I continue to work my way through Torres Sevilla's work on the early-
medieval counts of Castile, and have some comments on the Castro
family. The first member of the family was Fernando Garcia de Hita,
who married twice, to Tegridia Perez, daughter of the Beni Gomez count
Pedro Ansurez, and second to her niece Estefania, daughter of Armengol
V, Count of Urgel by a sister of Tegridia. He had children by both,
including sons who were prominent in the court of Castile, and a
daughter who became a royal mistress to Alfonso VII.
One other thing that is known of him: he is called kinsman of Queen
Urraca in contem****ary records.
Ancient tradition makes the family descend from a Fernan Ruiz, with
holdings around Castrogeriz, and his wife, a daughter of Pedro
Ansurez. Salazar y Castro, writing about 1696, debated two
possibilities. First, that he was a member of the royal family of
Navarre (a brother of the murdered Sancho IV would match in name), or
alternatively, that he was son of King Garcia of Galicia, Urraca's
uncle. Subsequent authors seem to have accepted one of these two
theories, particularly the latter. Recently, however, Salazar y Acha
suggested that he was instead the elder of two Fernandos, sons of
count Garcia Ordonez. This count is himself suggested to be descendant
of the kings of Leon (both Ramiro III and Vermudo II), but Salazar y
Acha rejects this (more below). He suggests instead that Fernando
Garcia de Hita was son of count Garcia by his wife Urraca, sister of
the unfortunate Sancho IV, and hence second cousin of Urraca.
Torres Sevilla again addresses the question, specifically addressing
Salazar y Acha's theory. She finds herself not accepting his
suggestion, instead reverting to the theory that Fernando Garcia de
Hita was son of king Garcia. She draws this conclusion based on two
specific items. First, she points to the terms 'congermanus' and
'annaya' used to express kin****p between Urraca and, respectively,
Estefania and Fernando. She suggests that this term is typical of a
close relation****p - first cousin rather than second. Second, she
points to the fact that Estefania is called "infantisse" (i.e.
infanta), and this is not a term used to describe anything but a child
(-in-law in this case) of a king. Therefor, she finds only a
connection to Garcia to be practicable.
While I have not the expertise to address the first, I must raise
serious issue with the second. Specifically, the do***ent in question
refers to both husband and wife, "Fernandi Garcie et infantisse domine
Stephanie". To me, at least, this is far from sup****ting the
interpretation that Fernando was son of a king. The theory put
forward is that Estefania is called infanta by way of her marriage to
infante Fernando, son of king Garcia, but given the op****tunity, this
scribe has, in the same do***ent, referred to Fernando without the
title, and then immediately used it for his wife. Estefania could not
have been infante-in-law, but was called infanta in her own right. My
guess would be that it was as daughter of a foreign count, Armengol of
Urgel, that Estefania was called infanta.
While not the strongest of evidence, there is also a possible
onomastic link with Garcia Ordonez. By his first wife, he had sons
Gutierre and Rodrigo, and by his second, Urraca, Martin, Sancha and
Pedro. Of these, all of the names can be accounted for by descent from
the Navarre/Leon/Castile royal family (Urraca, Sancha) or from Pedro
Ansurez and wife Elo Alfonso (Gutierre, Urraca, Martin, Pedro).
Rodrigo has no such precursor in these families, but Garcia Ordonez
had a brother of this name who was Alferez under Alfonso VI. Of
course, as no mother is known or can even be guessed for a son of king
Garcia, and that might be an alternative source of the name.
Torres Sevilla also rejects another conclusion of Salazar y Acha.
Garcia Ordonez was son of a nobleman Ordono Ordonez, by tradition a
Castillian. It has been suggested that this man is identical to a
known man of this name, the son of infante Ordono Ramirez and infanta
Crisitina Vermudez. Salazar y Acha rejects this identity, because the
latter was Asturian, not Castillian. Torres Sevilla suggests instead
that the Castillian origin of Garcia Ordonez is itself a literary
invention of the Cid cycle. This presents the possibility, then, that
if Salazar y Acha is right about the immediate origin of the Casto
clan, but Torres Sevilla is right about the origin of Garcia Ordonez,
then perhaps Fidel Castro is of the male line of Pedro of Cantabria
and his son Alfonso I (as opposed to being of the male line of Sancho
the Great and Garcia Jimenez, which might also be interesting).
taf
|
