Another 'king' in Pamplona

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Another 'king' in Pamplona

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 okt 2007 03:44:38

I have been looking over an article by Alberto Canada Juste, "Un
milenario navarro: Ramiro Garces, rey de Viguera". This article
discusses the king of that name, younger son of Garcia Sanchez I, King
of Pamplona (Navarre).

The so-called kingdom of Viguera was a new creation, representing
control over newly conquered lands in the Rioja region. It has been
suggested that Ramiro's possession of the title and territory was a
compromise. Garcia Sanchez appears in contemporary records with two
wives, Andregota and Teresa (this is the current interpretation - some
older scholars interpreting these as alternative names of the same
person). Andregota is documented as mother of the eldest son and
successor, Sancho Garces. Teresa, whose name has suggested an origin
in Leon, appears to have been mother of a second son, Ramiro (whose
name also suggests a connection with Leon). It has been suggested that
Garcia was encouraged by his second wife, Teresa, to name her son as
heir to the throne in place of her stepson, and that Garcia
compromised by keeping Sancho as heir, but making Ramiro a kinglet of
a novel creation.

But what is the evidence for this reconstruction? The short answer is
"there isn't any". We know that Ramiro later appears as reigning in
Viguera, we know that Teresa and Ramiro are names typical of the
ruling family of Leon, and we know that Garcia had involved himself on
the politics of Leon at the time. There is no evidence for the
reasons behind the creation of the state at Viguera, and regarding its
status only that Ramiro held it under his brother.

Into this picture comes a charter cited by Canada Juste. This charter
is a donation made by Sancho Garces and is witnessed by "rey Jimeno" -
king Jimeno. This Jimeno is a younger brother of the king (apparently
a younger son of Teresa) who was sent by Sancho to Cordoba for some
time, but had since returned. The curious thing is his use of the
royal title, without any evidence of a territory over which he ruled.
When viewed in a larger context, it perhaps begs a reinterpretation of
exactly what the term king really meant in 9th and 10th century
Pamplona.

Garcia Jimenez, the grandfather of king Garcia Sanchez, is called
"king of another part" of the kingdom by the Roda Codex, and this has
been assumed to represent a principality distinct but subservient to
that rled by Garcia Iniguez and Fortun Garces, centered on Pamplona.
At the same time there was a 'Prince Garcia' killed in battle who does
not link to either family, but had been married into the Banu Qasi.
In the next generation, all of the sons of Garcia Jimenez also appear
royal titles. Sancho usurped the crown, and Jimeno served as regent
(or so it is claimed, a surviving kings list simply naming him as king
without qualification) for his nephew Garcia, but elder brother Inigo
Garces also appears as king, with no indication of him having ruled
anything. Likewise, the sons of Ramiro Garces of Viguera both appear
with the royal title in the same document, not in succession. Finally,
on the death of Sancho Garces, his sons Ramiro and Fernando appear to
have been using the royal title from shortly after the death of their
father. This, when viewed in isolation has been taken as a case of
paternal favoritism or taking advantage of a weak elder brother, but
when viewed in this larger context an alternative is suggested.
Perhaps the royal title was simply a symbol of status as a male member
of the royal family, and (as was the case with the title 'count' in
11th century Leon) not indicative of being a king of a specific
territory, in the modern sense - in other words, that Ramiro was king
in Viguera, not King of Viguera, and the younger sons of Sancho el
Mayor were similarly placed before Fernando's marriage made him a king
in the more traditional sense, and Ramiro's superseding of his brother
Gonzalo gave him the power base to break away from Garcia and Navarre.

Just some food for thought.

FWIW, Canada Juste also suggests that Garcia's daughter Urraca was by
his first wife Andregota and not by Teresa. This would certainly
better fit with the chronology, as otherwise she would have been a
young child when he married Fernan Gonzalez, the widower of her aunt.
This would mean that any descent from Teresa must come through her
sons and not from Urraca. (This may be moot, as the descent traced
from Urraca is either invented (in the case of Peter, son of Fernan
Gonzalez) or obscure and not well supported (I have seen a line
tracing the Lords of Marsan from an illegitimate son of Sancho William
of Gascony, son of Urraca. This is of particular interest because the
apparent mother of Piers de Gaveston was de Marsan).

taf

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Another 'king' in Pamplona

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 16 okt 2007 01:40:40

On 15 Out, 03:44, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

.......
- in other words, that Ramiro was king in Viguera, not King of
Viguera, ............

