Post by taf Post by email@example.com Post by taf
I am not sure how things could have become so confused, since the
cited source is somebody's "personal knowledge." One would think
that if they had personal knowledge, if they witnessed it all
themselves, they would have noticed that the protagonist was absent
due to his non-existence.
On the positive side, it could be worse: Geni.com even has a portrait of him.
The fact that a writer erroneously gave "personal knowledge" as a basis for
the posted information does not necessarily mean that the data provided is
You mistake me - I wasn't saying it was incorrect because the creator
cited 'personal information'. I was saying it is incorrect because
it is known to be an invention, though not an invention of the person
who added it to Wikitree.
I am going from memory here, but in the mid-15th century, no such
tradition existed when Fernan Perez de Guzman wrote his Generaciones
y Semblanzas, but shortly thereafter the most prominent of the Toledo
Maozarab noble families started to claim that they were related to
the Palaeologus Byzantine Emperors. From there the claim changed
from being related to being descended from them, but it was rapidly
noticed that this was chronologically impossible, so the Comnenoi
were substituted as the relevant imperial dynasty.
Next, all of the mozarab noble families that used the toponym de
Toledo (meaning simply 'of Toledo' and not a sign of either nobility
or shared patrilineage) were collected into a single tree. The
earliest documented ancestor of the most prominent of them, the
Alvarez de Toledo, Dukes of Alba, was made to be the ancestor of all
de Toledo Mozarabs. This was a certain Pedro (he is still the
earliest definitive ancestor) who appears in patronymic form in the
name of his son, Illan Perez, who was alcalde mayor of Toledo in the
early 13th century. All the other lines were simply lined up based
on chronology, traced back as far as they could be, and then names
were invented to fill in the connection back to Pedro. The earliest
rendering I have seen of this is in a copy of a manuscript history of
the Toledo Mozarab nobility prepared by a known forger/hoaxer from
the 16th century.
The final step was to make the connection between the Toledo families
and the emperors explicit, by making Pedro son (or in a later
variant, grandson) of Emperor Isaac Comnenos. The earliest document
I have found making this connection is a hand-written note in the
collection of Luis de Salazar y Castro (late 17th/early 18th
century), which cites a published work of a Greek author, but a Latin
variant of the man's name is used, while the title is given in
Spanish, and though I have been unable to identify the true
bibliographic information, there certainly wasn't any historical
basis for it.
Salazar y Castro then put the fully elaborated lineage in two of his
books, with some extra details like a birthdate and marriage added
from an unknown source (or from no source at all), and from these
books it got picked up by 18th and 19th century genealogists, and
finally the late-20th century compilers of the GEDCOMs that are now
routinely exchanged and combined without the slightest effort to
determine if the information is authentic, and which have often
served as the basis for the online crowd-sourced genealogy sites.
So, the whole thing is what you get when genealogists have more
enthusiasm than prudence.