Talk:Ferdinand I of León

Title

Fernando I never claimed the title of "King of Castile". He just was the Count of Castile, under the theoric supeditation to the Leonese King (Vermudo III)

I believe he did use the title of king from 1035. Srnec 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alfonso Sanchez Candeira, in his "Castilla y León en el siglo XI: Estudio Del Reinado de Fernando I" (p. 106) cites charters in which Fernando was using the title of count and expressing his vassalage to Vermudo as late as 1 January 1037. Agricolae 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is Candeira's conclusion regarding Ferdinand's kingship? Was he a king from 1035 or 1037? The issue of Sancho the Great's succession has never been made clear to me in any work of scholarship. I have read many contradictions. Sancho's reign is horribly under-studied; either that or I have never found the studies... Srnec (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems to make Fernando only a count until he became king of Leon, (I say "seems" because I am relying on the Google Books version, with only a limited view available) and I would be very much surprised if it was otherwise given the contemporary charters reproduced by Sanchez Candeira in which he appears only as count. I guess he could have been calling himself count in front of Vermudo and king behind his back, but I don't recall any charter from this period in which he is seen using the royal title. There is also an issue as to the role of Fernando before his father's death. A charter of Sancho calls him "king in Castile" but I don't know that this need mean more than that he was a king, and was in Castile at the time the charter was issued, but perhaps also reflected that he considered himself to have some sort of overlord status above his son, which doesn't mesh well with Castile's nominal position as vassal of Leon. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. A more general question about the succession then. Did Sancho make only his eldest son a king? I know that all his sons were vassals of García, no? Ramiro called himself a regulus if I'm not mistaken. What of Gonzalo? All I know is that Zurita called him a king. Seeing as there was a tradition of kings in Sobrarbe (I think) and Gonzalo was the second-eldest son (correct?), it is plausible to me that García and Gonzalo could have been made kings while their brothers were not. Is there any evidence for Gonzalo as king before his death (1045?)? Srnec (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fernando would have been, technically, vassal of Vermudo but the others were vassals of Garcia. If it was presumed that Garcia would hold his father's Imperial title, then Fernando would have been his vassal one step removed. I have seen it claimed that Ramiro only called himself king after he absorbed Galindo's lands, but I have also seen reference to a charter in which he is said to call himself king shortly after his father's death (but I have only seen it mentioned, not an extract of the charter itself). I don't know about Galindo either - very slim documentation. There was no prior kingdom in Sobrarbe (perhaps you think of Viguera). It was a vassal county of Aragon, passing to Ribagorza by marriage at the same time Navarre acquired Aragon, then to Navarre by conquest (following depopulating muslim incursions), as did Ribagorza subsequently (later legitimized when Sancho III married the nominal Ribagorza heiress). Gonzalo was younger than Fernando. My guess would be that they were all intended to be counts except for Garcia, but Ramiro simply ignored this intention and elevated himself in a manner analogous to Affonso I of Portugal or Garcia Ramirez of Navarre.Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I know there was never a kingdom of Sobrarbe, but there was a tradition of one. I don't know how early that tradition is, however. Do you know what I'm talking about? And I'm pretty sure that Gonzalo was older than Ferdinand, for two reasons: I have seen Ferdinand called "youngest" and Gonzalo listed ahead of him in more than one charter. Srnec 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with the Sobrarbe tradition. As to Fernando, unfortunately, I have seen him called everything from oldest to youngest. Sanchez Candeira suggests Fernando might have received Castile because he was the elder(p. 72). To answer another question, he cites (p. 97) a document in which Gonzalo is using the royal title (1036). This leaves open the possibility that he was originally count, but took the title upon himself, as opposed to immediately succeeding as king. Agricolae 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. This has been quite informative. There seems to me to be two general scenarios possible here. Either Sancho left García and Gonzalo kingdoms and counties for the younger Ferdinand and the illegitimate Ramiro and the latter assumed royal titles only on the death of Vermudo and the death of García, respectively. Or, Sancho left all to García as overlord of his brothers' counties and all of his brothers probably assumed royal titles at some point. Like I said, the career and succession of Sancho the Great are understudied. Srnec 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramiro was using the royal title long before Garcia's death, so he either was king from the start, or quickly elevated himself, presumably thereby claiming independence from Garcia. Agricolae 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. If the charter you cited above for Gonzalo titling himself king in 1036 is reliable, I might be convinced that all Sancho's sons, either by his testament or their own (dis)agreements, were kings from 1035. Perhaps Ferdinand was the exception just because he was married off to an heiress? Srnec (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is that Fernando wasn't married to an heiress. There was no way of knowing that Vermudo would be killed in battle without surviving children. I think it more likely that they were originally counts, but it became immediately obvious that Garcia couldn't hold them, and Ramiro and Gonzalo quickly elevated themselves. Fernando would be expected to have followed suit, but when Vermudo was killed it became moot. Sure wish there were more available charters in the immediate post-Sancho period. Agricolae (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does make more sense I suppose. But what was Sancho's and Ferdinand's attitude towards Vermudo? Do we know the motive behind the conquest of León? Was it pure aggrandisement or was their a legal justification that I'm not aware of? Did García ever attempt to use his father higher titles, such as rex Hispaniarum or imperator? I would think that if used either of those, he may have felt his suzerainty secure over his brother even if they were kings. Srnec (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It may sound good, but I have since read an article by Ubieto Arteta that convinces me of another model ("Estudos en torno a la division del Reino por Sancho el Mayor de Navarre", Principe de Viana, pp. 5-56,163-236). Specifically, he breaks down Ramiro's charters and wills and shows that Ramiro never considered himself to be anything more than holding his lands in stewardship (from Garcia in his first will, God in the second), and never used the royal title (calling himself simply "Ramiro, son of king Sancho" - his neighbors, sons, vassals, scribes and the church call him king at one time or another, but he never makes the claim himself). Likewise with Sancho Ramirez until he got Navarre, at which point he became King of Navarre and Aragon - in other words, Aragon follows the same path as Castile in acquiring royal status. As to the Imperial title, Sancho III's 'successor' was Vermudo, who never stopped using the title even while Sancho was using it, and continued to use it occasionally through his death. What Garcia did do is copy his father's unique style of rex Dei gratia which none of his brothers used (from 1072, Sancho Ramirez would start to use Dei gratia, but not rex until after the death of Sancho IV and the passing of Navarre). Anyhow, the first will of Ramiro shows he considered himself vassal of Garcia. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Very intersting. It tells us something about how 11th-century men saw the title "king" (rex). So many histories talk as if 1076 saw an Aragonese "takeover" of little Navarre, when in fact the Navarrese kingdom in effect gave its royal prestige to Aragon. Does the article say anything about Gonzalo, though I think we'd be safe in assuming he was/saw himself as a vassal of his eldest brother, but perhaps he was considered king by his subjects too? Srnec (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone left a note in the article...

