Alfonso VI de Castile and Jimena Nunez
Frederic Collin
I have found a line on a Web site and I want to know if you find it
correct or not:
Teresa de Castile, b.1070, d.1 Nov 1130
x Henry of Burgundy
|
Jimena Nunez, b. ca 1065, associated with
King Alfonso VI de Castile
|
Munia Gonzales (or Hermesenda) de Maya, b. ca 1030
x Nuno II Gonzales
|
Gonzalo Trastamires de Maya, b. ca 1000
I know that the parentage of Jimena Nunez is not proven, but is there
any hypothese about this one?
Thank you for any information,
Frederic Collin
Nathaniel Taylor
>Hi,
>
>I have found a line on a Web site and I want to know if you find it
>correct or not:
>
>Teresa de Castile, b.1070, d.1 Nov 1130
>x Henry of Burgundy
> |
>Jimena Nunez, b. ca 1065, associated with
>King Alfonso VI de Castile
> |
>Munia Gonzales (or Hermesenda) de Maya, b. ca 1030
>x Nuno II Gonzales
> |
>Gonzalo Trastamires de Maya, b. ca 1000
>
>
>I know that the parentage of Jimena Nunez is not proven, but is there
>any hypothese about this one?
Todd Farmerie and I place our money on the genealogy proposed by José M.
Canal Sánchez-Pagín, in his article ³Jimena Muñoz, Amiga de Alfonso VI,²
_Anuario de estudios medievales_ 21 (1991), 11-40.
1. Jimena Muñoz
2. count Munio González of Cantabria (d. ca. 1085)
3. Mayor... (named as mother of Jimena in donation charter of 1120)
4. count Gonzalo Muñoz of Asturias de Santillana
5. NN
8. count Munio González of Alaba (10th c.)
The Maya connection is not one of the other propositions discussed by
Canal. Have others seen this theory in print?
Nat Taylor
Francisco Antonio Doria
>>Munia Gonzales (or Hermesenda) de Maya, b. ca 1030
>>x Nuno II Gonzales
>> |
>>Gonzalo Trastamires de Maya, b. ca 1000
Highly unlikely, in my opinion. The Maya were rather modest infanzones,
at that point in time. And - the chronology doesn't smell right.
Best,
chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
Håvard Moe
Taylor) wrote:
>Todd Farmerie and I place our money on the genealogy proposed by José M.
>Canal Sánchez-Pagín, in his article ³Jimena Muñoz, Amiga de Alfonso VI,²
>_Anuario de estudios medievales_ 21 (1991), 11-40.
>
>1. Jimena Muñoz
>
>2. count Munio González of Cantabria (d. ca. 1085)
>3. Mayor... (named as mother of Jimena in donation charter of 1120)
>
>4. count Gonzalo Muñoz of Asturias de Santillana
>5. NN
>
>8. count Munio González of Alaba (10th c.)
Was he a grandson of Garcia I de Castile though Gonzalo Garces? I
have seen:
5. Eylo Muñoz, daughter of conde Muño Rodriguez "Canis" de Asturias.
9. Tigrida Anzurez, great-great granddaughter of conde FernandoAnzurez
de Castile.
Are these valid, or just a thin hypothesis(/guess)?
mvh
Håvard Moe
haavamoe krøllalfa online punktum no
Besøk slekta mi: http://home.sol.no/~havmoe
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 09:35:37 -0500, nta...@fas.harvard.edu (Nathaniel
> Taylor) wrote:
>
> >Todd Farmerie and I place our money on the genealogy proposed by José M.
> >Canal Sánchez-Pagín, in his article ³Jimena Muñoz, Amiga de Alfonso VI,²
> >_Anuario de estudios medievales_ 21 (1991), 11-40.
> >
> >1. Jimena Muñoz
> >
> >2. count Munio González of Cantabria (d. ca. 1085)
> >3. Mayor... (named as mother of Jimena in donation charter of 1120)
> >
> >4. count Gonzalo Muñoz of Asturias de Santillana
> >5. NN
> >
> >8. count Munio González of Alaba (10th c.)
>
> Was he a grandson of Garcia I de Castile though Gonzalo Garces? I
> have seen:
>
> 5. Eylo Muñoz, daughter of conde Muño Rodriguez "Canis" de Asturias.
