Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
maria emma escobar

Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av maria emma escobar » 12 nov 2005 00:44:03

Sancho III, king of Navarra, married Munia or Mayor, daughter of the "conde" of Castilla Sancho GArcía (D. 1.o17) and sister of of the "infante" don García, the last conde, murder when he was young in 1.029. His sister Munia was the new "condesa".
Sancho III and Munia had three sons: García, Fernando and Gonzalo. Ramiro was an ilegitimate son of Sancho.
When Sancho died, García inherited his kingdom: Navarra. Fernando inherited his mother "condado": Castilla. Sancho gives Aragón to his son Ramiro and the little countries of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe to Gonzalo, the youngest one.
Mee




---------------------------------

Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es

Gjest

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 00:57:02

In a message dated 11/11/05 2:51:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
memaescobar@yahoo.es writes:

<< Sancho III, king of Navarra, married Munia or Mayor, daughter of the
"conde" of Castilla Sancho GArcía (D. 1.o17) and sister of of the "infante" don
García, the last conde, murder when he was young in 1.029. His sister Munia was
the new "condesa".
Sancho III and Munia had three sons: García, Fernando and Gonzalo. Ramiro
was an ilegitimate son of Sancho.
When Sancho died, García inherited his kingdom: Navarra. Fernando inherited
his mother "condado": Castilla. Sancho gives Aragón to his son Ramiro and the
little countries of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe to Gonzalo, the youngest one.
Mee >>

"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Louda and Maclagan
states that the eldest son Garcia was the son of Sancho III's first marriage
to Gaya of Gascony.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 01:03:02

In a message dated 11/11/05 2:47:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< I just meant anything specific - he certainly was born early enough to
be able to proclaim himself king and assassinate his brother shortly
after his father's 1035 death. >>

He personally assassinated his brother? Or someone did it for him?

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 12 nov 2005 02:01:45

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/11/05 2:47:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

I just meant anything specific - he certainly was born early enough to
be able to proclaim himself king and assassinate his brother shortly
after his father's 1035 death.

He personally assassinated his brother? Or someone did it for him?

This is reconstructed based on very little data, but he seems at least
to have instigated it. The Iberians weren't opposed to personal
involvement - Sancho IV of Navarre, Ramiro's nephew, is said to have
been pushed off a mountainside by either/or/both his brother, (Ramon or
Fernando, I don't recall which) and sister Urraca, while contemporary
Berenger Ramon II of Barcelona is said to have personally offed his
brother Ramon Berenger II, and their elder brother Pere was banished for
personally killing his step-mother Almodis.

taf

Gjest

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 02:49:47

In that epoch a sovereign could use the title of count or king; later
the last one prevailed.
The kings of Navarra could also be known as counts of Aragón or,
probably better, kings of Pamplona and counts of Aragón. The
territories of Sancho III were Navarra and Aragón, including Ribagorza
and Sobrarbe and some land formerly part of León in the Castilian
border.

It must be taken into account that the kings of Pamplona didn't had the
frankish tradition of division of the kingdom amongst the sons. So when
Sancho died his rightfull heir was Garcia and the other brothers, ruled
under Garcia's sovereignty. But Fernando's position was peculiar
because he inherited Castile from his mother (Garcia being son of
Sancho's 1st marriage and not of Munia of Castile) so he was a
sovereign in Castile, but ruled the once leonese territory under
Garcias's sovereignty. This he didn't accept and rebelled against
Garcia; they met at the battle of Atapuerca (1054) and Garcia was
killed.
As usually, history was written by the winners and Atapuerca is widely
referred as a battle between two kingdoms, Castile and Navarra.

Personally I regret this outcome as it was the basis of the prevalence
of Castile and I think that Spain under the prevalence of
Navarra/Aragón would have been a much better and gentle country for
portuguese, moriscos, jews and possibly, south american indians.
Aragón had "Cortes" (parliament) some centuries before England and
Navarra was remarkable by the "Fueros" (bill of rights given to towns
and depending territories).

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

maria emma escobar escreveu:
Sancho III, king of Navarra, married Munia or Mayor, daughter of the "conde" of Castilla Sancho GArcía (D. 1.o17) and sister of of the "infante" don García, the last conde, murder when he was young in 1.029. His sister Munia was the new "condesa".
Sancho III and Munia had three sons: García, Fernando and Gonzalo. Ramiro was an ilegitimate son of Sancho.
When Sancho died, García inherited his kingdom: Navarra. Fernando inherited his mother "condado": Castilla. Sancho gives Aragón to his son Ramiro and the little countries of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe to Gonzalo, the youngest one.
Mee




---------------------------------

Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 12 nov 2005 10:47:41

francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com wrote:
In that epoch a sovereign could use the title of count or king; later
the last one prevailed.
The kings of Navarra could also be known as counts of Aragón or,
probably better, kings of Pamplona and counts of Aragón. The
territories of Sancho III were Navarra and Aragón, including Ribagorza
and Sobrarbe and some land formerly part of León in the Castilian
border.

It must be taken into account that the kings of Pamplona didn't had the
frankish tradition of division of the kingdom amongst the sons. So when
Sancho died his rightfull heir was Garcia and the other brothers, ruled
under Garcia's sovereignty. But Fernando's position was peculiar
because he inherited Castile from his mother (Garcia being son of
Sancho's 1st marriage and not of Munia of Castile) so he was a
sovereign in Castile, but ruled the once leonese territory under
Garcias's sovereignty. This he didn't accept and rebelled against
Garcia; they met at the battle of Atapuerca (1054) and Garcia was
killed.

Are there any surviving charters of Fernando from between 1035, when the
supposed partition took place, and 1037, when he became King of Leon,
that would better indicate the status he claimed for himself? After
that point, it is moot to debate whether he was King of Leon & Castile,
or simply King of Leon and Count of Castile. Are there any charters of
Gonzalo after 1035?

As usually, history was written by the winners and Atapuerca is widely
referred as a battle between two kingdoms, Castile and Navarra.

Personally I regret this outcome as it was the basis of the prevalence
of Castile and I think that Spain under the prevalence of
Navarra/Aragón would have been a much better and gentle country for
portuguese, moriscos, jews and possibly, south american indians.
Aragón had "Cortes" (parliament) some centuries before England and
Navarra was remarkable by the "Fueros" (bill of rights given to towns
and depending territories).

Perhaps if Alfonso I could have gotten along with his wife . . . . .

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»