Urraca d'Ivrea - Urraca doesn't exist?

Ulf, Richard Wassebourge treated Iunca as the real name of the woman he identified as the daughter of King Berengar II and the wife of Gothelo I.

Furthermore, the Latin form, "Iunca", has a real meaning: "Rush" (or Reed).

Reading Latin texts, I look for uxore (wife), nupta (married), or coniugi (spouse), vir (husband).

In this case, I found Iunca (daughter of an Italian king) by searching for "uxor" in connection with Gothelo I.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=la&...

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=la&...

https://www.red1st.com/axholme/descend.php?personID=I1748556020&amp...

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_de_Ivrea
La Casa de Ivrea, llamada también Casa de los Condes Palatinos de Borgoña, fue un linaje noble originario del condado de Oscheret del Reino de Borgoña. Los miembros de este linaje fueron durante siglos Condes de Borgoña y Reyes de Italia y Reyes de León y Castilla e "Imperator totius Hispaniae" Emperador de todas las Españas y Reyes de Napoles y Sicilia.

The family did had a history of diversity, fairly typical for European nobility.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=en&...

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=pt&...

And as I mentioned before, in the old font in which I found the text, I and J are virtually interchangeable. I often see the French, "Je" written as "Ie" in the old fonts (just one example, there are many others). But that really is common knowledge, nothing I should have to point out to anyone at a genealogy site.

It's a very unusual (really unique) name, but lovely. Whenever I see cat-tails (bulrushes) they capture my attention and I have to stop for a moment because they have such a soft, downy texture and interesting color. They were frequently gathered for various household uses.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=en&...

Even the German form is similar: Zunge (reed, tongue, or pointer)

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=de&...

http://biblioteca-fag.blogspot.com/2018/03/casa-de-borgona-de-casti...
Por favor ver y lee la pagina completa

Debra Denman, It is not easy to acknowledge that even Iunca (if it has existed) is not and was the wife of Gothelo I.
You arrive 12/1/2020 at 9:37 with the comment "Ulf, Richard Wassebourge treated Iunca as the real name of the woman he identified as the daughter of King Berengar II and the wife of Gothelo I".
He identified; by using this word you do injustice to what Richard de Wassebourg meant. See 4/1/2020 3:18 which means "your trouve".

12/1/2020 yesterday at 9:37
In this case I found Iunca (daughter of an Italian king) by searching for "uxor" in connection with Gothelo I. Where did you find this?
In the total discussion, I feel that I am often confronted with distraction tactics.

I also finally found it Debra.

Ie trouue que sa femme Nommée Iunca fut fille de Berengier roy d'Italie
=
I found that his woman was named Iunca, was a daughter of Berengier King of Italy

he had three sons named Fredericus, Estienne and Gozelo.

Page 406

Antiquitez de la Gaule Belgique... par M. Richard de Wassebourg, published 21 dec. 1549
https://books.google.se/books?id=q5J842C5nQEC&dq=Richard+Wasseb...

Gothelo's dates are 967-1044.

Wassebourg published 1549.

So where did Wassebourg find his information?

Wassebourg was brought up within the entourage of the dukes of Lorraine. He received his education at the University of Paris, and for 30 years held positions there, at the College de la Marche. He had access to the best libraries and archives, as he was by profession a historian and a scholar. He was also Archedeacon of Verdun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Paris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_de_la_Marche

Here is a nice photo of a statue of Charlemagne standing on top of "Verdun".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdun#/media/File:Verdun_4juni2006_0...

Thank you Ulf. I cited it at the beginning of the discussion and included a bit more of the text. It should still be there for anyone interested in reading it.

And as Juan patiently brought to our attention, Barengar and Willa were connected to the house of Burgundy. Barengar and Urraca were quite familiar to them, as they were the namesakes of Spanish and/or Iberian royals.

"Reginaldo I of Burgundy. Reginaldo I count Palatino de Burgundy, (986-1057). He was the second count of Burgundy. He was the son of Otto-William of Burgundy, first count of Burgundy, and Adelaida Ermentrude de Reims and Roucy. His maternal grandparents were Reginaldo de Reims and Roucy and Alberada de Hainaut, while his paternal grandparents were **Adalberto II de Ivrea** and Berberga de Mâcon.

"Raymond of Burgundy (Besançon, 1070 - Grajal de Campos, September 20, 1107) was a French nobleman who introduced the Burgundy dynasty into the kingdoms of Leon and Castile having married the eldest daughter of King Alfonso VI, the Infanta and then **Queen Urraca de León** (her g-granddaughter was Berenguela I).

"...The House of Burgundy was a dynasty whose owners reigned in the kingdoms of Castile and Leon, from 1126 to 1369. It was a collateral branch of the **House of Ivrea** that ruled in the county of Burgundy.

http://biblioteca-fag.blogspot.com/2018/03/casa-de-borgona-de-casti...

"...the House of Ivrea were a medieval Frankish dynasty of Burgundian origin which rose to prominence in Italy in the tenth century, even briefly holding the Italian throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscarids

Richard de Wassebourg was a very well-educated scholar from a powerful family closely connected to the family of Gothelo I (the dukes of Lorraine), a high-ranking cleric in the church, and a respected historian.

It doesn't matter when he lived, because he had access to the relevant records and texts. He had access to Hugo de Flavigny's chronicles, too, which were written during the time of Berengar and Gothelo. The Jesuits purchased an original copy of Flavigny's work and held it in their library for safe-keeping.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CdUIO_fYRxQC&pg=PA5&lpg=P...

https://books.google.com/books?id=OC1KDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=...

https://books.google.com/books?id=A2_eCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT78&lpg=...

(Check out the footnotes, too.)

https://www.verdun.fr/agenda/colloque-richard-de-wassebourg-et-les-...

http://crulh.univ-lorraine.fr/sites/crulh.univ-lorraine.fr/files/do...

[5] Urraca de Lombardía-Ivrea http://www.bisabuelos.com/med/borgona_ivrea.html

Notas sobre Urraca
{geni: about_me} http://www.abitofhistory.net/html/rhw/body_files/u_body.htm
Urraca de Ivrea - (960 - c1007)
Princesa de Italia
Urraca era hija de Berengar II o Ivrea, rey de Italia y su esposa Willa de Arles, la hija de Boso de Arles, marqués de Toscana. Los padres fueron depositados y luego encarcelados por el emperador Otto I (962 - 973) pero sus hijos fueron criados en la corte imperial. Urraca y sus hermanas Gerberga y Rosala se criaron en la casa de la emperatriz Adelaida, la esposa de Otto I.
La emperatriz más tarde arregló que Urraca hiciera un matrimonio dinástico (c990) con Gozelo I (Gonzelon) (c970-1044), duque de Baja Lorena y Margrave de Amberes, vasallo del nieto Otto III, que era diez años menor que su novia Urraca se convirtió en la duquesa consorte de Lorena (c990 - c1007) y fue la madre de Godfrey II el Barbudo (c997-1069) que sucedió a su padre como duque de Baja Lorena (1044-1069) y dejó descendientes. La hija Oda de Lorena (c995-1044) se convirtió en la esposa de Lambert II (c990-1062), conde de Lovaina (1015-1062) y dejó descendientes.
Urraca d'Ivrea, hija de Berengar II d'Ivrea, rey de Italia y Willa di Toscana.
http://www.thepeerage.com/p392.htm

https://www.geni.com/images/missing_image.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=yrqeY839bMwC&pg=RA2-PA112&amp...

p. 659 of "Royal Genealogies, Or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings and Princes" by James Anderson, D.D.

It is a shame that this ancient Italian princess was subjected to so much abuse. Simply forgetting or somehow losing access to the facts which are contained in rare, ancient texts and manuscripts (such as Flavigny's chronicles) housed in the finest libraries of the world, can't erase history. Somewhere, someone knows the truth.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/192543?msg=1357885

I have requested that her profile be fully restored with her name and relationships as daughter of King Berengar II, wife of Gothelo I, and mother of Pope Stephen IX (among others).

I do not usually comment in discussions concerning profiles from this time period, but since a request got posted on the curator assist thread it caught my eye.

The Royal Genealogies was published in 1732, by James Anderson. The date itself gives cause for alarm; the antiquarian studies are always problematic. The amount of mythical genealogy accumulated in the Middle Ages, and then passed down by the antiquarians, is legion.

Naturally some are more useful than others.

But this volume is problematic and full of unsubstantiated myths. As with most other antiquarian studies, it presents the older genealogies without historical discrimination.

So, not a great source.

Now, I am not here remarking on the specific problem of the profile in question. I’m just saying that if I’m given this source and asked to change things in the Tree, I’m immediately worried.

Debra, you have not provided one single source dating FROM the time of Gothelo/Gozelo I. You have cited opinion after opinion after opinion from five to nine hundred years *after* his time - including the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia (which will cause most serious genealogists to give you the haw-haw).

In the absence of sound PRIMARY documentation - i.e. the woman's name on an actual document surviving FROM the time of Gothelo I - you aren't going to get anywhere with requests to "restore" a name that you cannot prove was ever hers.

Apparently the assertion that her name was "Urraca" comes FROM a Spanish secondary source, the writer garbling an "oral tradition" name into one that was familiar to him - never mind that she was not Spanish.

"Unca" or "Iunca" at least sounds somewhat more plausible - however, there are apparently zero instances of it being used as a first name for anyone of any importance in the surviving documents from the last thousand years. This makes it, well, problematical.

Juan Carlos cites 14/1/2020 6:10 thepeerage as a source, but he forgets that Urraca is no longer on the site of thepeerage. See 25/12/2019 3:55 afternoon. It is therefore no longer possible to use it as a source. Email to abitofhistory is not answered.

And with regard to http://www.bisabuelos.com/med/borgona_ivrea.html: such sites, such as those from abitofhistory, are the subject of discussion.
Before coming up with data, request Juan Carlos to better orient himself.

In the total discussion, I feel me often confronted with distraction tactics. Reported this 12/1/2020 at 9:37 AM.
Diversion tactics applied by Debra Denman and Juan Carlos.
Have as a layman on the advice of Sharon Lee Doubell started with the Team of Geni, initially with appreciation, but all this is degenerated into "self-interest".
Too bad to have this experience at the age of 89 years.
With all due respect to Geni. Sorry for my English. Am Dutch.

Es mi humilde opinión, sin caer en un callejón sin salida y analizando toda la discusión que comienza con un SUPUESTO pedido de un usuario de Geni George Louis Leonardus Maria Brouwers el día 28 de Diciembre https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%ADa_de_los_Santos_Inocentes Para otros usos de este término, véase Día de las bromas. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%ADa_de_las_bromas_de_abril
Porque digo esto, porque el SUPUESTO usuario al que no tiene un árbol genealógico en Geni comienza una discusión que lleva el día 28 12 2019 a esto; So- pending primary sources - which do not appear to exist - I'm happy to delete N.N.'s profile.28 12 2019 Her present children: Maud de Lorraine Ada de Lorraine Godfrey III, the Bearded, duke of Lorraine Gonzelon II, duc de Basse-Lorraine Regilinde of Lorraine Frederick of Lorraine, pope Stephen IX will be affected.
Voy a escuchar y leer a todos los usuarios de Geni debidamente identificados en el árbol Geonologico Mundial, no soy un experto en Geneologia apenas un principiante y agradezco todos los consejos de mis (primos) para saber si son primos deben estar en el árbol
Tengan tod@s un buen día.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'supposed' user request, Juan. Are you really trying to suggest that there wasn't one?
As for April Fool's Day - that just offensive.

Debra - once you engage with the questions about the primary sources: https://www.geni.com/discussions/205730?msg=1355045, then there is a discussion to be had; otherwise this is just becoming an ouroboros.

Sharon Doubell Si lo tomo como una ofensa le ruego me disculpe y puede bloquear mi comentario si lo desea usted tiene la posibilidad de hacerlo en cuanto a lo de SUPUESTO yo Private User le pido por favor que lo verifique al USUARIO George Louis Leonardus Maria Brouwers en Geni esta su perfil y el de su familia en blanco al igual que en el Árbol Genealógico Mundial , no sé si Urraca d'Ivrea ahora wife of Gothelo “the Great” existió solo sé que antes del 28 12 2019 era Urraca d'Ivrea is your 30th great grandmother. Urraca d'Ivrea fue eliminado por Sharon Lee Doubell.el 28 12 2019 en forma in consulta y arbitraria siguiendo la solicitud de un SUPUESTO usuario.
(postscript voy a tomar la pastilla para la presión Arterial)

De la misma manera que decir que esto es un auroboros https://www.significados.com/ouroboros/ eso es simplemente ofensivo. me parece que usted Sharon debería haber esperado mas tiempo para eliminar perfiles porque el Árbol es de tod@s la familia de geni y en este caso usted tomo la decisión de acuerdo a alguien que no podemos identificar ósea sin FUENTES y después comenzó el debate

The profile was removed after due process. Everything was documented and linked.
If you have a problm with it, or with George's perfectly legitimate request please report to Geni CS, but let's lose the personal comments.

If you want to work on the Medieval tree you need to understand how primary sources are used to create historical validity. There is not much more to be said if that isn't the premise of the discussion.

I agree with both Debra and Juan, beacuse I see no reason at all for this Wassebourg to make up or invent what he wrote down, and usually forgery have the goal for someone to benefit from it, who does this benefit? Or; Who did it benefit? Did some private person pay him to work at all with his volumes of Antiquitez de la Gaule Belgique?

You who do not agree, seem to draw wrong conclusions, it's like you take for granted that if thoose or that specific sources he must have used, doesn't exist today, then it must be fake. If you try to find the motive behind why he should have forged that person, and actually find some circumstance that gives you reason to object, I could have seen it in another view, but until that happens, the only thing you are stuck with is the fact that his writing are not contemporary to when they lived.

And I do not agree that evrything written not contemporary would automatically be considered as not true.

Ulf, it's not a question of Wassebourg "making up" or "inventing" or "forging" anything - it's *where did he get his information?*

Was his source reliable?

Was his source's source reliable?

How about his source's source's source?

When you're working with someone that far removed from the actual events, the possibility of a game of "Telephone" cannot be discounted. https://icebreakerideas.com/telephone-game/

Yo solo quiero saber que perfil tiene GEORGE BREWERS y si es real o es alguien que se utilizó para hacer el desastre que se izo con Urraca d'Ivrea y su familia , y no me gusta que me digan que si no estoy de acuerdo informe a Geni CS porque esa no es la forma de entablar una discusión y llegar a un punto de ponernos de acuerdo respetando Valores Éticos