It seems that there was a real if small kingdom of Viguera that
lasted for 60 years with 3 kings in succession.

« Con la conquista de Viguera por los navarros el año 924 estas
tierras pasaron a manos cristianas.

El monarca navarro García Sánchez I (925-970) creó, parece ser que
presionado por su segunda esposa Teresa, para su hijo Ramiro Garcés,
el reducido reino de Viguera. Ramiro Garcés reinó durante los años
970-981. Fue un rey activo y comprometido en el engrandecimiento y
expansión de su reino. Su vida finalizó en duro combate sostenido
contra Almanzor junto a la aldea y castillo de Torrevicente, en
tierras sorianas, en julio del año 981.

El segundo rey de Viguera fue Sancho Ramírez, primer hijo de Ramiro
Garcés, que murió muy pronto, hacia el año 997, por lo que tendría 24
años. El título de rey pasó a su hermano García Ramírez que fue el
tercer rey de Viguera (997-1.030).

Así pues, el reino de Viguera duró unos 60 años. Creemos que el
territorio de este "reino" podría coincidir con las villas que la
reina Estefanía dona a cada uno de sus hijos en su testamento del año
1.060. Comprendería: Viguera con sus villas Harat-Albelda, Alhacel,
Castejón, Santa Eulalia, Excluniana, Lizuelos, Sorvetello, Sorzano,
Nalda, Fruvekella, Viriza y Luezas; Leza con sus villas de Soto,
Cillas, Alficero, Torrecilla en Camero y Larraga; Jubera con sus
villas de Bucesta, Lagunilla y Oprela; Murillo, Cobuela, Viliella,
Egón y Egoncillo; Alberite, Lardero y Mucrones; Villamediana; Matres;
Corcuetos, Hornos y Daroca; Yangua, Atayo y Villuela. Muchas de estas
villas ya han desaparecido.

http://www.senderismorioja.com/metria.htm

Best regards,
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Another 'king' in Pamplona

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 okt 2007 02:16:46

On Oct 15, 5:40 pm, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 Out, 03:44, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

......

- in other words, that Ramiro was king in Viguera, not King of
Viguera, ............

It seems that there was a real if small kingdom of Viguera that
lasted for 60 years with 3 kings in succession.

Except part of my point is that they weren't kings in succession.
Both Sancho and Garcia appear as kings in the same document. So were
they kings, and in control of the region of Viguera, but not "Kings of
Viguera"? I know Ramiro was said to be reigning in Viguera and "rey
en Viguera", not "rey de Viguera" in the records I have seen (but then
brother Sancho was "rey en Pamplona" in the same document). Likewise,
as I pointed out, Ramiro's little brother Jimeno seems to have been
'king without portfolio'. I realize that at some point this becomes
semantic, but it would make the adoption of the royal title by Sancho
el Mayor's sons more explicable if it was part of a larger pattern of
royal children to use the royal title.

There aren't many others to look at. Sancho I had just the one son,
while the younger sons of Sancho Abarca are poorly documented (there
does appear to be a Galindo who was in control of Aragon, but I have
had a hard time finding primary documentation of this. I wish I had
access to Lacarra).

« Con la conquista de Viguera por los navarros el año 924 estas
tierras pasaron a manos cristianas.

El monarca navarro García Sánchez I (925-970) creó, parece ser que
presionado por su segunda esposa Teresa, para su hijo Ramiro Garcés,
el reducido reino de Viguera.


This is broadly claimed, but I don't know that there is any evidence
that this was really the case.


El segundo rey de Viguera fue Sancho Ramírez, primer hijo de Ramiro
Garcés, que murió muy pronto, hacia el año 997, por lo que tendría 24
años.

I know of no documentation that would enable his age to be determined.

El título de rey pasó a su hermano García Ramírez que fue el
tercer rey de Viguera (997-1.030).

Again, it appears Garcia was using the royal title during Sancho's
life. As to his death date, he just ceases to appear, but I thought
it was earlier than 1030 (I thought 1030 was the latest date he could
have died but that he disappears much earlier).

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»