> 9. Tigrida Anzurez, great-great granddaughter of conde FernandoAnzurez
> de Castile.
>
> Are these valid, or just a thin hypothesis(/guess)?
These represent a subsequent elaboration of the Canal solution proposed
in a series of charts produced by Szabolcs de Vajay, based on the
research of Jaime de Salazar Acha and David Masnata. While these charts
presented a little bit of the logic behind the links, they did not
include the supporting data. Regarding Eylo Munoz, she married a Count
"Gonzalo Nunez" and the assignment of this count with the Gonzalo Munoz
of Asturias is reasonable. Regarding Tigridia Ansurez, this is also
reasonable, as Munio Gonzalez had a son Ansur Munoz, the name surely
coming from some link to the Ansurez clan (there would also seem to be a
link to the Banu Gomez, which was the only family of this rank to be
using the name Tigridia at the time). As to the link to Castile, Canal
traced back only to Munio Gonzalez. This man has been tentatively given
parents by Balparda many years before, and the fact that Canal did not
follow him suggests that he did not accept Balparda's identification.
It was when this family came to be identified with the Nuno/Gonzalo/Nuno
of Salazar y Castro's early Lara family that spured the next step. The
Lara's have an ancient tradition of descent from the Counts of Castile,
and chronologically, Munio could be son of Gonzalo Garces, son of Garci
Fernandez. This man was previously thought to have died young, but
apparently something has been found of a later life, as a wife is
assigned. The exact details may have been lost to Masnata's decease.
taf
Manoel Cesar Furtado
would like to ask the friends of the list about the Canal-Pagin's statement
in his book on Pedro Fernandez, first Master of the Order of Santiago. He
doesn't agree with Salazar y Castro. He says that Pedro was not son of
Fernando Perez de Lara Furtado. His book dealing with this matter is out of
print and I couldn't find it till now. Does anybody know his arguments?
Manoel Cesar Furtado
Todd A. Farmerie
If I recall correctly, his argument is primary chronological - that
Fernando Perez Furtado de Lara was too young to have been father of
Pedro Fernandez. He concludes that Pedro Fernandez was likely son of
Fernando Garces de Hita, ancestor of the Castro.
taf
Manoel Cesar Furtado
> If I recall correctly, his argument is primary chronological - that
> Fernando Perez Furtado de Lara was too young to have been father of
> Pedro Fernandez. He concludes that Pedro Fernandez was likely son of
> Fernando Garces de Hita, ancestor of the Castro.
>
> taf
Dear Todd,
On November 5, 1123 queen Urraca made a donation to the see of León and
Reilly says in his book that this document is also remarkable for the
confirmation of one "Fernandus Petri minor filius", whom he takes to be
Urraca's son by Count Pedro González (" a sign of the solidity of the
queen's position in the realm that there could be such public recognition of
her son by this union"). Historia Compostelana relates a plot against Urraca
in 1119, when Count Pedro González de Lara was seized and imprisioned by
Guter Fernandez in the castle of Mancilla. The conspiracy with a
considerable backing was motivated by the excessive familiarity of Count
Pedro with the queen and the spread of his power thereby.
So I think that Fernando was born between 1119 and 1123.
In 1141 he was captured by the troops of Alfonso Henriques at the Valdevez
"battle". Maybe he was about 20 years old at this time ( Anais de D. Afonso,
rei de Portugal / Salazar y Castro / Sandoval's chronicle).
Well, Pedro Fernandez was the master of the Order of Santiago in 1171 and
died in 1184. Salazar y Castro says he was named Hurtado by Fr. Alonso
Chacon in his book on the life of the pope Alexandre III. That shows he
could be chronologically son of Fenando Perez de Lara Furtado.
I differ in my opinon from Canal Sanchez-Pagin and I must conclude that
Fernando was sufficienty aged to have been father of Pedro Fernandez.
Manoel Cesar Furtado
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Following the commentaries concerning the Alfonso VI and Jimena's issue I
> would like to ask the friends of the list about the Canal-Pagin's statement
> in his book on Pedro Fernandez, first Master of the Order of Santiago. He
> doesn't agree with Salazar y Castro. He says that Pedro was not son of
> Fernando Perez de Lara Furtado. His book dealing with this matter is out of
> print and I couldn't find it till now. Does anybody know his arguments?
