Discussion:
The Lords of Ayala
Add Reply
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-26 18:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Back in 1999, Todd Farmerie posted Salazar y Castro's reconstructed genealogy of the Lords of Ayala, read https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/26Mg-r1JD3s/-Hd-ABQMwUUJ
which was reposted by Nathaniel Lane Taylor in 2003, read https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/7ptjcCinh7g/cCkeY4JZVJYJ. I have two questions for Todd about this: 1. Why do most online genealogies ignore Maria Sanz de Unza and make Pedro de Ayala Elvira's husband? 2. Why did you refer to Pedro de Ayala with the patronymic López in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/wpliNdxOktE/Ev6dUrwvCAAJ, despite admitting that there's no evidence that he was son of Lope "El Chico" de Haro?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-26 18:18:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A third question: In your opinion, when does speculation end and reality begin in the genealogy of the Lords of Ayala?
taf
2020-04-26 20:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A third question: In your opinion, when does speculation end and reality
begin in the genealogy of the Lords of Ayala?
Ugh. No idea. They are all just names devoid of historical context, except for the earliest generation which is blatant nonsense (making them sons of Vela, son of Ramiro I of Aragon).

The most important event in Ayala history from Fernán's perspective was the feud over the succession to Ayala during the generation of his grandfather. His great-uncle was killed as a result, and Fernán named a son after the distant relative from whom they inherited (at the expense of that man's illegitimate son, the other party to the feud). Given that this is said to have gone through the courts, and the court, I think the general pattern of the inheritance is probably correct, but I am not saying the genealogy itself is exactly right. Two generations (IIRC) before the first Pedro López, the derivation of the male line from the Haros violates patronymics at a time they should have been inviolable, so the precise details there are not correct, and there have been conflicting attempts to 'fix' it, some of which change the Ayala descent as well, and I am also not sure there hasn't been a generations dropped from the other branch as well.

More generally, in showing his mother's ancestry, he seems to lose the plot in the same generation as Pedro López the elder. (i.e. with 'Ines la Gorda' - he seems to have known her patronymic was Alfonso, giving the name Ines Alfons to his eldest daughter, but leaves the impression he was at sea regarding her parentage - she was not a Saavedra as later sources make her, but a member of a Toledo Mozarab family).

The part that was appended by his son also has the first indication of problems in the generation of the great-grandmother of the author, who is given chronologically-impossible other marriage. Taken together, this suggests to me that, unless there was some specific event with genealogical overtones such as the disputed inheritance to keep the genealogy on track, accurate memory begins to break down in the generation of the writers great-grandparents.

taf
taf
2020-04-26 19:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
1. Why do most online genealogies ignore Maria Sanz de Unza and make Pedro
de Ayala Elvira's husband?
Because in the centuries after Fernan Perez de Ayala wrote his work, various confusion, ingenuity and invention led to alterations in the pedigree as given by Fernan Perez de Ayala, with none of these alterations being scholarly corrections based on contemporary documentation. Most online genealogies are following these later sources, without knowing how or why they deviate from the earlier (or even that the earlier source exists at all).

More generally, the nature of online genealogy usage means that all it takes is one person entering a relationship and it just gets copied from person to person among people who lack the skills or interest in independently researching the question, their sole interest being in enlarging their database. As a result, nothing useful can come from an analysis of which version appears most commonly online.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2. Why did you refer to Pedro de Ayala with the patronymic López
despite admitting that there's no evidence that he was son of Lope "El
Chico" de Haro?
It is not an issue of him either being Lope el Chico and hence López, or else he was neither López nor son of Lope el Chico. Somebody decided to make him son of Lope el Chico _because_ he was known to be Pedro López, but the father traditionally assigned to him was too obscure to be acceptable so needed to be 'improved'. In so doing, they broke the connection in the female line with the earlier Ayala lords, but since most of these were obscure too, that didn't bother them.

He is given the name Pedro López by his great-grandson. Fernán Pérez was deeply interested in his genealogy, and he seems to have known it accurately back to this generation (at least), as seen in his account the names given his children. Also relevant, Fernán Pérez's father was named Pedro López in violation of traditional patronymic usage, being son of Sancho Pérez, and so the younger Pedro López was named specifically for the earlier one, and Fernán Pérez then again used the same name combination for his own prominent son. That it was a true patronymic in the case of the eldest Pedro also seems clear based on the surrounding onomastic context, meaning his father was a Lope. (In drawing this last conclusion, one does have to accept that either Fernán Pérez de Ayala was confused about the ancestry of Pedro López or the surviving manuscript is corrupt at this point, because his account violates traditional patronymics a couple of generations earlier.)

