Fw: Zaida (& Isabel, Jimena and the others)
Leo van de Pas
This is dealing with a set of complex situations.
Todd gives that Constance de Bourgogne died after 2 September 1093 and
before 25 October 1093
ES Volume II Tafel 57 gives she died January/February 1093
Todd then quotes that the following wife Bertha "appears 28 April 1095"
ES Volume II Tafel 57 states she married Alfonso "in 1093 before 25
November".
This gives about a month between the death of one wife and marrying the
next.
=== another wife
I appreciate that Todd clearly states that the origins of Beatriz (married
Alfonso probably 1105) are uncertain.
He brings to attention that this Beatriz could be the niece of the 1st wife
of Alfonso, Agnes de Poitou.
At the moment, in my system, I have Beatriz as a half-sister of Agnes. For
Beatrtiz to be a (half-)niece she has to be daughter of Guillaume VII-IX who
married in 1094, to me it seems unlikely that Alfonso, aged about 66 and
probably in search for a son, would marry someone so young, at the most 10
_if_ she is a daughter of Guillaume VII-IX.
Now comes an evern bigger problem with what I have. If Beatriz is a
half-sister of Agnes and a full sister of Guillaume VII-IX, then her mother
should be Hildegarde de Bourgogne. Hildegarde happens to have a half-sister
Constance who is Alfonso's 2nd wife. Making Beatriz either a half-sister or
niece of the 1st wife, and a half-niece of the 2nd wife.
I am getting the feeling I need to turn Beatriz into an orphan.
====== Zaida
If Queen Isabel and Zaida (Elisabeth/ Isabella) are one and the same, then
she was mother of Sancho (1093) Elvira (1097), and Sancha (1100).
For Sancho I have no descendants (hardly surprising), for Sancha only one
son without descendants, but Elvira has many-many descendants, including
Elizabeth Woodville wife of Edward IV and quite a number of
gateway-ancestors.
I hope to hear that Beatriz really is an orphan..............
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "taf" <farm...@interfold.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Zaida (& Isabel, Jimena and the others)
Thanks to Nat Taylor, I have recently read through a new article on
the subject of Zaida, royal mistress and (as some would have it) queen
of Alfonso VI of Leon and Castile.
To review, Alonso had a complex marriage history. The early-12th
century Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo wrote that Alfonso married Agnes of
Aquitaine, Constance of Burgundy, Bertha of Tuscany, Isabel, and
Beatrice, and further had children by mistresses Jimena and Zaida, a
moorish princess who was baptized as Isabel. Several questions remain
about these women, their parentage and identities. Agnes can be
definitively placed as daughter of Guy-Geoffrey alias William VIII of
Aquitaine by his second wife, and Constance has always been clearly
identified as daughter of Robert I, Duke of Burgundy. Zaida is said by
the Bishop to be daughter of the deposed ruler of Seville, but muslim
sources make it clear that she was actually his daughter-in-law. At
various times, various theories have been proposed regarding the
others, while the fate of Agnes has also been subject to debate.
The problem with Agnes is that Orderic has her marrying Helias, Count
of Maine, 30 years after she is last recorded as Alfonso's wife (22
May 1077). This would require a divorce followed by a long seclusion,
or else an intermediate marriage that has escaped notice. As further
evidence for divorce, authors have cited an undated papal latter
thought to be from the late 1070s or earliest 1080s that condemns
Alfonso for continuing in an incestuous so-called marriage.
Presumably, it is argued, Alfonso divorced Agnes to satisfy the pope.
The alternative explanation is that Orderic was mistaken, and that
Helias married someone else. These authors would argue that the papal
letter refers not to his old marriage, but to his new one to
Constance, contracted prior to 8 May 1080. At least this latter part
does seem to be the case, as the letter decries the behavior of a
certain Clunaic monk who is known to have been instrumental in
arranging the marriage to Constance, and Constance was a near relative
of Agnes (and if it was the relationship of Constance to Agnes that
was the problem, it would suggest that Alfonso's marriage to Agnes was
never annulled). It hasn't helped that Agnes had a half-sister who
was also an Iberian queen, and the death date of the latter has been
erroneously given to the former by some authors.
Constance last appears 2 Sep. 1093, and is absent by 25 October of
that year.
With regard to Bertha, Szabolcs de Vajay wrote an article dedicate to
her identification, but I have been unable to get hold of a copy to
see what he concludes. I have seen nothing else, other than some vague
speculation. Bertha first appears 28 Apr. 1095 (as Alberta) and last
on 17 Nov. 1099 (Berta), being dead by 15 Jan. 1100.
By 14 May 1100, Alfonso is married to Isabel(/Elizabeth - the names
were not distinct at the time), and he continues to appear with a
queen of that name through 1107. She is called daughter of Luis, King
of France, by Lucas de Tuy, writing a century after bishop Pelayo, but
at the time she would have been born, no Louis had reigned in France
since the last of the Carolingians, nor was the name Isabel used for a
royal daughter until after she was married. While this identification
also appears on a tomb memorial, it was clearly carved in a later
hand, and both accounts giving her this parentage are generally
dismissed. Reilly hypothesized that she was daughter of WIlliam,
Count of Burgundy (but on nothing more than that it would be
consistent with the pattern of political alliances Alfonso operated
in). Most intriguing, because she was mother of a daughter with known
descent, some modern authors have identified her with mistress Zaida,
even though bishop Pelayo makes no indication that this is the case.