"

(note: the Dutch version of Wikipedia says that Ferdinand died on 27 December 1065 ?)

"

I have officialy moved the note. In the future, everyone remember to post such notes/comments/questions on the article here in the discussion/talk page. That way we don't spoil the illusion of editors knowing what they're doing. ;) Beam 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following five moves I am lumping together:

• Ferdinand I of León → Ferdinand I of León and Castile
• Alfonso VI of Castile → Alfonso VI of León and Castile
• Sancho II of Castile → Sancho II of León and Castile
• Urraca of León → Urraca of León and Castile
• Alfonso VII of León → Alfonso VII of León and Castile

The kingdoms of Castile and León were held by the same person (and de facto united) from 1230. All kings after that date are known just as "of Castile". Which is fine. However, the kingdoms were intermittently held by the same person between 1037 and 1157. These monarchs are inconsistently titled at Wikipedia. Ferdinand, who ruled in Castile before León, is titled "of León" while Alfonso VI, who ruled León before Castile, "of Castile". Urraca was moved unilaterally from "Urraca of Castile" but there is no reason to preference one or the other. Same with Alfonso VII. I think the best solution for these kings is to just name both Castile and León (in alphabetical order see below) in their titles. Srnec (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both kingdoms should be named. The only question is order. There is a certain neutrality to the alphabetical solution, but there are also reasons for giving it in the other order. You state correctly that Ferdinand held Castile before acquiring Leon, but it was the acquisition of Leon that made him king. With Alfonso, the order is reversed - he held Leon first. Further, historically, it was Leon which was the dominant kingdom up to the time of Alfonso VIII, and there is a historiographic tradition for giving that crown first. The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and more recently, Reilly and Barton's histories all give Leon the priority during this period. Given this, I would favor 'Leon and Castile' over the other order. The possible exception is Sancho, who only held Leon late and briefly. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, the opposite order. I would use it consistently, however (i.e. "Sancho II of León and Castile"). Now all these moves can, in fact, be performed without an administrator. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fernando's birth order

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the relevant pages of Mtz Diez, but I am hesitant to call Fernando youngest son. The snippets I see indicate that Mtz Diez says it is 'most likely that Fernando was not the second but the third son'. So, most likely, not definite. Likewise there are other possible sons, so even were he third he may not have been youngest. There is the oft repeated Bernardo, for whom I find no primary evidence. Does Mtz Diez address him? Likewise, there is a 1020 document in the Cartulario del Monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (doc. 171) witnessed as follows: "Momadonna regina cum filiis meis, confirmavi, Garsea regulus confirmans, Ranimirus frater eius confirmans, Ranimirus alius frater eius confirmans" (see Ubieto Arteta, Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla, p. 166, but I can only see it on Google Books as snippet), suggesting the possibility of a legitimate Ramiro in addition to the illegitimate one. Does Mtz Diez address this second Ramiro? Perhaps, then, it might be better to stick closer to Mtz Diez and call him "probably the third son of Sancho" rather than specifying that he was the youngest. Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add a reference to Bernard from 1024: "Garsia prolis regís, et frater ejus, confirmans.—Ranimírus et Bernardus, cum Ferdinando fratre eorum confirmantes" in Coleccion de Privilegios, Franquezas, Exenciones y Fueros, Concedidos a Varios Pueblos y Corporaciones de la Corona de Castilla, p. 29, although I cannot vouch for its authenticity. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find Bernard or a second Ramiro in Mtz Díez, but I don't know what that means. He certainly casts doubt on a lot of documents, even the ones he uses to base his argument that Ferdinand was the third legitimate son ("es más probable", he says). That argument can be briefly summed as this: most and the most reliable documents list Ferdinand after Gonzalo. There is no doubt that Ramiro is the eldest but illegitimate and that García is the eldest legitimate son. You'll note that I did not change the wording of the text in the article from "younger" to "youngest", only put a footnote on it and mentioned the author's opinion.

Although Mtz Díez does not make it explicit, his arguments on pp 181–82 seem to me to support his earlier contention that Gonzalo was older than Ferdinand. Ferdinand is never called a king or even a regulus until he assumed the Leonese throne. Gonzalo is titled both regulus and rex in charters with his brothers, once in a charter that explicitly makes Ferdinand a count under Vermudo. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a "Date and order of birth" section that sets out Martínez Díez's case and his sources. Although I could cite scholars who call Ferdinand a "third son" (of all) or second (of the legitimate), I haven't yet seen an argument for that birth order. Perhaps you could expand the section if you have the material. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone specifically looking at it, but rather just assuming it. Fernando receiving Castile must have been next to Garcia? Gonzalo's historical insignificance makes it easier to relegate him to a junior position. I don't think any of it has a historical basis. (That being said, why did Sancho give Castile to Fernando? Maybe he had already designated Ribagorza and Sobrarbe for Gonzalo after their 1017 conquest, meaning in 1029 Fernando was next in line for goodies?) Some older sources even make Fernando the eldest, clearly a conclusion made based on their future status, or even the future status of their kingdoms. If anyone did, it would have been Perez de Urbel, to which I do not have ready access. Agricolae (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting topic and forgive my barging in. I'm pasting below some charters from the Colección documental de Sancho Garces III el Mayor rey de Pamplona (1004-1035) by Roldán Jimeno and Aitor Pescador, published in 2003. The authors change some of the dates, and also mention the documents considered false. These that I'm pasting are considered authentic. I believe Fernando was problably third legitimate son and that Bernardo probably died very young.

