Re: repetition of fantasy copying - again

On Mar 16, 12:34 pm, taf <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:05 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida



<francisco.tavaresdealme...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:28 am, taf <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This I can explain, at least with regard to Jimena, Vajay was
following Canal Sanchez-Pagin. He made her sister of Rodrigo Munoz,
son of Munio Gonzalez of Alava.  He also suggested that Gonzalo Nunez
de Lara was another sibling. Vajay then followed this, with the
addition that, and given that the Lara were traditionally portrayed as
akin to the Counts of Castile, he suggested a descent from the poorly
documented brother of Count Sancho Garcia as a way to harmonize the
pedigree found with the tradition of kinship.

Gonzalo Nuñez de Lara beeing another sibling meant the same agnatic
origin for Laras and Gúzmans and Canal Sánchez-Pagín or other author
even pointed that Laras and Gúzmans, knowing they have a common
ancestry, later adopted similar arms.

Yes.  That is what contributed to this hypothesis, but I forgot to
mention that in this, few others have followed Canal and/or Vajay.
Salazar y Acha, for example, accepted that Jimena was sister of count
Rodrigo Munoz, and daughter of Munio Gonzales, but rejected that the
Lara were connected to these counts, at least in this way, or that
these counts descend from those of Castile. (The two are part and
parcel - the Castile derivation had no foundation other than the
legends that Lara descended from the counts, so remove Lara and you
lose the only reason for the connection.)

I am not claiming expertise in heraldics but this was silly. Lara used
two cauldrons one on top of the other and as I said before Gúzman had
a shield divided in four in X. On top and base the same cauldrons and
left and right armine. This strongly suggests that the shield was
divided in X in order to include Lara's cauldrons with the same
disposition, one on top of the other; it strongly suggests a marriage
to a female Lara of higher hierarchy possibly because she owned more
lands or because she was close to royalty, probably both. Anyhow with
different male lineages.
The armine, as Torres-Sevilha, suggest a descent Flaínez but, in those
times, it does not imply an agnatic Flaínez descent.

I am in no way familiar with the development of heraldry on the
peninsula, but my familiarity with how it worked in England in these
earliest times makes me hesitant to draw such specific conclusions.
One particular thematic element is found among a cluster that included
not only an original pair of brothers-in-law (Vere and Mandeville),
their cousins and in-laws (Beauchamp of Bedford, Lacy, Clavering), but
also are reflected among a whole group of feudal dependents and their
descendants and families, and even among families that claimed similar
origins but made them up out of self-glorification and adopted the
arms to fit the claim.  At least in England, reading heraldry like it
was a form of genealogy-by-proxy can mislead. It sometimes makes sense
retrospectively, already knowing the relationships, but conclusions
one might draw about an unknown connection based on heraldry alone is
fraught with pitfalls.

taf

«« Salazar y Acha also accepts that Jimena was daughter of Munio Muniz
and Muniadona but gives that couple filiations chronologically
impossible. »»

« Where does he do this? In his work on the wives of Alfonso VI, he
accepts Canal's solution, that she was daughter of Munio Gonzalez by
Mayor. He suggests that she was niece of Munio Munoz of the Ulver
documents, that her mother and Munio's wife were sisters, daughters of
the earlier Munio Munoz (son of Munio Rodriguez canis). »

It is not explicit in the book. My guess would go to _Una Familia de
la Alta Edad media: Los Velas y su realidad historica_ in “Estudios
Genealogicos y Heraldicos”, 1, Madrid, 1985, pp. 16-64.

................

«« "Nuño Ruiz, Señor de Guzmán d. 1130", did any such person exist,
and die
in 1130 ?
and any attestation for (a copycat) Elvira de Manzanedo already in
that
generation????
Seemingly such did not exist at all »»

« Seemingly, but right now I don't know for certain what was claimed
by
the original author and what was added by the the person who copied
it. »

Leaving Elvira de Manzanedo out of this discussion, this would drive
us to the old and perpetual arguments on documented genealogy vs. the
'connect the dots' stuff.
Roughly, I am disposed to accept the “connect the dots” if:
a) No document on contrary (absence is not always the same than
contrary) is known;
b) It is not against any circumstancial evidence,
b1) Historical environment,
b2) Heraldics,
b3) Seals.
On the other hand some conditions must be fulfilled (not necessarly
all fulfilled but none offended):
c) Conformity with the patronimic system;
d) A possible chronology;
e) An adequate geography (for goods and/or events).

If a Rodrigo Muñoz is documented acting as judge in Montanha in 1020
and 1028 and if a Munio Rodríguez subscribes a donation in 1017 in
Santillana de Montanha (North of Burgos), it is not to “connect the
dots” to conclude the last one is a son of the first one.

The case of Munio Ruiz d. 1130 is different but - in my opinion - also
acceptable.
The father, Rodrigo Muniz, count of Astorga, lord of Gúzman, Aldana
and Deza was so defined by genealogists of the XV, XVI centuries. If
he is actually accepted as dead in 1086 it is only because those
genealogists also said that he died in the battle of Sagrajas. The
same genealogists gave him this son Munio Ruiz d..1130.
Modern reconstructions generally accepted the father but dismissed the
son but both (AFAIK) had the same basis and the names are common
enough to be found in one or two documents.
This was secondary in the discussed book but the author’s method seems
appropriated. He observed the modern reconstructions - Quintana
Prieto, Vajay, Canal Sánchez-Pagín and Salazar y Acha - refutes them
explaining why and concludes that he sees no reason to dismiss old
genealogies.
In my (humble) opinion, this is better than use part of those old
genealogies and dismiss other part.
I do not know exactly who were those earliest genealogists but in this
case they were followed amongst others by the already mentioned Argote
de Molina, Fr. Bernardo de Brito (published 1609), José Manuel Treles
(pub. 1736-9), Pe. Henrique Flórez (publ. 1754-75). To dismiss these,
always in my opinion, some document, break of the patronymic system or
chronological incongruity was expected - as in many other ocurrence it
did happen - but in this case I see none.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

P.S.- It is not necessary a deep knowlege of peninsular heraldry to
see my basic point in this specific. Iberian heraldry has not clusters
nor in the English type much less in the Polish one. To distinguish
branches of the same family, we expect changes in pieces and/or in
colours but a partition of the shield always implies different
lineages represented. I would expect this to be the same in England.
F.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Asturias, lords of Santillana
    ... Todd, you yourself earlier wrote that you are not happy with how the known wives of a certain count Munio Rodriguez, namely Jimena Ordonez and Ilduara Velasquez, ... Ordonez as wife of count Munio and mother of Rodrigo Munoz which is ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: repetition of fantasy copying - again
    ... He suggests that she was niece of Munio Munoz of the Ulver ... Rodrigo, making the connection to the nieces. ... and Deza was so defined by genealogists of the XV, ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: repetition of fantasy copying - again
    ... Quintana Prietos's information - says Munio Muniz was only "teniente" ... son of Munio Gonzalez of Alava. ... The placement of Munio Munoz was not in Canal Sanchez-Pagin. ... (that she was daughter of Munio Gonzalez) ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Ancestry of Jimena Munoz, grandmother of Affonso I of Portugal and Alfonso Jordan of Toulouse
    ... Fernandez and Jimena Froilaz, count Rodrigo and Odrozia) ... Munio Gonzalez, Count in Asturias, ... Mayor Munoz ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)