Wife of Sancho-Lupus of Gascogne
Håvard Moe
(Gerberga, wife of Foulques II "the Good" of Anjou), when I ran a
cross a problem in old Gascogne/Aragon:
Sancho-Lupus, Duke of Gascogne is said to have married (or at least
she was the mother of their daughter Dhouda) a daghter of Aznar I
Galindez, count of Aragon, Gascogne and Urgal. The source cited for
this is Ronald F. Malan: "The ancestry of Dhouda, Duchess of
Septimania", from The Genealogist XI, Spring, 1997.
In Todd Farmeries excellent Teresa AT, the mother of Dhouda is given
as a daughter of Galindo and a sister of Aznar I Galindez. Anyone who
know the way out of this?
mvh
Håvard Moe
haavamoe krøllalfa online punktum no
Besøk slekta mi: http://home.sol.no/~havmoe
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I was going through an old posting by Alan B. Wilson from 12. jun 1998
> (Gerberga, wife of Foulques II "the Good" of Anjou), when I ran a
> cross a problem in old Gascogne/Aragon:
>
> Sancho-Lupus, Duke of Gascogne is said to have married (or at least
> she was the mother of their daughter Dhouda) a daghter of Aznar I
> Galindez, count of Aragon, Gascogne and Urgal. The source cited for
> this is Ronald F. Malan: "The ancestry of Dhouda, Duchess of
> Septimania", from The Genealogist XI, Spring, 1997.
>
> In Todd Farmeries excellent Teresa AT, the mother of Dhouda is given
> as a daughter of Galindo and a sister of Aznar I Galindez. Anyone who
> know the way out of this?
OK, here's the deal. In subsequent generations, the name Aznar came to
be used in the Gascony family. That suggests an intermarriage
(assuming, of course, that the Counts of Aragon were the only family of
equivalent social status, and hence likely to be selected for a marriage
partner, which used the name Aznar). It then comes down to a question
of chronology as to whether she was Aznar's sister or daughter. My
source (the imfamous Vajay charts) have chosen one solution, and Malan
the other. I am pretty sure there is no contemporary reference that
says Sancho married the daughter/sister of Aznar, Count of Aragon, and
that it is all supposition based on nomenclature.
I am not all that comfortable with several of the identifications which
appear in the Malan article, (and likewise for the Vajay one). When
reissue a new and improved Teresa AT, I had planned to remove most of
this Gascon material. All of this is at the very fringes of what can
reasonably be called genealogy rather than simply an exercise in
creative writing.
taf
Håvard Moe
>Håvard Moe wrote:
>>
>> I was going through an old posting by Alan B. Wilson from 12. jun 1998
>> (Gerberga, wife of Foulques II "the Good" of Anjou), when I ran a
>> cross a problem in old Gascogne/Aragon:
>>
>> Sancho-Lupus, Duke of Gascogne is said to have married (or at least
>> she was the mother of their daughter Dhouda) a daghter of Aznar I
>> Galindez, count of Aragon, Gascogne and Urgal. The source cited for
>> this is Ronald F. Malan: "The ancestry of Dhouda, Duchess of
>> Septimania", from The Genealogist XI, Spring, 1997.
>>
>> In Todd Farmeries excellent Teresa AT, the mother of Dhouda is given
>> as a daughter of Galindo and a sister of Aznar I Galindez. Anyone who
>> know the way out of this?
>
>OK, here's the deal. In subsequent generations, the name Aznar came to
>be used in the Gascony family. That suggests an intermarriage
>(assuming, of course, that the Counts of Aragon were the only family of
>equivalent social status, and hence likely to be selected for a marriage
>partner, which used the name Aznar). It then comes down to a question
>of chronology as to whether she was Aznar's sister or daughter. My
>source (the imfamous Vajay charts) have chosen one solution, and Malan
>the other. I am pretty sure there is no contemporary reference that
>says Sancho married the daughter/sister of Aznar, Count of Aragon, and
>that it is all supposition based on nomenclature.
I get it. I will not register any connections, just mention the
possibility.
>I am not all that comfortable with several of the identifications which
>appear in the Malan article, (and likewise for the Vajay one). When
>reissue a new and improved Teresa AT, I had planned to remove most of
>this Gascon material. All of this is at the very fringes of what can
>reasonably be called genealogy rather than simply an exercise in
>creative writing.
Thanks, Todd, for the clearing remarks. I will be very careful when it
comes to the Gascon lines.