• 1014, june 24 (S. Millán): Momadonna Regina, confirmans, Ranimirus regulus, confirmans.
• 1020, march 15 (S. Millán) Momadonna regina, confirmans. Garsea regulus confirmans. Ranimirus, prolis regis, confirmans,…
• 1020, october (S. Millán) Garsea regulus confirmans, Ranimirus frater eius confirmans, Ranimirus alius frater eius confirmans (note by the authors on the second Ranimirus mentioned: The scribe probably confused the name of Sancho’s third son, and we replace it with the correct name, Fernando)
• 1024, march 17 (Albelda): Garcia regulus confirmat; Renimirus frater eius confirmat. Gundesalvus horum frater confirmat. Fredenandus horum frater confirmat.
• 1024, dic. 17 (Albelda): Garseas proles regis et frater eius Gonzaluus, confirmantes. Ranimirus et Bernardus cum frater eorum Fredinando confirmat.
• 1024 (no date – Albelda): Garsias regulus confirmat. Ranimirus frater eius confirmat. Gunçaluus frater eius confirmat. Fredinandus frater horum confirmat.
• 1027-1032 (S. Juan de la Peña), originally dated 1024 erroneously. Ego domina Maiora (…) Et nos filii regis Ferrandus, Garseanus, Gondisaluus, Ramirus, presentes ibi fuimus…
• 1028, Dec. 6 (S. Millán): (authors find no inconsistencies with date, even though Fernando confirms as rex in that year): Garsea rex ipsius regis filius confirmans; Fredinandus rex frater eius confirmans; Ranimius rex, frater eorum confirmans, Gondissaluo frater eorum confirmans..
• 1029, July 7 (S. Juan de la Peña): Regnante gratia Dei príncipe nostro domno Sanctio et prolis eius Fredenandus comes.
• 1031 (S. Millán): Garsea filio nostro confirmans, Ranemiro frater eius confirmans, Fredinando illorum frater confirmans.
• 1031,april 5 (S.Juan de la Peña): Garsia filius regis et confirmans, Ranimirus frater eius testis et confirmans. Gundisaluus frater eius testis et confirmans; Fredenandus frater eorum testis et confirmans.
• 1033 (Leire): In presencia de filius regis pernominatos Renimires, Garseanus, Gundesaluus, Fredinandis….
• 1033, jan 8 (S. Juan de la Peña): Ranimirus prolis regis, Garseas frater eius, Gundesalbus germanus eius, …
• 1035, april 14 (Cat. De Huesca): Ranimurus prolis regis confirmo, Garseanus frater eius confirmo, Gundesalbus frater eius confirmo. Fredenandus frater eius confirmo.

Regards,--Maragm (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this interpretation of the second Ramiro, while a mistake repeating the same name is common enough, 'alius' seems superfluous in such a context. It makes more sense to indicate two Ramiros - to quote a 1980s US TV show line, "Hi, I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl." 'Other' would seem unnecessary were the brothers to have different names. As Salazar y Acha has pointed out, there were other cases of this pattern. Jimeno Garces of Pamplona gave both his elsest son and his bastard the name Garcia, as apparently did Sancho IV of Navarre; Garcia el de Najera and Ramiro I did the same with the name Sancho. It seems more likely to me that, like Bernard, Ramiro was a younger son who died in childhood. Agricolae (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)