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-13 23:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
1. Why do most online genealogies ignore Maria Sanz de Unza and make Pedro
de Ayala Elvira's husband?
Because in the centuries after Fernan Perez de Ayala wrote his work, various confusion, ingenuity and invention led to alterations in the pedigree as given by Fernan Perez de Ayala, with none of these alterations being scholarly corrections based on contemporary documentation. Most online genealogies are following these later sources, without knowing how or why they deviate from the earlier (or even that the earlier source exists at all).
More generally, the nature of online genealogy usage means that all it takes is one person entering a relationship and it just gets copied from person to person among people who lack the skills or interest in independently researching the question, their sole interest being in enlarging their database. As a result, nothing useful can come from an analysis of which version appears most commonly online.
Strangely, even Genealogics ignores Maria Sanz de Unza and makes Pedro de Ayala Elvira's husband.
John Higgins
2020-05-14 00:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
1. Why do most online genealogies ignore Maria Sanz de Unza and make Pedro
de Ayala Elvira's husband?
Because in the centuries after Fernan Perez de Ayala wrote his work, various confusion, ingenuity and invention led to alterations in the pedigree as given by Fernan Perez de Ayala, with none of these alterations being scholarly corrections based on contemporary documentation. Most online genealogies are following these later sources, without knowing how or why they deviate from the earlier (or even that the earlier source exists at all).
More generally, the nature of online genealogy usage means that all it takes is one person entering a relationship and it just gets copied from person to person among people who lack the skills or interest in independently researching the question, their sole interest being in enlarging their database. As a result, nothing useful can come from an analysis of which version appears most commonly online.
Strangely, even Genealogics ignores Maria Sanz de Unza and makes Pedro de Ayala Elvira's husband.
"Strangely, even Genealogics ignores"? Nothing strange about it. Genealogics has never been understood to be an all-encompassing compendium of genealogy. Leo used the sources he had, and he cited them (usually). There could be any number of reasons why he didn't include a particular person: lack of information, lack of time, lack of interest...

You should be more careful in your choice of words...
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-14 17:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
1. Why do most online genealogies ignore Maria Sanz de Unza and make Pedro
de Ayala Elvira's husband?
Because in the centuries after Fernan Perez de Ayala wrote his work, various confusion, ingenuity and invention led to alterations in the pedigree as given by Fernan Perez de Ayala, with none of these alterations being scholarly corrections based on contemporary documentation. Most online genealogies are following these later sources, without knowing how or why they deviate from the earlier (or even that the earlier source exists at all).
More generally, the nature of online genealogy usage means that all it takes is one person entering a relationship and it just gets copied from person to person among people who lack the skills or interest in independently researching the question, their sole interest being in enlarging their database. As a result, nothing useful can come from an analysis of which version appears most commonly online.
Strangely, even Genealogics ignores Maria Sanz de Unza and makes Pedro de Ayala Elvira's husband.
"Strangely, even Genealogics ignores"? Nothing strange about it. Genealogics has never been understood to be an all-encompassing compendium of genealogy. Leo used the sources he had, and he cited them (usually). There could be any number of reasons why he didn't include a particular person: lack of information, lack of time, lack of interest...
You should be more careful in your choice of words...
Thing is, Genealogics is probably the best online genealogy database and Leo was a member of this newsgroup. Thus, I find this surprising.
taf
2020-05-14 21:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thing is, Genealogics is probably the best online genealogy database
and Leo was a member of this newsgroup. Thus, I find this surprising.
While I get what you are saying, I don't think you fully appreciate exactly how rudimentary is the understanding of Iberian genealogy in the Anglophile world. The sources that are most available, such as the works of the Garcia Carrafa brothers, are exactly the sources that propagated (and created) the alternative reality the Iberian genealogy became before the mid-20th century, and exactly when some of the better works started to become available is when many libraries started being forced to discontinue acquisitions in more esoteric areas by the spiraling acquisition charges being leveled on them by the publication industry.

