[I had intended a more extended answer, but find it is taking more
time than I have, so this will have to do for the time being.]
On Nov 3, 4:07 am, "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+use...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
I tried to search for the primary source for this account by Opispo
Pelayo, and I guess I found it - Liber Chronicorum - though I was not able
to find the actual text online by a simple search on Google.
Nevertheless, I found the following:
"la obra histórica del obispo Pelayo de Oviedo (Liber Chronicorum, Li-
ber Itacii), que habría modificado o creado ex novo este docu-
mento, con el objetivo de salir favorecido en sus disputas entre su sede y
la de Lugo"
.. . . .
This seems to cast some doubts about the mentioned Chronicle, parts of it
allegedly being a forgery to favour the Obispado de Oviedo over Lugo
and/or Toledo.
In this case, however, (and, plese, note that I've not read the original
text) possibly there is no reason to believe this passage of the Chronicle
is biased or forged.
He certainly had an agenda, but the text seems authentic.
"Hic habuit quinque uxores legitimas: primam Agnetem, secundam
Constanciam reginam, ex qua genuit Urracam reginam, coniugem comitis
Raimundi, de qua ipse genuit Sanciam et Adelfonsum regem; tertiam
Bertam, Tuscia oriundam, quartam Elisabeth, ex qua genuit Sanciam,
coniugem comitis Roderici, et Geloiram, quam duxit Rogerius, dux
Siciliae; quintam Beatricem, quae, mortuo eo, repedavit in patriam
suam.
Habuit etam duas concubinas, tamen nobilissomas: priorem Xemenam
Munionis, ex qua genuit Geloiran, uxorem comitis Raimundi Tolosani,
patris ex ea Adelfonsi Iordanis, et Tarasiam, uxorem Henrici comitis,
patris ex ea Urracae, Geloirae et Adelfonsi. Posteriorem nomine
Ceidam, filiam Abenabeth, regis Hispalensis, quae baptizata Elisabeth
fuit vocata, ex hac genuit Sanciam, qui obiit in lite de Ocles."
For Agnes, the Chronicon Malleacense reports under 1069, "His diebus
Hildefonsus, rex Hispanorum, duxerat filiam Guidonis, comitis ducis
Aquitanorum, quam habuit de Mateode, uxore suprascripta."
For the final three wives, there is a charter of Urraca that includes
the phrase "sicut eam habuerunt et tenuerunt regine uxores patris mei,
scilicet Berta, Isabel et Beatrix."
wife: Berta of Lombardy
children: none
Have her as Berta da Borgonha?
But certainly not the same house of Borgonha Constança belongs to.
Have it as Condado Palatino de Borgonha.
You see above where she is said to be of Tuscany. Palencia says of
her the following:
"Y apenas podemos captar detalles sobre la vida de esta reina dona
Berta, tambien de origen frances, aunque a veces unos historiadores la
titulan Berta de Toscana y hasta en la Chronica General hay confusion
sobre su patria, aunque declara luego: 'que don Enrique, el que caso
con dona Teresa, hija de Alfonso VI, tuvo a dona Berta, como natural
de Borgona'."
wife: Isabel
children: Elvira m. Roger of Sicily
Strangely enough, I do not have this marriage.
Do you know who were the parents of Rogerio, and if there was sucession
from this marriage?
He is Roger II, king of Sicily, (son of Roger I) and the subsequent
kings came from this marriage.
Sancha m. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara
Yes.
Sanchez de Mora, in his Lara dissertation, reports a document by
Rodrigo Gonzalez and his wife Sancha, "filia prolis Alfonsi regis".
Thus while Pelayo only calls her wife of "count Rodrigo" it is clear
that the Rodrigo in question was Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara.
wife: Beatrice
children: none
Beatriz de Aquitania, ok.
That she was from Aquitaine is speculation, and, I think, unlikely. It
would have violated canon law to marry a close relative of his former
wife.
mistress: Jimena Munoz
children: Elvira m. Raymond of Toulouse
Teresa m. Henry of Burgundy
The mother of Portugal.

mistress: Zaida, renamed Isabel
children: Sancho
Now this is more clear to me. I had both his daughters Sancha and Elvira
assigned to Zaida, which I understand from the discussion going on is not
clear at all.
What is known is that they are children of "Isabel, Regina", correct?
Yes, and if there were two queens of this name (as suggested by
Reilly) then they would be children of the first and not the second,
who would be Zaida.
BTW, I also have this, according to the author of "Os Braganções", José C.
Lourinho Soares (page 63):
Fernão Mendes de Bragança, o Velho (d. after Aug. 1117) married an
unnamed, illegitimate daughter of Afonso VI de Castela, by an unnamed
mother.
"Documenta-se como governador de Chaves por D. Afonso VI, com cuja filha
(certamente uma bastarda) parece que casou, segundo o Livro Velho."
This refers to the Livro Velho, which I presume is the Nobiliary of Count
D. Pedro (now online, as I posted), which I have not cheched yet. It's not
a primary source, and must be taken with care.
I have not seen this in anything close to contemporary, and have to
view it with skepticism.
Just about all of this is confirmed by other sources: contemporary
charters and the like. As we have been talking about, there is
significant disagreement over whether Alfonso married Zaida/Isabel,
either as the Queen Isabel who was mother of Sancha and Elvira, or as
a second queen of the same name.