As to Beatrice, she likewise has been subject to unsupported
speculation, most notably by Reilly, who suggested she was niece of
Agnes. (One does wonder that if a pope went apoplectic over Alfonso
marrying a distant cousin of Agnes in Constance, it would not raise a
stink to marry her neice, but this does allow one to suggest that
Orderic's only mistake was in the name of Alfonso's wife marrying
Helias.)
Jimena has drawn much more attention, there being abounding theories
regarding her. Traditionally she has been called daughter of count
Nuno Rodriguez by a granddaughter of one of Vermudo II's bastards.
However, she was actually Jimena Munoz, daughter of a Munio (on the
other hand, Nuno Rodriguez was actually named Munio Rodriguez), and it
is clear that her identification with this family is of late origin.
Quintana Prieto suggested that she was daughter of an otherwise
obscure Munio Munoz, yet this doesn't seem to match with her
description as being of a most-noble family. Canal Sanchez-Pagin
looked at the 'most noble' Munios in the prior generation and found
three who could be so described. By process of elimination (one,
Munio Munoz, names all of his children in a charter, while another
seems not fo fit for chronological reasons), he concludes that she was
daughter of count Munio Gonzalez, who he also makes grandfather of
counts Pedro and Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara (this last appears not to be
the case - their father is clearly called Gonzalo Nunez, not Munoz).
There are also two works that I have been unable to access, one by
Mello Vaz de Sao Payo, which concludes that she was daughter of a
Count Munio Munoz (although I do not know the basis, or precisely
which man of this name is being suggested), and secondly, Salazar y
Acha published a paper in the same publication as the Vajay article on
Bertha, and I have yet to see it as well. However, recently a new
article by Canal clarified Vajay's conclusion. While not specifically
naming Jimena, he cites Salazar as indicating that count Rodrigo
Munoz, thought by Canal to be brother of Jimena, was son of Munio
Rodriguez and descendant of Vermudo II. Thus, it looks like Salazar
has returned to the traditional descent, although his reasoning
remains to be seen.
This brings us back to Zaida and the subject of the newly acquired
Salazar y Acha work. In the same article that he discussed Jimena, he
also concluded that Zaida and Queen Isabel were one and the same. His
arguments had to do with chronology, family politics, and one
particularly interesting document (although I have not seen the
original, his new article reviews his arguments from the old). Sancho
is absent from royal documents prior to the marriage to Isabel, and
then immediately appears. This coincidence of timing suggests to
Salazar that the two are related - that the marriage to Isabel
legitimated Sancho, allowing him to become the heir. That he did
become the heir is beyond dispute, and Salazar also questions whether
an unlinked queen Isabel would have permitted her own potential
children to be superseded (I have to wonder if Alfonso would have
cared what his wife thought of the matter). Finally, there is a
donation charter found in the Tumbo de Lorenzana, which is confirmed
by Alfonso, "eiusdemque Helisabeth regina sub maritali copula
legaliter aderente". This suggests that Isabel was once Alfonso's
mistress, which points directly to Zaida/Isabel. However, this is
somewhat odd, as by this time (1106) Alfonso and Isabel had been
married for 6 years, leading Reilly to conclude that there were two
queens Isabel in succession, and that only shortly before this 1106
confirmation did he marry Zaida.
In his new article, Salazar adds several novel points, and then drops
a bombshell for the very end. To refute Reilly's 'two Isabels'
theory, he cites a charter of Urraca, which names her step-mothers
Berta, Isabel, and Beatrix, meaning that both she and Bishop Pelayo
would have had to leave out one Isabel. He also points to the
chronology between marriages, taking las and first appearance as an
indication. We see three years between Agnes and Constance, and one
and a half between Constance and Bertha, but less than six months
between Bertha and Isabel. He concludes that this left insufficient
time for the arranging of a political union, but is perfectly
consistent with Alfonso simply marrying his mistress. Finally, he
draws attention to a previously overlooked charter in which a grant is
made by Alfonso, "cum uxore mea Elisabet et filio nostro Sancio". It
is clear that he is not using the 'royal we', as he does not call
Isabel "our wife" but "my wife". This would seem prima facie evidence
that Sancho, known to be son of Zaida, was son of queen Isabel,
meaning that she and Zaida were one and the same. (It would, however,
be useful to see how he refers to Urraca, Elvira and Teresa under
similar contexts).
If one accepts that Salazar had 1) refuted Reilly's suggestion, and 2)
shown that Sancho was son of Queen Isabel, it would indicate that the
Infantas Elvira, wife of Roger, King of Sicily, and Sancha, known
daughters of Queen Isabel, are daughters of the moor Zaida. This is of
particular interest with regard to Elvira, as she has numerous
documented descendants (while lines from Sancha are found across the
internet, none of them are factual).
taf
Refs:
Canal Sanchez-Pagin, Jose Maria. Jimena Munoz, Amiga de Alfonso VI.