Thus, I don't find it the least surprising that Leo had this type of information - no matter how good someone is, they can't be an expert at all of medieval genealogy, across all nations and languages. Anyone wishing to have a comprehensive site will find themselves falling back on whatever is available, without the background to know that the sources are problematic.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-05 19:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What was the line violating patronymics that Fernan Pérez de Ayala traced from the Haros to himself? Could you, please, tell me?
taf
2020-06-05 22:53:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What was the line violating patronymics that Fernan Pérez de Ayala traced from the Haros to himself? Could you, please, tell me?
Lope Diaz, lord of Biscay
Sancho Lopez
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Perez de Ayala 'Motila'; Ruy Perez

If the surrounding relationships are any indication, this family should have still been using strict patronymics at this point - Pedro Lopez should have been son of a Lope, not a Sancho. As far back as Salazar y Castro, people have recognized this problem and tried to 'fix' it by adding another generation, a Lope Sanchez, in between, or simply going for broke and making Pedro the son of Lope el Chico as you introduced this thread with - a bad fix to a real problem.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-05 23:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What was the line violating patronymics that Fernan Pérez de Ayala traced from the Haros to himself? Could you, please, tell me?
Lope Diaz, lord of Biscay
Sancho Lopez
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Perez de Ayala 'Motila'; Ruy Perez
If the surrounding relationships are any indication, this family should have still been using strict patronymics at this point - Pedro Lopez should have been son of a Lope, not a Sancho. As far back as Salazar y Castro, people have recognized this problem and tried to 'fix' it by adding another generation, a Lope Sanchez, in between, or simply going for broke and making Pedro the son of Lope el Chico as you introduced this thread with - a bad fix to a real problem.
taf
Thanks. In the 2015 thread I linked to, you said that it was far from certain that the Ayalas were descended from the Haros, at all. However, you now seem to be more optimistic regarding such a descent. Have you changed your mind?
taf
2020-06-06 01:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What was the line violating patronymics that Fernan Pérez de Ayala traced from the Haros to himself? Could you, please, tell me?
Lope Diaz, lord of Biscay
Sancho Lopez
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Perez de Ayala 'Motila'; Ruy Perez
If the surrounding relationships are any indication, this family should have still been using strict patronymics at this point - Pedro Lopez should have been son of a Lope, not a Sancho. As far back as Salazar y Castro, people have recognized this problem and tried to 'fix' it by adding another generation, a Lope Sanchez, in between, or simply going for broke and making Pedro the son of Lope el Chico as you introduced this thread with - a bad fix to a real problem.
taf
Thanks. In the 2015 thread I linked to, you said that it was far from certain that the Ayalas were descended from the Haros, at all. However, you now seem to be more optimistic regarding such a descent. Have you changed your mind?
Not sure where you are seeing the optimism. The descent has every appearance of being flawed, and it is the only source we have. Thus we can just handwave and invent an extra generation for which we have no evidentiary basis whatsoever, or we can simply accept that it is flawed and leave it at that.
Neither approach provides much certainty that there is an authentic descent here, far from it.

