GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1995-09 > 0811620017


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Sancha de Ayala (again)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 18:00:17 GMT


In a previous article, (Nat Taylor) says:

>School has now started and I have fallen behind by a note here. In
>response to earlier discussion of the Ayala genealogical manuscripts, I
>accept Todd's arguments (use of "nieto", etc.) that the variant MSS are
>not necessarily mutually contradictory, given a descent of Maria
>"Rodriguez de Guzman" from Diego Garcia de Toledo as in Rodriguez

"Ramirez de Guzman"

>If Salazar y Castro had Pero Lopez de Ayala's explicit statement of Dia
>Gomez' parentage on hand (and he copied it himself), then why did he get
>this wrong in his own work? Bad dog!

Just a suggestion. I don't know when he came across this information vs.
when he published his various works. I know that some of his own material
is self contradictory.

>
>In article <43k6fo$>, (Todd A.
>Farmerie) wrote:
>> arbitrary: 1. Illan de Toledo - descended from a Julian/Illan, this was the
>> first Toledo mozarab family to gain prominence under the christian kings,
>> and some way has been invented to trace each of the other lines from this
>> one in either male or female lines. 2. Alvarez de Toledo - possibly a
>> branch of the former, if not ?. This family reached greatest prominance of
>> the various de Toledo families. 3. Garcia de Toledo - descended from
>> Abdelasis ben Lampeter. 4. de Toledo de Orgaz - descended from the
>> Abd-al-Malik clan. 5. Gomez de Toledo - Sancha's family, traced by
>> Rodriguez Marquina (who unfortunately does not discuss his reasons for
>> making this connection) to Pedro Gomez Barrosa.
>
>Javier Rodriguez Marquina's "Linajes Mozarabes de Toledo en los Siglos XII
>y XIII," in _Genealogias mozarabes: ponencias y comunicaciones presentadas
>al I Congreso Internacional de Estudios Mozarabes, Toledo, 1975_ (Toledo:
>Instituto de Estudios Visigotico-Mozarabes de San Eugenio, 1981 (serie B,
>no. 1)) contains most of these lines, and I am not impressed by the
>presentation (it is in some ways reminiscent of Salazar y Castro, who felt
>the need to derive every major noble family in the male line from royal
>stock) but they do make overall a more sensible attribution of various
>people styled "de Toledo" into these lineages than did Salazar y Castro.
>Unfortunately, the impetus behind this collection was to document the
>descent of all these lines from original "mozarabic" forbears, so there is
>inevitable forcing of links. You may note on the reverse of the contents
>page the pretentious seal of the "Corporation of the Noble Families of
>Mozarabic knights".
>

I agree. Still, 1,and two predate Rod.Marq., while 4 is from a good
account, that explains the descent gereation by generation. That leaves 3
and 5, the latter of which I don't buy Rod.Marq.'s descent.

>5. Maria Rodriguez de Guzman

Maria Ramirez de Guzman.

>10. Ramiro de Guzman (Juan Ramirez de Guzman?) *
>11. Maria Garcia (de Toledo) *

I think I erred in this in my other post, calling her Teresa.

>20. ** [Juan Perez de Guzman]
>21. ** [Maria Ramirez de Cifuentes]

>24. Sancho Perez de Ayala, "el Motila", +1288
>25. Aldonza (de Velascuri) (but see a previous message on her)

I think that the Aldonza in the Salazar Acha article is a different
individual, and thus this is right (or at least not wrong for that reason).

>
>*, ** 10 & 11 are as identified by Rodriguez Marquina in the table
>opposite page 36. 20 and 21 are, however, as in GC (though GC's
>identification of 11 is ignored). I am not entirely happy with the Guzman
>ancestry above no. 10. The lineage in GC, "Guzman" (vol. 42), line 2,
>seems patched together. And the tables in "Genealogias mozarabes" only
>show Maria Ramirez de G's father as a "Ramiro de Guzman" (from her
>patronymic) not "Juan Ramirez" as in GC. If GC is sound here, why did
>Rodriguez Marquina not make this identification? And if Juan Ramirez's
>wife (11) in GC seems fictitious (she doesn't fit into the Toledan
>families detialed by Rodriguez Marquina), then why can we accept GC's
>identification of 21? Do you have other evidence for the Guzman /
>Cifuentes generations in your Alfonso IX descent?
>

Let me go into some detail on this. I (unfortunately) do not have this
well documented all the way back. What I do have is the following: (let me
know if you want more detail. Most of my references came straight from the
footnotes of Vajay and Salazar Acha)

Like most people working on this stuff, I took Garcia Carraffa, and tried
to either disprove it or confirm it.

>From a Moxo article on the nobility of Old and New Castile, I have the
Fruelaz/de Cifuentes family followed through Ramiro Diaz de Cifuentes
(note that this is more of a brief description of the family, and not a
scholarly genealogy). I also have an account of the Fruelaz family through
Diego Ramirez Fruelaz, but this fails to notice his well attested marriage
to Alfonso's daughter, nor does it show the descendants of this marriage.

Moxo also gives a summary of Guzman, including Juan Ramirez having a son
Ramiro Fruelaz de Guzman. I took this, along with his own Ramirez
patronomic, which had not previously appeared in the family, as
confirmation of the marriage of Juan Perez to Maria Ramirez, daughter of
Ramiro Diaz Fruelaz de Cifuentes.

In the next generation, the marriage of Pedro Suarez to Maria Ramirez de
Guzman, that she was daughter of Juan Ramirez comes from SyC, and appears
confirmed by her name, which derives straight from her grandmother, MRdeC.
There is no known Ramiro de Guzman in that family at that time, and the
family had quit following the patronomic naming in the previous generation
(in this branch) so there is no reason to expect a Ramiro to be her father,
(this is what first made me wonder about Rod.Marq.) only that there was
among her ancestry (or aunts) a Maria Ramirez, and this fits only this
branch of the Guzmans.

>Next generation, please? :)
>

See my other post. With my posting problems, I thought this message didn't
get through, so I reposted another version, going through the next
generation.

Todd

This thread: