García I Íñiguez, rey de Pamplona - His Wife

I agree with you.

Wikipedia is not always solid evidence.
Wikipedia is not a scholarly research work or journal. Wikipedia is a update of constant restructuring.

Please search for valid historical references or please site references from Wikipedia.

http://carmenchorda.blogspot.com/2019/04/genealogia-del-reino-de-ar...

I find this a detailed Spanish account of Banu Qasi those connected to Aragon / Zaragoza

Problem is, I only read English. So I'll have to use Google translate to translate the link you posted.

I know Wikipedia can have errors but it's right more often than it's wrong, in my experience, and most profiles there have sources for their data.

Google Translate has a limit of 3900 words, which the info at the link shared is longer, so I just got translation on this part:

From the link in Spanish, translated by Google - it only mentions her first name as Urraca, which is all that seems to be validated:

Count of Gascony.
He married Oneca García de Pamplona, ​​daughter of García Iñiguez king of Pamplona and Urraca.
Their children:
· Galindo Aznares II (Aznar), count of Aragon.
· García Aznar.
· Sancha Aznar married to Muhammad Al Tawil, wali from Huesca.

Also, don't forget that Midlands doesn't validate the current connection either, not just relying on Wikipedia.

This site goes into great details but I did translate a small portion above the genealogical tree that uses the connections currently on Geni and it refers to those connections as hypothetical:

https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ELEM/article/view/ELEM0606220029A...

This is what is written above those connections: We are going to recapitulate everything that has been said by means of a simple general scheme.
logical, indicating with discontinuous lines the unproven hypotheses:

All this said, this is is why I tagged the curator on this, because he doesn't need to translate the Spanish to make a determination on this.

Private User that is a wonderful blog post, very informative. However, it does not speak to the spousal connections for the profile under discussion here. It only mentions him and his daughter, Oneca.

(By the way, my browser translates the entire page to English, automatically.)

Debbie Gambrell cite is also very good, and complete with footnoted references. The impeccable grammar makes it translate very easily. It goes into depth about Urraca's identity, and is actually more sketchy about her origins than the fact that she married the profile under discussion here:

"The Navarrese Urracas

"The tenth century will cause another wave of Magpies in the Kingdom of León, but these are already of proven Navarrese dynastic origin. The most remote antecedent of this name in the Pamplona dynasty dates back to a Urraca, wife of García Íñiguez, king of Pamplona († cc 882). Its existence is somewhat controverted since it is not cited in the Roda Genealogies20, but it does appear mentioned in a document from a century later21. She is also cited by Toledano, who calls her ex regio semine.22 And what could be the origin of this princess Urraca? We naturally do not have any documentary data to know what her lineage was, but monasticism once again comes to our aid, at least to point out a suggestive hypothesis. We know that from her marriage to King García Íñiguez, this Urraca had a son who ascended the Pamplona throne with the name of Fortún Garcés († cc 922) and, knowing the constant presence of this name in the Muladi dynasty of the Banu Qasi, would it be very daring to suppose that this queen Urraca also belonged to the dynasty of the Ebro valley, from which came another namesake, queen of Asturias, already mentioned in the previous paragraph?

"If this assumption is true, this queen from Pamplona could have been the daughter of Fortún ibn Musa († 874), and first cousin of Muhamad ibn Lubb, the grandfather of the aforementioned Asturian queen.23 But, whether this ORIGIN is true or not, the name of Urraca will spread from then on, through a granddaughter of Fortún Garcés, Toda Aznárez († 970), daughter of his daughter the Infanta Oneca and the Navarrese magnate Aznar Sánchez de Larraun, who also became queen, due to her marriage to the monarch of the new dynasty, Sancho Garcés I († 925).

"The personality of Queen Toda Aznárez, already fascinating in itself, has an extraordinary genealogical interest: granddaughter of the kings of Pamplona of the Íñiga dynasty; wife of the sovereign of the new Jimena dynasty; She will also be the mother of the future king of Pamplona, ​​García Sánchez († 970) and of three infants who will be queens of León: Oneca, as the wife of Alfonso IV († 934); Urraca, wife of Ramiro II († 951) and Sancha, perhaps the eldest, who will marry Ordoño II († 924) in the first nuptials and will later be Countess of Castilla, as Fernán González's wife.