It is the mother of Elvira and Sancha who is reputed to be of France,
daughter of Louis, but this is found in a late (by 150 years)
chronicle and a monumental inscription that was actually installed
even later and appears to be based on the chronicle. It is false,
there being no Louis who could have been her father, and the French
royals had never used the name Isabel before this time.
Yes. I've checked the chronology, and it's impossible that she was
daughter of Louis Le Gros, b. 1081.
I apologize if I'm asking something obvious, but could you please
summarise why did it appear the hypotesis of the 2 Isabel? Why can't we
merge them at once? Is there any documental evidence to oppose this?
The primary argument against is that Bishop Pelayo, as seen above,
mentions the two without giving the slightest indication that they are
the same. Reilly also presents the 1106 document referring to Alfonso
and his wife Isabella, now legally married. He reads this to mean
that they had just married and as Alfonso had appeared for years with
a queen Isabel, there must have been a new marriage to a second
Isabel, making Pelayo guilty of failing to mention a marriage, rather
than of failing to mention that a mistress and wife was the same. (The
counter argument to this is that Urraca, in reporting her father's
wives, names only one Isabel.)
As you have seen if you have followed this thread, there are those who
find this unpersuasive, and would unite the two, as you have
suggested.
As to a Sancha who married Rodrigo Alvarez, I know of no evidence for
her. I strongly suspect confusion with the authentic Sancha who
married Rodrigo Gonzalez.
Having reviewed the data, I am more convinced of this. Bishop Pelayo
says a daughter Sancha married a count Rodrigo. This family claims a
count Rodrigo, and made the obvious connection, even though it is
clearly the wrong count Rodrigo.
Who is this Rodrigo Alvarez supposed to be.
Son of Alvaro Rodriguez de Asturias and Maria Pelaez de Cisneros.
G-son of Rodrigo Diaz de Asturias and Jimena Gomez (this couple is
documented)
Gdaughter of Pelayo Pelaez de Cisneros and Mayor Gonzalez.
I have Maria Pelaez de Cisneros also married to Diego Ansurez de Monzon.
There was a count of this name under Alfonso VII, but he appears too
young, and married Maria Ponce.
Can you provide me more info on this Rodrigo Alvarez married to Maria
Ponce?
fl 1161 x 1187, son of Alvaro Rodriguez and his wife Sancha Fernandez.
(This Alvar Rodriguez was son of Rodrigo Velaz and Urraca Alvarez.)
He held land in Allariz, Llemos, Monterroso and Sarria, which he gave
up in 1171 to join the Order of Santiago, but left on 1174 to found
what would become the Order of Mountjoy. He had married Maria Ponce,
daughter of Ponce de Minerva and Estefania Ramirez.
Does your source give additional
information that would tell me where I should be looking for this
Rodrigo Alvarez?
"Era ALVAR DÍAZ, como queda dicho, hijo de RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS,
3º de este nombre, el que sirvió al Rey San Fernando en la conquista
de Sevilla con sus hermanos ALVAR PÉREZ DE QUIÑONES, tronco de la familia
de QUIÑONES y RUI PÉREZ DE AVILÉS, maestro de Calatrava, que figura tan
brillantemente en la toma de Sevilla, los cuales eran hijos de otro
RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, 2ºde este nombre, que se casara con la
Infanta DOÑA SANCHA ALFONSO, hija del Rey ALFONSO VI DE CASTILLA y de LEÓN
y de la Infanta DOÑA ISABEL, hija de LUIS VI Rey de Francia. Era RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el 2º de este nombre, Gobernador de Asturias y
en una escritura que otorgaron a favor de la Iglesia de Burgos, el Rey
Alfonso VII y su mujer Doña Berenguela, le llama Conde de Asturias y aún
solían darle el título de Rey de Gozón y Pravia por haber dado el Rey
ALFONSO VI a su hija DOÑA SANCHA mujer de DON RODRIGO estos lugares sin
sujeción alguna a la jurisdicción Real.
If I am reading this right, it makes Rodrigo Alvarez a contemporary of
San Fernando, and grandson of Alfonso VI - too few generations.
Further it makes Rodrigo Alvarez son of another Rodrigo Alvarez at a
time when one would still have expected the more traditional
patronymic usage (the son would be Rodrigo Rodriguez).
RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el segundo de este nombre, era hijo de ÁLVARO
RODRÍGUEZ DE ASTURIAS y de su mujer MARÍA PELÁEZ y nieto de RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el primero, y de su mujer XIMENA GÓMEZ hija de DON
GÓMEZ DÍAZ DE GORMAZ a quien los romances antiguos llaman El Conde Lozano
y de DOÑA TERESA PELÁEZ, Condes de Carrión, hija esta señora de la Condesa
DOÑA ALDONZA ORDÓÑEZ y del INFANTE DON PELAYO FLÓREZ nieto del Rey FRUELA
II."
From:
"La casa de Ron y sus agregadas: Ibias, Quirós, Valcarce Caballero y
otras. Estudio genealógico y heráldico", Antonio de Ron, 1932
Available online at:http://www.ghg.net/albertron/LA%20CASA%20DE%20RON.html
I have taken a quick look, and unfortunately this work is more
reminiscent of the 'Old School' of Iberian genealogy. It reports
material for which there is not the slightest documentary support
(particularly the material dating from Pelayo's period). It manages to
make connection to every noteworthy family, even incorporating
conflicting versions of the same pedigrees as maternal and paternal
lineages. I think extreme care needs be used in relying on anything
found in this source.
taf