I gave it a closer look. Actually, Fernando Perez only gets passing
mention. Canal places the birth of Pedro Fernandez about 1117. Since
Fernando Perez was born (to Queen Urraca and Pedro Gonzalez de Lara)
about 1115, it is an easy call. The placement Canal accepts, as son of
Fernando Garcia de Hita, is really based on two things - chronology and
status. Basically, Pedro Fernandez is said to have come from a most
noble family in the kingdom. There just weren't that many families that
qualify, high nobility with a Fernando of the right age who is known to
have had a son Pedro. We are left with only Fernando Garcia, who was
said to have been son of a King Garcia (Canal concludes Garcia
Fernandez, King of Galicia, although others choose Garcia Sanchez, el de
Najara, King of Navarre, or even non-King Garcia Ordonez), and whose
wife was daughter of the Count of Urgel and granddaughter of Pedro
Ansurez.
taf
Manoel Cesar Furtado
> I gave it a closer look. Actually, Fernando Perez only gets passing
> mention. Canal places the birth of Pedro Fernandez about 1117. Since
> Fernando Perez was born (to Queen Urraca and Pedro Gonzalez de Lara)
> about 1115, it is an easy call. The placement Canal accepts, as son of
> Fernando Garcia de Hita, is really based on two things - chronology and
> status. Basically, Pedro Fernandez is said to have come from a most
> noble family in the kingdom. There just weren't that many families that
> qualify, high nobility with a Fernando of the right age who is known to
> have had a son Pedro. We are left with only Fernando Garcia, who was
> said to have been son of a King Garcia (Canal concludes Garcia
> Fernandez, King of Galicia, although others choose Garcia Sanchez, el de
> Najara, King of Navarre, or even non-King Garcia Ordonez), and whose
> wife was daughter of the Count of Urgel and granddaughter of Pedro
> Ansurez.
>
> taf
I guess the opinion of Canal is not chronologically feasible.
As you say he places the birth of Pedro Fernandez about 1117. Well, I have
at hand the facsimile of the book by Frei Francisco de Rades y Andrada,
1572, "Chronica de la Orden y caualleria de Sanctiago" that tells Pedro
Fernandez went to Rome in 1175 to get the confirmation of the Order's rules
from pope Alexander III. He was 58 years old, according to Canal. After
that, says the "Chronica", he went to the Holy Land in 1177: "...el Maestre
don Pedro Fernandez, con algunos caualleros de su Orden fue a la Tierra
sancta, con intento de fundar en ella vn conuento, para expugnacion delos
infieles". He was then 60 years old, always following Canal.
We're talking about a military order, a religious but not a contemplative
order. He was too old to do that in medieval times.
Being son of Fernando Perez Furtado, Pedro was about 40 years old when he
went to Rome in 1175, and 42 travelling to the Holy Land. It's a better
chronology.
After all we have Salazar y Castro saying that F. Alonso Chacon named Pedro
as Hurtado. It's a reference we can not disregard. Or am I wrong?
Fernando Garces de Hita, alcalde of Medinacelli and Guadalajara at the time
of Alfonso VI and a staunch supporter of Urraca, had a son with his first
wife Tigridia named Guter Fernandez. He had a long life, and maybe there's
some confusion here about Pedro and Guter.
Manoel Cesar Furtado
Todd A. Farmerie
> I guess the opinion of Canal is not chronologically feasible.
> As you say he places the birth of Pedro Fernandez about 1117. Well, I have
> at hand the facsimile of the book by Frei Francisco de Rades y Andrada,
> 1572, "Chronica de la Orden y caualleria de Sanctiago" that tells Pedro
> Fernandez went to Rome in 1175 to get the confirmation of the Order's rules
> from pope Alexander III. He was 58 years old, according to Canal. After
> that, says the "Chronica", he went to the Holy Land in 1177: "...el Maestre
> don Pedro Fernandez, con algunos caualleros de su Orden fue a la Tierra
> sancta, con intento de fundar en ella vn conuento, para expugnacion delos
> infieles". He was then 60 years old, always following Canal.
> We're talking about a military order, a religious but not a contemplative
> order. He was too old to do that in medieval times.
> Being son of Fernando Perez Furtado, Pedro was about 40 years old when he
> went to Rome in 1175, and 42 travelling to the Holy Land. It's a better
> chronology.