"Let us also not forget that Doña Todo was the sister of the mother of Prince Muhammad of Córdoba, father of Swinh Abd al-Rahman III, who was therefore her nephew.

"We are going to recapitulate all that was said through a simple genealogical scheme,.table I. [Nice Pedigree Chart illustration.]"

The other wife, Leodegundis, is nowhere to be found in that source. However, in the Spanish Wikipedia for Ordoño I of Asturias, the following statement is presented:

He could also be the father of:

"Leodegundia Ordóñez, who married an infant or nobleman from Pamplona, since in a diploma King Ramiro II of León refers to one of the daughters of Oneca and Count Diego Fernández, called Leodegundia, as his aunt."

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo%C3%B1o_I_de_Asturias

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Fern%C3%A1ndez_(conde_en_el_sig...

Count Diego's wife being a different Oneca has created confusion before, as may be the case here.

"Count Diego married Oneca (or Onega), who, due to confusion with a descendant, is frequently confused with her namesake Oneca Lúcidez, daughter of Lucídio Vimaranes, in turn, son of Vímara Pérez, conqueror of Coimbra.

"It is conjectured that Oneca may have been a member of the royal house of Pamplona, due to her name, of Navarrese origin, and that of her son Jimeno and several descendants.10 Her mother could have been Leodegundia, probable daughter of King Ordoño I of Asturias, married to an infant or nobleman from Pamplona, ​​since in a diploma, King Ramiro II calls Munia, daughter of Diego and Oneca's marriage, aunt."

Obviously, our Oneca who is the daughter of Garcia I Iniguez, king of Pamplona, could not be from both of his wives. It has been established that our Oneca was from him and Uracca.

And it is likely that Leodegundis was not the wife of any king, but rather the wife of a prince (infant) or noble.

(If I interpreted all of it correctly, anyway.)

This very nice pedigree chart shows Uracca with essentially the same origins we have for her here, on Geni.

https://journals.openedition.org/e-spania/20030?file=1

Sorry, I meant to change "Magpies" to "Uraccas". Magpie is just the English translation of the Spanish name.

Just an fyi: descent from Ishmael is simply a fact of life for most of us with Spanish royalty or high nobility in our ancestry. Often we are also descended through Isaac at the same time.

I discovered the Geni relationship calculator sometimes had trouble recognizing descent from Patriarch Isaac, and I suspect it was somehow caused by the parental status of the *wife of his grandson, Joseph, who is abundantly blessed with both biological and adoptive parents. Her biological mother was Dinah (daughter of Jacob).

I'm not sure how Aseneth's 'double parentage' affects the calculator's results currently, but I can say that I am partially descended from Jacob through both Joseph and Levi.

But I am also descended from Ishmael at the same time, through some of my Spanish and Eastern European or Mediterranean lines. I find this may also be true with many others who use the same genealogical software.

However, that problem may have since been corrected. It seems to be working fine for me now.

Debra, it seems you're saying you're convinced the connections are correct as they are? I like the link you shared because it does have sources and not just a tree, which the other link has but dismisses it as unproven hypothesis.

Yes, I can get some links to translate the whole page, but not always, which was the case on the Spanish link I was trying to translate, which is why I had to use Google Translate and copy and paste the Spanish to be translated. I don't know I didn't get the automatic option that often comes up.

I just don't want to take connections for granted when they are questionable. I'd rather have correct kinship paths. I really appreciate your joining the discussion, Debra, as the curator hasn't joined in at all.

I think so, unless I'm missing something. This is what I get from Medlands:

King of Pamplona, "GARCÍA Iñíguez ([810] - m [firstly] URRACA, daughter of ---. An undated charter refers to a confirmation by “rex domnus Garcia et regina domna Urraca maiore”[61]. Her origin is not known."

Amid speculation among various scholars regarding her parentage, Medlands continues with: "Her origin is discussed by Salazar y Acha who suggests that she was a member of the Banu Qasi family, related to the second wife of Fruela II King of Asturias, which would account for the introduction of the name Fortún into the family of the kings of Navarre[64]."

