On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:52:07 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count > > John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count > > named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the > > granddaughter > > of the king of Hungary. > > Is the tomb contemporary, or was it installed later on, after the legend > may have begun to develop? Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333 Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph. This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage. Peter Stewart

El dilluns, 18 juliol de 2016 11:09:13 UTC+2, Peter Stewart va escriure: > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:52:07 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count > > > John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count > > > named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the > > > granddaughter > > of the king of Hungary. > > > > Is the tomb contemporary, or was it installed later on, after the legend > > may have begun to develop? > > Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333 > Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph. > > This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage. > > Peter Stewart I guess it is contemporary of hers, as the epitaph already appears at the time of her children. Yes, Juan de Contreras wrote this book in 1913, where he says that her husband and –later on– she were buried in a monastery next to the actual church (a monastery which is now the university of Segovia), but when the Catholic monarchs took ownership of the monastery, both tombs were moved to the church where they can still be found. It seems that the author of this book had documents related to the ladies since he was the owner of the household in which Angelina lived in Spain, but obviously I cannot say whether this is true or not. Moreover, the author had 18 years old at the time (I do not mean that one cannot be a good historian at that age) and 40 years later he published a revised version of this which seems to be more reliable. Regrettably it is in the museum of Segovia and I have not found a digital or any paper version of it in a library, just researches citing it. > This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage. > Yes. That is why some say that she could be from Wallachia or Transylvania (more exposed to the war) or whichever territory in Eastern Europe (which is not a small place, to say). But notice that the epitaph says “Here lies Doña Angelina of Greece, daughter of Count John (or Ivan), granddaughter of the king of Hungary, wife of Diego González de Contreras, governor of this city”. She is described most of the times as Greek or from Greece, and her offspring (until today) have both Hungarian and Greek names, which is something very peculiar in Spain. Why should we suppose that Count John was Hungarian and not Greek (maybe Angelina’s mother was Hungarian)? Also, it might even not be Hungary or Greece: she could come from any other territory from Bulgaria to Serbia to the Byzantine Empire, all of them could be called Hungary and Greece by Spaniards since these two distant countries were probably best known in Spain than any other from Eastern Europe (Hungary was a very big kingdom at the time in terms of territories). Let’s take for example the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (I take this just as an example of the complexity of this topic and because Angelina’s coat of arms and the possible location near Hungary match, not because this is something I have explored in-depth). Angelina is a very common name for the members of the Angelos dynasty (before her arrival in Spain she was also known as Angelina, as Turkish documents concerning Bayezid I mention an Angelina and a Maria captured from a Hungarian count Janos), and this kingdom was once ruled by members of this Greek family. Could she be descendant of this family? Even more, maybe she was not a “granddaughter” but a “great-great-daugher” as a text suggests. Also, at the times it seems that the marriage between Greek/Byzantine princesses and Balkan lords was something usual, which makes things more complicated. Either way, there are texts dealing with Angelina which are in private collections (at least two of them), and I do not think we can know more about it. I just wanted to share some texts I found and contrast opinions and views on it. It is not that the fact of knowing more about these characters is something crucial, but I found this interesting while I was reading and so I started exploring on it.

On 18/07/2016 8:53 PM, tempusratio via wrote: > >> This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage. >> > Yes. That is why some say that she could be from Wallachia or Transylvania (more exposed to the war) or whichever territory in Eastern Europe (which is not a small place, to say). But notice that the epitaph says “Here lies Doña Angelina of Greece, daughter of Count John (or Ivan), granddaughter of the king of Hungary, wife of Diego González de Contreras, governor of this city”. She is described most of the times as Greek or from Greece, and her offspring (until today) have both Hungarian and Greek names, which is something very peculiar in Spain. Why should we suppose that Count John was Hungarian and not Greek (maybe Angelina’s mother was Hungarian)? Also, it might even not be Hungary or Greece: she could come from any other territory from Bulgaria to Serbia to the Byzantine Empire, all of them could be called Hungary and Greece by Spaniards since these two distant countries were probably best known in Spain than any other from Eastern Europe (Hungary was a very big kingdom at the time in terms of territories). > Let’s take for example the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (I take this just as an example of the complexity of this topic and because Angelina’s coat of arms and the possible location near Hungary match, not because this is something I have explored in-depth). Angelina is a very common name for the members of the Angelos dynasty (before her arrival in Spain she was also known as Angelina, as Turkish documents concerning Bayezid I mention an Angelina and a Maria captured from a Hungarian count Janos), and this kingdom was once ruled by members of this Greek family. Could she be descendant of this family? Even more, maybe she was not a “granddaughter” but a “great-great-daugher” as a text suggests. Also, at the times it seems that the marriage between Greek/Byzantine princesses and Balkan lords was something usual, which makes things more complicated. I think the Angelos dynasty is a dead-end in this case - Angelina was not a given name for them, it was rather the feminine form of the surname Angelos. If she was actually related to any former Byzantine imperial kindred, yet her children thought that her most imposing relationship was to a king of "Hungary", she would not be the only Greek lady who cultivated mystery about her family background. Eudokia of Montpellier, for a notable instance from a few centuries earlier, was closely enough related to a Komnenos emperor to be considered worthy of marriage to a foreign king, and a troubadour even called her "empress" suggesting that she enjoyed if not initiated exaggeration of her bloodline, but we can only guess at her parentage. Peter Stewart

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:09:13 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart wrote: > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:52:07 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:23:33 PM UTC-7, tempu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > PS: Some posts above it is said that Angelina was the daughter of Count > > > John (Ivan) of Hungary. Her tomb just states that her father was a Count > > > named John (Ivan), not that he was from Hungary, and that she was the > > > granddaughter > > of the king of Hungary. > > > > Is the tomb contemporary, or was it installed later on, after the legend > > may have begun to develop? > > Apparently later in the 15th century - according to Juan de Contreras here (p. 33) http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/i18n/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=10069333 > Angelina and her husband were buried at Santa Cruz, and in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella she was transferred by their children to San Juan in Segovia, the location of the epitaph. > > This genealogical part of the legend may have developed from half-remembered bed-time stories for all we know. The kings of Hungary in the generations before her time were very well recorded, and there was no count John in their family by birth or marriage. > > Peter Stewart Yes, there was, but he died (apparently) in childhood. King Charles Robert of Hungary had, by his 4th wife (Elizabeth of Poland), Prince Stephen, Duke of Transylvania, Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia, who married Margareta, a daughter of Emperor Ludwig IV, his only son WAS called JOHN, he is registered as born in 1354 and died in 1363. John's sister, Elizabeth was the second wife of Philip II, Titular Emperor of "Romania" (Constantinople) and Prince of Tarento. Now, enter the realm of just unlikeness, had John lived to adulthood he would have probably been the ideal candidate for being the father of NN [Angelina] (I haven't touched this topic for more than 20 years, at one point I was interested because my maternal family descends more than once from the alleged sister, Maria, married or not to Payo Gómez de Sotomayor). To me it's easier to think that her first name was maybe unintelligible for Castilian speakers, so Angelina stuck with her, maybe pointing to her mother's lineage. Anyway, as I said, I haven't been dealing with this for a long, very long, time. However, the new Enciclopedia Gallega, under Payo Gómez de Sotomayor and under the rather extensive article devoted to the Sotomayor family, calls Angelina's [alleged] sister Juana de Hungría-Eslavonia...as I'm immersed in other projects I just noted that and it's in a long list of "to do" things for the future (I'd like to check the sources used by the Enciclopedia Gallega).