting. Recall, if you would, that the first press of this work
[prior to the first edition] was so bad it had to be withdrawn and recalled by
the publisher, who according to my understanding destroyed the volumes. I am
told Stuart blamed the numerous problems in the first 'official' [surviving]
edition on his computer.
If Stuart or someone else were able to competently exract the information held
in hte works he cites in his bibliograaphy, RFC would be a valuable general
reference. Perhaps the publisher could get an editor who could revise the
text.
Anyway, I hope this has been an educational discussion.
Paul C. Reed