Of Leodegundis the 'second wife' Medlands states, "[m secondly LEODEGUNDIS de Asturias, daughter of [ORDOÑO I King of Asturias & his wife Munia ---]. The manuscript of the Codex de Roda entitled "Versi domna Leodegundia regina" names "Leodegundiam Ordonii filiam" and indicates her position as Queen of Pamplona after her marriage[65]. She is not named in the genealogies in the earlier part of the Codex de Roda. She has been suggested as a possible second wife of King García I but, as there is no indication of dates in the "Versi", this is mere speculation. Barrau-Dihigo casts doubt on this identification[66]. It is of course possible that she was not a historical figure at all. It may have been convenient for chroniclers of the rulers of Pamplona to invent a dynastic connection with the kings of Asturias in order to boost local credibility.]

Garcia had 4 legitimate children with Uracca and none at all with Leodegundis. He also had one unnamed illegitimate daughter with an unnamed mistress about whom there are no records whatsoever (all according to Medlands, from what I can gather).

So, I'm comfortable with Urraca's origins as presented here (on Geni). I'm willing to go along with the *suggestion of a respected scholar like Jaime de Salazar y Acha (b. 1947), a genealogist and historian specializing in Spain. Particularly since that seems to be our best guess at this point. And there is nothing that would serve to refute it.

I'm less certain about Leodegundis, as it doesn't quite add up logically for me. However, as long as she remains childless her presence doesn't seem to cause much harm or make much genealogical difference.

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NAVARRE.htm#_Toc359941978

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_de_Salazar_y_Acha

I accidentally left out a quotation mark at the end of the fourth paragraph (the one that begins: Of Leodegundis the 'second wife'... Everything after that paragraph is just my own commentary.

I now see what to me appears to be an even bigger problem with this family group / profile. One of king Garcia I's children with wife, Uracca, Sancho Garcia, hasn't been accounted for.

And Sancho Garcia had two children with an unknown wife: AZNAR Sánchez de Larraún and VELASQUITA Sánchez.

The son, Aznar Sanchez de Larraun, married "[as her second husband,] his first cousin, ONECA [Íñiga] Fortún de Pamplona, [repudiated wife of ABD ALLAH later ABD ALLAH I Emir of Córdoba], daughter of FORTÚN García King of Pamplona & his wife Aurea --- ([850]-)." They had three children.

The daughter of Sancho Garcia, Velasquita, married MUTARIF ibn Musa and had children with him.

Well, sometimes when we're looking at one thing, other things do come up. Good catch on that missing daughter!

Personally, I feel so much better about the Geni connections after diligent presentation of information I hadn't seen. I appreciate the time you put into that.

Por favor, me parece increible que gente sin ningún vínculo con mi familia opine con tal vehemencia sobre quién es o quien no es. Estan todos los archivos y textos necesarios para conocer la información pero hay que ir a la fuente, España, no wikipedia,,,,¡qué horror!!!!!.

Hi
Debra Denman, I like you writings.
Regards.
MAECD

Private User ¿A qué familia te refieres? Si hablas de García I Íñiguez, rey de Pamplona y su mujer, entonces tiene millones de descendientes en el mundo. La mitad o más de Europa son sus descendientes, lo que significa que la familia en Geni, es un concepto amplio en este sentido.

Wikipedia no es una fuente, pero muchas veces dentro se menciona fuentes bastante buenas, que luego deben ser examinados por sí mismos.

En la era de Internet, también se puede acceder a varios textos antiguos en web. Tambien he estudiado varios textos y mapas en varias ocasiones en los archivos de Sevilla, durante un período de 15 años. La aceptación de las fuentes no siempre es consistente en Geni. Archivo de indias es mi favorito!

Saludos, Saga

Hola S: García Iñiguez fua mi "abuelo", tambien he investigado por muchas décadas, me interesa cómo puedes ver. También hay estudiosos de la familia como el difunto genealogista Guillermo de la Cuadra Gormaz, No quiero hacer polémica del trabajo de otros pero me parece liviano referirse a wikipedia cono fuente, allí he visto mucha informacion sesgada o definitivamente falsa. Un abrazo. MAC

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Navarre-familyt...
In this chart, as you can see, García Iñiguez is not shown with his wife.

Silas P. Paul Grant many of those profiles on that map are not accepted as descendants on Geni.Because of lacking strong enough sources. Not my opinion but I do understand that there has to be strong enough sources.

I understand, I was just pointing out that his wife is not on there. I just found that chart online, and I am not saying that it is correct, or that it is a good source for Geni.