Based on their violent struggle, in which his brother was killed, I think the basic scope of Fernan Perez de Ayala's descent from the first house of Ayala can be accepted in overview, but not the specific details given that the descent flows through this flawed generation, but the same doesn't apply to the Haro descent. I don't know how one can comfortably conclude that the flaw did not arise from an attempt to shoehorn a Haro connection into a descent that did not originally have one.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-07 00:31:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What was the line violating patronymics that Fernan Pérez de Ayala traced from the Haros to himself? Could you, please, tell me?
Lope Diaz, lord of Biscay
Sancho Lopez
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Perez de Ayala 'Motila'; Ruy Perez
If the surrounding relationships are any indication, this family should have still been using strict patronymics at this point - Pedro Lopez should have been son of a Lope, not a Sancho. As far back as Salazar y Castro, people have recognized this problem and tried to 'fix' it by adding another generation, a Lope Sanchez, in between, or simply going for broke and making Pedro the son of Lope el Chico as you introduced this thread with - a bad fix to a real problem.
taf
Thanks. In the 2015 thread I linked to, you said that it was far from certain that the Ayalas were descended from the Haros, at all. However, you now seem to be more optimistic regarding such a descent. Have you changed your mind?
Not sure where you are seeing the optimism. The descent has every appearance of being flawed, and it is the only source we have. Thus we can just handwave and invent an extra generation for which we have no evidentiary basis whatsoever, or we can simply accept that it is flawed and leave it at that.
Neither approach provides much certainty that there is an authentic descent here, far from it.
Based on their violent struggle, in which his brother was killed, I think the basic scope of Fernan Perez de Ayala's descent from the first house of Ayala can be accepted in overview, but not the specific details given that the descent flows through this flawed generation, but the same doesn't apply to the Haro descent. I don't know how one can comfortably conclude that the flaw did not arise from an attempt to shoehorn a Haro connection into a descent that did not originally have one.
taf
In our private email conversation, you said that Fernan Pérez de Ayala had apparently dropped a generation in his male line descent from the Haros. To me, that sounded like you were, at least, inclined to believe such.
taf
2020-06-07 01:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
In our private email conversation, you said that Fernan Pérez de Ayala had
apparently dropped a generation in his male line descent from the Haros. To
me, that sounded like you were, at least, inclined to believe such.
I should have been more precise. We were talking about another line, so I didn't want to derail the conversation with the precise details of all of the different ways that this error could have arisen. I used the most charitable interpretation to convey the fact that this is how far back the genealogy contains an obvious flaw, with the implication that we cannot assume his son Pedro would be accurate in presenting material the same number of generations back. I should have said 'apparently dropped a generation or something worse'.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-27 15:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
In our private email conversation, you said that Fernan Pérez de Ayala had
apparently dropped a generation in his male line descent from the Haros. To
me, that sounded like you were, at least, inclined to believe such.
I should have been more precise. We were talking about another line, so I didn't want to derail the conversation with the precise details of all of the different ways that this error could have arisen. I used the most charitable interpretation to convey the fact that this is how far back the genealogy contains an obvious flaw, with the implication that we cannot assume his son Pedro would be accurate in presenting material the same number of generations back. I should have said 'apparently dropped a generation or something worse'.
taf
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia shows yet another version. Like Salazar y Castro, 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. Did you already know this version. Is this simply an attempt to combine Salazar y Castro's version with the desired royal descent?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-27 15:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia 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 royal descent?
taf
2020-06-27 20:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia
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
royal descent?
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]

Pedro Lopez

Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)

However if Ayala omitted a generation, as is thought to be the case, Ayala omitted a generation, then there is generational congruence were Lope I the Haro in question, rather than Lope II:

Lope I

Diego II Sandho Lopez

Lope II [Lope Sanchez]

Diego III Pedro Lopez

Lope III Sancho Motila
k.1288 k.1288

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.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-28 00:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia
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
royal descent?
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]
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)
Lope I
Diego II Sandho Lopez
Lope II [Lope Sanchez]
Diego III Pedro Lopez
Lope III Sancho Motila
k.1288 k.1288
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.
taf
Thanks for sorting this out, Todd.
That shows Llorente's version is chronologically impossible. BTW, what do you think of Llorente's work in general?
Regardless, https://books.google.com/books?id=S4pKeaW7zVMC&pg=PA61&dq="Pedro+López+de+Ayala"+"Alfonso+IX"&hl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89uS5naPqAhXfCmMBHWpgCrQQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q="Pedro%20López%20de%20Ayala"%20"Alfonso%20IX"&f=false shows yet another version. It makes Pedro López de Ayala son of Lope Díaz II. The obvious problem with this theory is that his sons are well documented and there's no Pedro among them.
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
taf
2020-06-28 01:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia
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
royal descent?
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]
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)
Lope I
Diego II Sandho Lopez
Lope II [Lope Sanchez]
Diego III Pedro Lopez
Lope III Sancho Motila
k.1288 k.1288
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.
taf
Thanks for sorting this out, Todd.
That shows Llorente's version is chronologically impossible. BTW, what do you think of Llorente's work in general?
Regardless, https://books.google.com/books?id=S4pKeaW7zVMC&pg=PA61&dq="Pedro+López+de+Ayala"+"Alfonso+IX"&hl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89uS5naPqAhXfCmMBHWpgCrQQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q="Pedro%20López%20de%20Ayala"%20"Alfonso%20IX"&f=false shows yet another version. It makes Pedro López de Ayala son of Lope Díaz II. The obvious problem with this theory is that his sons are well documented and there's no Pedro among them.
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
This last is not intending to be the same connection, but instead is addressing the very deep origins of the Ayala (back of the Salcedo and Mena families and replacing Fernan Perez de Ayala's derivation of them from an invented 'Infante Vela'). I am pretty sure this comes from Salazar y Castro's history of the Haro, but Cawley seems oblivious of that.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-28 02:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
This last is not intending to be the same connection, but instead is addressing the very deep origins of the Ayala (back of the Salcedo and Mena families and replacing Fernan Perez de Ayala's derivation of them from an invented 'Infante Vela'). I am pretty sure this comes from Salazar y Castro's history of the Haro, but Cawley seems oblivious of that.
Oblivious may be his middle name.

