Post by taf Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
shows yet another version. Like Salazar y Castro's, it would make Pedro López
de Ayala son of a Lope Sánchez son of a Sancho López. However, it would make
this Sancho López son of López Diaz II, instead of López Diaz I, his
grandfather. Dear Todd, did you already know this version? Regardless, is
this simply an attempt to combine Salazar y Castro's version with the desired
The primary source, of course, does not use modern numbering, simply calling him "conde don Lope Diaz de Haro". However, the author would later provide a datum that proves helpful. He relates that Sancho Perez 'Motila' was killed by the king at Alfaro when the king killed Sancho's cousin Lope diaz de Haro. The last event occured in 1288, and resulted in the death of the count now referred to as Lope Diaz III, who was about 43 at the time. Given that our man had 5 sons by then, he seems to have been of similar age to Lope Diaz (III), b.ca. 1245, the son of Diego Lopez (III), b. say 1220. Even if you bump our man a decade younger, we still have to squeeze two generations into no more than about 33 years to make Sancho Motila the grandson of Diego (III)'s younger brother - biologically possible, but highly atypical among the gentry of this time. Also remember, though that Salazar y Castro inserted a generation to make the patronymics work, so you would instead be forcing three generations into 33 years.
Lope II m. 1215/18 Urraca Alfonso
Diego II b. say 1220 Sancho Lopez
Lope III c. 1245-1288 [Lope Sanchez]
Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)
Diego II Sandho Lopez
Lope II [Lope Sanchez]
Diego III Pedro Lopez
Lope III Sancho Motila
This all assumes that the relationship is authentic at all. Earlier in the work it reports that a Toda Sanchez de Salcedo married count Lope de Viscaya and by him had Diego Lopez de Salcedo, who was very good and was called Diego Lopez Cabeza Brava. This seems to be a highly confused rendering of the Haro lineage, but there is no such marriage int eh documented tree of them to a Toda Sanchez de Salcedo.
Don't know how I could have overlooked this, but there is such a marriage. Wikipedia has Toda as second wife of Lope Diaz II, after the death of Urraca Alfonso.
The Ayala history shows San Garcia de Salcedo marrying Maria Yeneguez de Piedrola and having:
a. Fortun Sanz de Salcedo
Juan Sanchez el Negro, fl. temp Alfonso XI (sic)
b. Rodrigo Sanz, d.s.p.
c. Maria Sanz de Salcedo, married Pedro Ladron de Guevara
Ladron de Guevara
Juan Velaz de Guevara
Nuno Ybanez de Guevara
Vela Ladron de Guevara = niece of Pope Clement
Beltran Ybanez de Guevara = Elvira Sanchez
Sancho Perez de Guevara
Elvira Sanchez = Sancho Lopez, son of Lope Diaz de Vizcaya
Sancho Perez Motila k. 1288
Elvira Sanchez = Beltran Ybanez
Sancho Perez de Ayala k 1328
Fernan Perez de Ayala d 1385
d. Berengaria Sanz, married Roy Gonzalez Giron
e. Toda Sanz de Salcedo, m. count Lope of Vizcaya
Diego Lopez de Salcedo Cabeza Brava
Some notes on this:
1) there is a whole multi-page diversion between reporting the marriage of Toda Sanz to count Lope de Vizcaya and that of Elvira Sanchez to the son of Lope Diaz de Vizcaya, and no reference is made to relate this back to the man named earlier. Nonetheless, it is not reasonable to think the Lope who married Toda was two generations younger than the one who was father-in-law of Sancho. If this account is not massively confused, then the same chronological argument that would require the father of Sancho Lopez to be Lope I would also require the husband of Toda to be Lope I and not Lope II. I would be interested in seeing if there is any primary evidence for Lope II having such a wife.
2) In the past, I have highlighted the fact that this account doesn't match the patronymics one would expect. Indeed, each of the three main lines of descent given violate patronymics very early in the descents. There are two possible explanations for this. First, that Fernan Perez de Ayala, writing at a period after patronymic breakdown, was unaware of the strict patronymic usage of his ancestor, and thus was not aware that the form of the pedigrees that came down to him was flawed (or alternatively, he did not know when making it up that he should maintain patronymic consistency). The alternative explanation is that for reasons unknown, this particular set of lineages abandoned strict patronymic usage generations earlier than other area families (e.g. the Haro).
On this last possibilities, one can't help but note that the generation phasing would put Beltran in the same generation as his wife, but since his was an all-male lineage, while she was the second female in her line (females tending to marry a decade younger than males) one would not be surprised were there to be an extra generation in her line.
3) the Pope Clement who makes an appearance here is Clement V, born Raimond Bertrand de Got, his niece biong named Ness de Goth (Agnes de Got).
4. The marriage of Berenguela Sanz de Salcedo to Roy Gonzalez Giron seems to be a massively confused rendering of the marriage of Berenguela Lopez de Haro, daughter of Lope II and Urraca Alfonso, to Rodrigo Gonzalez Giron. This kind of grossly erroneous material leaves modern scholars at a loss over how to treat this entire pedigree.