Zaida spoils it again

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Zaida spoils it again

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2005 23:01:02

I have received this line and apart from the obvious break with Zaida, can
anyone judge the rest of this line? How reliable is it?
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Descendants of: Muhammad (Prophet of Islam) 1 Muhammad (Prophet of Islam)
b. ABT 570 d. 8 Jun 632 m. Khadijah bint Khuwaylid b. ABT 565 d. 619
2 Fatima Zahra bint Muhammad b. 606 d. 632 m. 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (Caliph
of Arabia) b. ABT 600 d. 661
3 Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (Shia Imam) b. ABT 625 d. 669
4 Husein ibn Hasan b. ABT 660
5 Zohra bint Husein b. ABT 700 m. Abu Farisi ibn Abu Farisi
6 Na' im al-Lakhmi ibn Abu Farisi b. ABT 740
7 Amr Ittaf ibn Na' im al-Lakhmi b. ABT 780
8 Aslan ibn Amr Ittaf b. ABT 830
9 Amru ibn Aslan b. ABT 875
10 Abbad ibn Amru b. ABT 895
11 Karis ibn Abbad b. ABT 920 m. Umm bint Ismail al-Mansur b. ABT 920
12 Ismail Ben Qarais (Imam of Seville) b. ABT 955
13 Muhammad I (Emir of Seville) b. 984 d. 1042 m. Mujahid of Denia b. 989
d. 1044
14 Muhammad II (Emir of Seville) b. 1004 d. 1069
15 Muhammad III (Emir of Seville) b. 1027 d. 1095
16 Zaida (Princess of Denia) b. ABT 1070 d. 1106 m. Alfonso VI (King of
Leon & Castile) b. ABT 1035 d. 29 Jun 1109
17 Sancha Alfonso of Castile b. ABT 1090 d. ABT 1125 m. Rodrigo Gonzales
de Lara (Lord of Liebana) b. ABT 1075 d. 1135
18 Rodrigo Rodriguez de Lara (Lord of Penalva) b. ABT 1120
19 Sancha Rodreiguez de Lara b. ABT 1145 m. Gonzalo Ruiz Giron b. ABT 1135
d. 1231
20 Maria Gonsalez Giron b. ABT 1180 m. Guillen Perez de Guzman b. ABT 1180
21 Maria Guillen de Guzman b. ABT 1222 d. 4 Oct 1262 m. Alfonso X (King of
Leon & Castile) b. 23 Nov 1221 d. 4 Apr 1284
22 Beatriz (Princess of Leon & Castile) b. 1242 d. 27 Oct 1303 m. Afonso
III (King of Portugal) b. 5 May 1210 d. ABT 1279
23 Dinis Afonsez (King of Portugal) b. 9 Oct 1261 d. ABT 1325 m. Isabella
Pedra (Princess of Aragon) b. ABT 1270 d. 4 Jul 1336
24 Afonso IV (King of Portugal) b. ABT 1290 d. 28 May 1357 m. Beatrice
Sancha (Princess of Leon & Castile) b. 1293 d. 25 Oct 1359
25 Maria Affonsez (Princess of Portugal) b. 1313 d. ABT 1357 m. Alfonso XI
(King of Leon & Castile) b. 13 Aug 1311 d. 26 Mar 1350
26 Pedro (King of Leon & Castile) b. 30 Aug 1334 d. ABT 1369 m. Maria de
Padilla b. ABT 1335 d. 1361
27 Isabel (Princess of Castile) b. ABT 1355 d. 23 Nov 1392 m. Edmund
Plantagenet (1st Duke of York) b. 5 Jun 1341 d. 1 Aug 1402
28 Constance Plantagenet b. ABT 1374 d. 28 Nov 1416 m. Edmund de Holand
(4th Earl of Kent) b. ABT 1382 d. 15 Sep 1408
29 Elanor de Holland b. ABT 1405 m. James Touchet b. 1398 d. 23 Sep 1459
30 Constance Touchet b. ABT 1433 m. Sir Robert Whitney b. ABT 1430

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Zaida spoils it again

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 27 jan 2005 23:58:31

Leo van de Pas wrote:
I have received this line and apart from the obvious break with Zaida, can
anyone judge the rest of this line? How reliable is it?

I will perhaps post more later, but an obvious problem is the following:

16 Zaida (Princess of Denia) b. ABT 1070 d. 1106 m. Alfonso VI (King of
Leon & Castile) b. ABT 1035 d. 29 Jun 1109
17 Sancha Alfonso of Castile b. ABT 1090 d. ABT 1125 m. Rodrigo Gonzales
de Lara (Lord of Liebana) b. ABT 1075 d. 1135
18 Rodrigo Rodriguez de Lara (Lord of Penalva) b. ABT 1120
19 Sancha Rodreiguez de Lara b. ABT 1145 m. Gonzalo Ruiz Giron b. ABT 1135
d. 1231

#18. Rodrigo Rodriguez de Lara is not a historically documented
individual. He was 'hypothesized' by Salazar y Castro because the
"Rodriguez de Lara" sisters were too young to be children of Rodrigo
Gonzalez himself, so a Rodrigo Rodriguez was interposed. As with most
such exercises, this proved to be an unfortunate attempt to 'fix' a
flawed connection - as it turns out Sancha Rodriguez (#19) and her
sister were not Lara at all. Instead they were Rodriguez de Torono, and
have no connection to the Lara. Their closest royal descent, IIRC, is
from a younger brother of Alfonso V.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Zaida spoils it again