There are no published sources cited for table 117 in ESnF vol. 3 - the
informants for this table and the following three are given as Ricardo
Mateos y Sáinz de Medrano and Jaime de Salazar y Acha.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-28 04:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
This last is not intending to be the same connection, but instead is addressing the very deep origins of the Ayala (back of the Salcedo and Mena families and replacing Fernan Perez de Ayala's derivation of them from an invented 'Infante Vela'). I am pretty sure this comes from Salazar y Castro's history of the Haro, but Cawley seems oblivious of that.
Oblivious may be his middle name.
There are no published sources cited for table 117 in ESnF vol. 3 - the
informants for this table and the following three are given as Ricardo
Mateos y Sáinz de Medrano and Jaime de Salazar y Acha.
As I said, I am pretty sure it is from Salazar y Castro. Back in the 1990s I had access to a library with a partial published edition of his Haro work, but to confirm it now I would have to see if this mss is online, and the prey is not worth the chase right now.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-28 04:34:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
This last is not intending to be the same connection, but instead is addressing the very deep origins of the Ayala (back of the Salcedo and Mena families and replacing Fernan Perez de Ayala's derivation of them from an invented 'Infante Vela'). I am pretty sure this comes from Salazar y Castro's history of the Haro, but Cawley seems oblivious of that.
Oblivious may be his middle name.
There are no published sources cited for table 117 in ESnF vol. 3 - the
informants for this table and the following three are given as Ricardo
Mateos y Sáinz de Medrano and Jaime de Salazar y Acha.
As I said, I am pretty sure it is from Salazar y Castro. Back in the 1990s I had access to a library with a partial published edition of his Haro work, but to confirm it now I would have to see if this mss is online, and the prey is not worth the chase right now.
As you noted, it looks as if this idea reflected in ESnF III 117
probably came through one or both informants from

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=24JCAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ayala.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-28 11:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
As you noted, it looks as if this idea reflected in ESnF III 117
probably came through one or both informants from
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=24JCAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ayala.
Yeah, that is the edition I used to have access to.

taf

Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-28 10:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia
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
royal descent?
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]
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)
Lope I
Diego II Sandho Lopez
Lope II [Lope Sanchez]
Diego III Pedro Lopez
Lope III Sancho Motila
k.1288 k.1288
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.
taf
Thanks for sorting this out, Todd.
That shows Llorente's version is chronologically impossible. BTW, what do you think of Llorente's work in general?
Regardless, https://books.google.com/books?id=S4pKeaW7zVMC&pg=PA61&dq="Pedro+López+de+Ayala"+"Alfonso+IX"&hl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89uS5naPqAhXfCmMBHWpgCrQQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q="Pedro%20López%20de%20Ayala"%20"Alfonso%20IX"&f=false shows yet another version. It makes Pedro López de Ayala son of Lope Díaz II. The obvious problem with this theory is that his sons are well documented and there's no Pedro among them.
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/VIZCAYA.htm#_Toc340307540 mentions yet another version. Europäische Stammtafeln mentions the possibility of the Ayalas descended from Sancho López, son of Lope Velásquez. However, this would place the Haro descent much earlier than Fernan Pérez de Ayala's version, though it's obviously possible that Fernan Pérez de Ayala tried to make his family closer to the Haros than they, actually, were.
This last is not intending to be the same connection, but instead is addressing the very deep origins of the Ayala (back of the Salcedo and Mena families and replacing Fernan Perez de Ayala's derivation of them from an invented 'Infante Vela'). I am pretty sure this comes from Salazar y Castro's history of the Haro, but Cawley seems oblivious of that.
taf
You're right, that one's about the origins of the first House of Ayala, which, as you already said, was also claimed to be descended from the Haros.
taf
2020-06-28 01:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Díaz_II_de_Haro#Matrimonio_y_descendencia
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
royal descent?
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]
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Motila k. 1288
(w/ five sons)
Lope I
Diego II Sandho Lopez
Lope II [Lope Sanchez]
Diego III Pedro Lopez
Lope III Sancho Motila
k.1288 k.1288
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
San Garcia
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
Pedro Lopez
Sancho Perez Motila k. 1288
Elvira Sanchez = Beltran Ybanez
Pedro Lopez
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.

taf
Loading...