Regards,
Håvard Moe
haa...@xscanmap.no
(remove 'x' to reply)
Todd A. Farmerie
The Gascon lines themselves, ancestral to the Counts of Ribagorza, and
back to Sancho are OK. (I need to reread the Dhouda material before I
pass judgement on it.) The problem is with the assignemts of spouses.
They are all highly hypothetical. I sometimes get the feeling that
genealogists a century from now will think the same of us as we think of
our predicessors, except our sin is constructing houses of cards based
on the slimmest of evidence.
taf
Håvard Moe
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>The Gascon lines themselves, ancestral to the Counts of Ribagorza, and
>back to Sancho are OK. (I need to reread the Dhouda material before I
>pass judgement on it.) The problem is with the assignemts of spouses.
>They are all highly hypothetical.
Witch Sancho is this? I have three generations of Sanchos: Sancho II
Sanchez "Mitara", Sancho I Sanchez "Mirra" and Sancho Lupo.
I also seem to have missed out on the connection here.
My (possible) connections to this family line is through (A):
Loup (= daughter of Fruela of Cantabria) Aznar I Galindez
| (= daughter of Centule)
| |
Sancho Loup de Gascogne (= daughter/sister of Aznar I Galindez)
________________________|_____ |
| | |
Dhouda = Bernard I d'Autun Sancho I "Mirra" Galindo I Aznarez
| |
Sancho II "Mitara" |
(= a daughter of Galindo I Aznarez)
I also have (B):
Centule
|
Loup Centule Bertha = Raymond I de Toulouse
| |
Donat Llop de Bigorre = n.n. de Toulouse
________________________|
| |
Dadildis de Pallard Raymond I de Ribagorza
It seems that the intermarriage with the Aragon family are well
represented... In chart A there are three out of four following
generations with intermarriage, given that Centule, alledged father of
the wife of Aznar I Galindez is from the same family (chart B).
I would assume that maybe the connection to the early Toulouse in
chart B also is hypothetic?
Another question is the connection between the two charts. Are there a
relation between the two Loups?
regards,
Håvard Moe
haavamoe at online dot no
http://home.sol.no/~havmoe
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:09:01 -0500, "Todd A. Farmerie"
> <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> >The Gascon lines themselves, ancestral to the Counts of Ribagorza, and
> >back to Sancho are OK. (I need to reread the Dhouda material before I
> >pass judgement on it.) The problem is with the assignemts of spouses.
> >They are all highly hypothetical.
>
> Witch Sancho is this? I have three generations of Sanchos: Sancho II
> Sanchez "Mitara", Sancho I Sanchez "Mirra" and Sancho Lupo.
I was refering to Sancho, the father of Sancho Mitara. To comment on
the earlier material, I would have to dig out the recent Dhouda article.
> I also seem to have missed out on the connection here.
I was actually refering to the marriages of Bernard I and Raymond II of
Ribagorza, both of whom (if I recall correctly) married granddaughters
of Garcia Sanches, son of Sancho Mitara.
> It seems that the intermarriage with the Aragon family are well
> represented... In chart A there are three out of four following
> generations with intermarriage, given that Centule, alledged father of
> the wife of Aznar I Galindez is from the same family (chart B).
I don't think any of these Aragon/Gascony marriages are well supported.
Likewise, I don't know where the Gascony/Cantabria marriage comes from,
but I think it is unlikely.
> I would assume that maybe the connection to the early Toulouse in
> chart B also is hypothetic?
This is hypothetical, but of much longer standing, and probably is
reasonable. Ribagorza and Pallars were territories under the lordship
of the counts of Toulouse, and in the same generation as the names
Raymond and Bernard, previously used by the Counts of Toulouse, show up
in the Bigorre family, they also acquire Ribagorza and Pallars. It was
even hypothesized at one point that Raymond, Count of Ribagorza was son
of Bernard, Count of Toulouse, but was passed over in favor of his adult
uncle, Eudes, at the time of his father's death. This hypothesis has
lost favor, but that there was some genealogical connection is probable.
> Another question is the connection between the two charts. Are there a
> relation between the two Loups?
There may well have been. Of course, the traditional pedigrees trace
everyone holding territory in this general area back to a single
progenitor, and from there back to the Merovingians, but so much of it
can be proven wrong, that the rest can (must) be rejected. If there was
a connection, it's exact nature is now lost.
taf