On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:06:36 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 19/07/2016 12:15 PM, J.L. Fernandez Blanco via wrote: > > 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. > > This John was not a count - as a child he was given the title "prince of > Slavonia", that was inherited and used by his elder sister Elisabeth. In > view of this, and his death at a young age, he is obviously not a > candidate to have been anyone's father and I repeat that there was no > count John in the Hungarian royal family. > > In any case "Angelina de Grecia" is not equivalent to "NN [Angelina]". > As I pointed out before, Angelina was the given name under which she was > buried, i.e. her baptismal name by which she would be known in eternity, > not her own or her mother's surname. > > The alleged sister Maria was a much later concoction, as discussed in > the article by Kahane and Malkiel that was cited (and linked) before. > > Peter Stewart Yes, of course. I was simply pointing out that there was a John in the Hungarian royal family.