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 jan 2005 08:10:28

Leo van de Pas wrote:
I have received this line and apart from the obvious break with Zaida, can
anyone judge the rest of this line? How reliable is it?
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


Descendants of: Muhammad (Prophet of Islam) 1 Muhammad (Prophet of Islam)
b. ABT 570 d. 8 Jun 632 m. Khadijah bint Khuwaylid b. ABT 565 d. 619
2 Fatima Zahra bint Muhammad b. 606 d. 632 m. 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (Caliph
of Arabia) b. ABT 600 d. 661
3 Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (Shia Imam) b. ABT 625 d. 669
4 Husein ibn Hasan b. ABT 660
5 Zohra bint Husein b. ABT 700 m. Abu Farisi ibn Abu Farisi

Khalid Yahya Blankinship, in his (unfortunately still)
unpublished analysis of this line shows this generation to be
flawed - the form of the female name given was not used as a
female name at the time, but was much later in late Medieval
Morocco (suggesting that it was "a specious fabrication" first
placed in the pedigree at that time). Likewise he considers Abu
Farisi to be a "fictional personage", both invented to provide a
Mohammedan and royal ancestry for a new man.

6 Na' im al-Lakhmi ibn Abu Farisi b. ABT 740
7 Amr Ittaf ibn Na' im al-Lakhmi b. ABT 780

This should be two generations:

Itaf ibn Na'am
Amr ibn Itaf

Some sources (but probably not representing the oldest version of
the story) make Na'im and Itaf brothers. Itaf was apparently a
member of the Hims army division, deriving from the Sinai and
settling at Tocina, near Seville. Others derive the Seville
dinasty from a different immigrant. Amr is apparently only known
from this pedigree.

8 Aslan ibn Amr Ittaf b. ABT 830
9 Amru ibn Aslan b. ABT 875
10 Abbad ibn Amru b. ABT 895
11 Karis ibn Abbad b. ABT 920 m. Umm bint Ismail al-Mansur b. ABT 920
12 Ismail Ben Qarais (Imam of Seville) b. ABT 955

Nothing is known of any of these individuals - they are just
names in a male-line pedigree (the marriage of Quraysh is likely
a late invention). The original pedigree adds two more
generations here:

Muhammad b. Isma'il b. Quraysh
Ishma'il b. Muhammad

The English-language genealogists leave them out, but it is
unclear if this is accidental (jumping from one Isma'il to the
other) or intentional (to make the chronology work). Muhammad is
said by a modern writer (basis uncertain) to have been a prayer
leader at Tocina (near Seville, where Itaf had settled). This
younger Isma'il was a commander of the guard for Hisham
al-Mu'ayyad, and later Imam of Cordoba. He was appointed Judge
of Seville.

13 Muhammad I (Emir of Seville) b. 984 d. 1042 m. Mujahid of Denia b. 989
d. 1044
14 Muhammad II (Emir of Seville) b. 1004 d. 1069

There was no such Muhammad II. Muhammad I (or more accurately,
Abu-l-Qasim Muhammad b. Isma'il was succeeded in 1042 by his son
(by an unknown mother) Abu 'Amr 'Abbad al-Mu'tadid. It was this
latter who married the daughter of Mujahid al-'Amiri of Denia,
but he had _many_ other women (he is said to have deflowered 800
virgins).

15 Muhammad III (Emir of Seville) b. 1027 d. 1095

Muhammad al-Mu'tamid az-Zafir al-Mu'ayyad (mother unknown), b.
1039/40. Father of 173 sons (or perhaps children). As we have
discussed, Zaida was not one of them.

16 Zaida (Princess of Denia) b. ABT 1070 d. 1106 m. Alfonso VI (King of
Leon & Castile) b. ABT 1035 d. 29 Jun 1109

taf

Gjest

Re: Zaida spoils it again

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jan 2005 13:19:05

In the The Kingdom of León-Castilla under Queen Urraca by Bernard F.
Reilly :

"From late 1093 the king may indeed have had a son, albeit an
illegitimate one. In 1092 Alfonso had taken as a mistressthe Muslim
Zaida, widow of the son of al-Mutamid of Sevilla.(51) Doubtless the
arrangement was made with an eye to its political effects in
Andalucía, but Zaida did bear him a son. When Sancho Adefónsez, who
was to perish at Uclés in 1108, was born is uncertain. From the
epitaph of Zaida, long preserved at Sahagún, it appears that she died
in childbirth, though not necessarily in bearing Sancho.(52) If indeed
it was his birth that is so recorded, the form of the notice gives us
the choice of September of either 1093 or 1099 for the event. The date
1093 seems to fit better all the other circumstances.(53) For one
thing, a date of 1099 would mean he was on the battlefield at Uclés
when not yet nine years of age. If, on the other hand, he was almost
fifteen, his presence there is more understandable. For another, the
young Sancho begins to confirm his father's documents on January 25,
1103.(54) Taking the earlier date of birth would mean he began this
public function in his eighth year rather than at age three. Again, the
result is somewhat more convincing."

It is avaliable here: http://libro.uca.edu/urraca/urraca1.htm
To locate the above para. its near souce 50.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»