First it should be pointed out that the solution is not Canal's. He is
repeating a solution first offered in the 1730s, and followed also by
Gonzalez in his Castilian history under Alfonso VIII.
As to the dates, I should also point out that I misremembered the
article, and that Canal actually places the birth of Pedro 1115-1120,
which doesn't materially change your argument. He cites in support a
later charter of Estefania Armengez which names her children, including
Pedro, and another in which her eldest son Martin Fernandez is followed
immediately by Pedro Fernandez. Finally, he cites a donation in the mid
1160s in which Pedro Fernandez names his sister Urraca Fernandez, which
would make it likely this is the son of Estefania, who had a daughter of
that name married to Rodrigo Martinez.
> After all we have Salazar y Castro saying that F. Alonso Chacon named Pedro
> as Hurtado. It's a reference we can not disregard. Or am I wrong?
Hurtado was a nickname, not a surname, and while nicknames could begome
surnames, this is not necessarily evidence of a blodd relationship
between him and Fernan Perez Hurtado. Likewise, Risco states that the
Master held land in the area of Fita (Hita), but I do not know his
source. I am unfamiliar with Alonso Chacon. When would he have
written? Canal also stresses the fact that of all the Fernandos
available, Garces de Hita was the only one who can be shown to have had
a son named Pedro.
> Fernando Garces de Hita, alcalde of Medinacelli and Guadalajara at the time
> of Alfonso VI and a staunch supporter of Urraca, had a son with his first
> wife Tigridia named Guter Fernandez. He had a long life, and maybe there's
> some confusion here about Pedro and Guter.
No. Canal spells out the whole family of Fernando Garces, and so is not
confusing his son Gutier with Pedro. The real problem would appear to
be that Pedro Fernandez, Master of Santiago, cannot be identified
outside of this role with certainty, so while Canal has documented a
contemporary Pedro Fernandez who in turn can be identified with the son
of Fernado Garces de Hita, there is nothing that specifically makes the
link between the two, so one can always argue that they were distinct.
Still there is a Pedro Fernandez appearing as a knight prior to the time
when a Pedro Fernandez became Master, and this knight can be identified
with the son of Fernando Garces de Hita. This has to place him as
themost favored candidate.
taf
Manoel Cesar Furtado
> Hurtado was a nickname, not a surname, and while nicknames could begome
> surnames, this is not necessarily evidence of a blodd relationship
> between him and Fernan Perez Hurtado. Likewise, Risco states that the
> Master held land in the area of Fita (Hita), but I do not know his
> source. I am unfamiliar with Alonso Chacon. When would he have
> written? Canal also stresses the fact that of all the Fernandos
> available, Garces de Hita was the only one who can be shown to have had
> a son named Pedro.
By the time you said Pedro Fernandez was born I have all these Fernandos
confirming charters of Urraca:
-Fernandus, comes
-Ferdinandus Limiam regente
-Fernandus Aria
-Fernandus Didaci, comes
-Fernando Didaz
-Fernando Diez de Sanoval
-Fernando Fernandez
-Fernan Ferandez de Toro
-Fernando Garcia, marido de Urraca Diaz
-Fernando Garcia, hermano de Fernando Garcia de Fita
-Fernando Garcia, senior en Palenciola
-Fernandus Garciaz, minor
-Fernandus Garciaz, maior
-Fernandus Garsea Fictam
-Fernan Garciaz Pelliça
-Fernandus Gonzaluiz
-Fernandus Ioannis
-Fernandus Mendez
-Fernandus Menendez
-Fernandus Munionis
-Fernandus Nunii
-Fernandus Ordoniz
-Fernando Pelaiz
-Fredenandus Pelega
-Fernandus Perez Gallicano
-Fernandus Petri
-Fernandus Petriz, notarius
-Fernandus Petrici, hermano de Uermudo Petrici
-Fernandus Petriz, regine clericus
-Fernandus Petriz, notarius regine
-Ferdinandus Petriz de Rodelga
-Fernando Petriz de Sancto de Iuliano
-Fernando Roderic
-Fernan Romanez
-Fernandus Sancii
-Fernando Tellez
-Fernando Zanoniz maiorino de Larin
So, Hurtado/Furtado is the best hint. It's "unique".
Best regards
Manoel Cesar Furtado