Anuario de Estudios Medievales. 21:11-40 (1991).
Canal Sanchez-Pagin, Jose Maria. El conde Gómez González de
Candespina: su historia y su familia.Anuario de estudios medievales.
Nº 33:37-68 (2003)
Mello Vaz de Sao Payo, Luiz. A Ascendencia de D. Afonso Henriques.
Raizes & Memorias, vols. 2 through 8, various pages. (relevant part
not seen)
Quintana Prieto, Augusto. Jimena Muñiz, madre de Doña Teresa de
Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Historia. 12:223-80 (1969).
Salazar y Acha, Jaime de. De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida. Hidalguía: la
revista de genealogía, nobleza y armas. Nº. 321:225-242 (2007).
Salazar y Acha, Jaime de. Contribución al estudio del reinado de
Alfonso VI de Castilla: algunas aclaraciones sobre su política
matrimonial. Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y
Genealogía. Nº. 2:299-336 (1992-3) (not seen)
Vajay, Szabolcs de. Reflexiones en torno a Berta, tercera mujer de
Alfonso VI. Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y
Genealogía. Nº. 2:337-344 (1992-3) (not seen)
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
> At last some good stuff.
>
> This is dealing with a set of complex situations.
>
> Todd gives that Constance de Bourgogne died after 2 September 1093 and
> before 25 October 1093
> ES Volume II Tafel 57 gives she died January/February 1093
Although he does not quote it, Salazar cites a charter dated 2 Sep.,
and says the Alfonso appears alone on 25 Oct, citing another charter.
> Todd then quotes that the following wife Bertha "appears 28 April 1095"
> ES Volume II Tafel 57 states she married Alfonso "in 1093 before 25
> November".
>
> This gives about a month between the death of one wife and marrying the
> next.
Does ES have a charter for this? If so, we have to get an envoy from
Leon to Tuscany and bring negotiations to fruition, then have the
actual nuptuals within a terribly short time. Perhaps ES is going from
a misdated or forged charter.
> === another wife
> I appreciate that Todd clearly states that the origins of Beatriz (married
> Alfonso probably 1105) are uncertain.
> He brings to attention that this Beatriz could be the niece of the 1st wife
> of Alfonso, Agnes de Poitou.
>
> At the moment, in my system, I have Beatriz as a half-sister of Agnes. For
> Beatrtiz to be a (half-)niece she has to be daughter of Guillaume VII-IX who
> married in 1094, to me it seems unlikely that Alfonso, aged about 66 and
> probably in search for a son, would marry someone so young, at the most 10
> _if_ she is a daughter of Guillaume VII-IX.
I suppose I could be misremembering it (or correctly remembering
someone else's mistaken recitation). It was all speculation anyhow - I
think Beatrice only appears for the briefest of time, and there is
nothing but the name Beatrice to go by (unless you identify her with
Orderic's problem).
> Now comes an evern bigger problem with what I have. If Beatriz is a
> half-sister of Agnes and a full sister of Guillaume VII-IX, then her mother
> should be Hildegarde de Bourgogne. Hildegarde happens to have a half-sister
> Constance who is Alfonso's 2nd wife. Making Beatriz either a half-sister or
> niece of the 1st wife, and a half-niece of the 2nd wife.
Yes, exactly. Spanish mores would not have been a problem, as they
frequently married their own immediate kin, and it would have been a
different pope, but I still think this is a major problem with the
suggestion.
> I am getting the feeling I need to turn Beatriz into an orphan.
Quite. There is not the slightest evidence on which to base an
identification.
> ====== Zaida
> If Queen Isabel and Zaida (Elisabeth/ Isabella) are one and the same, then
> she was mother of Sancho (1093) Elvira (1097), and Sancha (1100).
>
> For Sancho I have no descendants (hardly surprising), for Sancha only one
> son without descendants,
She also had a daughter, from whom only a single line is traced. It
leads into the Counts of Urgel to a second wife of a Count of Viscaya,
having (IIRC) Armengol Diaz. ES gives him one son, which is the
farthest I have gotten it.
Oh, and I hope that son you have isn't Rodrigo Rodriguez de Lara - he
is a genealogical invention of Salazar y Castro.
taf
taf
>
> This is dealing with a set of complex situations.
>
> Todd gives that Constance de Bourgogne died after 2 September 1093 and
> before 25 October 1093
> ES Volume II Tafel 57 gives she died January/February 1093
>
> Todd then quotes that the following wife Bertha "appears 28 April 1095"
> ES Volume II Tafel 57 states she married Alfonso "in 1093 before 25
> November".
I note that Reilly gives Christmas time, 1094 as the likely time of
the marriage, which fits with Salazar's date.
taf
WJhonson
What strikes me as curious is that Alphonso's elder brother Sancho, King of Castile before him, but murdered in 1072 *also* had a wife named "Alberta"
What do you think? Maybe Alphonso married his brother's widow. "Incestuous" union ?
Will
taf
No. The chronology is too long. It is more likely that Alfonso's
Bertha was a generation later than Sancho's.
taf