Royal Pantheon, Nájera.

[Bert45]

There is a tomb in the Royal Pantheon in the monastery of Santa María la Real on which is inscribed "Reina Doña Clara Huraca Mujer de Rei Don Sancho". I can't find anything about a queen named Clara. I have found that the wife of King Sancho II of Pamplona was Urraca Fernández. I suppose that Huraca is a variant of Urraca, in Basque or Navarrese or some other dialect. Assuming that this Urraca, wife of Sancho II is the one buried in the monastery, why. in all the scholarly posts on the internet, does nobody call her Clara?

 

[lalaone]

You always find such intriguing historical questions @Bert45 !

I am ignorant to the history but appreciate trying to learn more. I wonder if "clara" was an adjective, not her proper name. She had also been the wife of two previous kings (of Leon) who died, so maybe her name was disambiguated to be "clearly" the queen of Sancho II?

Urraca Fernández - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is a source for you to dig into; if you do a search for "clara" you will find references to Queen Urraca, wife of King Sancho II, which are copied below.

https://www.estudiogeneraldehumanidades.es/estudios-riojanos/pdfs/viguera-4/4_Orden-cronologico.pdf

a) Titulatio:
"Ego humilis et seruus seruorum omnium Domini ultimus et tamen gratia Dei,
Sanctius rex et Ranemirus rex, seu cum clara Urraka regina (...)"
("yo, humilde y último siervo de todos los siervos del Señor, y sin embargo, por la
gracia de Dios, Sancho el rey, y también el rey Ramiro, y asimismo con la clara
reina Urraca,...")

Subscriptio:
"(...) regnante (...) Sanctione rex in Nagela et in Pampilona, et sub eius imperio
parendo rex Ranemirus in Uekaria (...) Sanctius serenissimus rex, cum prolis
Garseani, hunc testamentum manu propia confirmans (signum); Ranemirus
frater ipsius regis confirmans; domna Urraka clara regina confirmans (...)"
("reinante...Sancho rey en Nájera y en Pamplona, y bajo la dependencia del
imperio de éste el rey Ramiro en Viguera...Sancho, rey serenísimo, con su hijo
García, confirmando este testamento con su propia mano; Ramiro, hermano de ese
rey, confirmándolo; doña Urraca, clara reina, confirmándolo..."

 

[Kathar1na]

I wonder if "clara" was an adjective

https://www.estudiogeneraldehumanidades.es/estudios-riojanos/pdfs/viguera-4/4_Orden-cronologico.pdf

@lalaone, look at the lines of the transcription from the document dated 14 July 972 as well as the comment that follows: Inclita domna Urraca which the author translates as contemporary Spanish ilustre. He even draws the reader's attention to it, saying that en otros diplomas de documentos de otras procedencias se le adjudican epítetos similares. This is 10th century Latin vocabulary and style. The "label" on the sepulchre is 16th century Spanish and style. Those who designed the label may have had access to 10th century originals and taken interpretation and inspiration from them or, more likely, they may have relied on later chronicles and all that this brings with it.

 

[CWBuff]

why. in all the scholarly posts on the internet, does nobody call her Clara?

for the same reason that nobody calls J.Robert Oppenheimer Jules
I worked with plenty of people who do not like to be called by their 1st name and use their middle for most of the time (I have a distant cousin whose name was Janet and she did not like that or her middle name so she decided to go by Net)
I think another reasonably good example would be one Princess Sophie Augusta Frederica von Anhalt-Zerbst who was known as Fricke

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Another possibility is the consort of this king:

Sancho García IV of Peñalen (1054-1076).
At the age of 14 he was proclaimed King in the same field of Atapuerca, where his father died, receiving the kingdom of Navarre relegated to its former borders. He was an excellent King who was called The Noble. He married Doña Placencia, Clara or Blanca de Normandía.

That was from this webpage:

Los Reyes de Nájera-Pamplona

En el Panteón Real de Nájera, se hallan enterrados 5 reyes y 7 reinas del Reino Nájera-Pamplona. ¿Conoces su historia?

najera.es

The epithets Clara or Blanca may mean pure. See:

Origin and Meaning of First Name Blanca | Search Family History on Ancestry®.

Is your given name, Blanca, a first in your family tree? Part of a cultural tradition? Ancestry® can tell you your first name’s origins plus its meaning.

www.ancestry.com

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

THE QUEENS OF ARAGON
THEIR LIVES AND TIMES
BY E. L. MIRON

The name Urraca, of pure Arabic meaning, signifying "brilliant in colour," was a common one in Castile,
So Clara or Blanca can make sense applied to the name Urraca.

 

[Kathar1na]

Inclita domna Urraca

@lalaone, I've gone through the other relevant transcriptions in the linked document.

So we have clara Urraka regina; domna Urraka clara regina; regina Urraca preclara; and inclita domna Urraca. These are all found in 10th century documents. They are not narratives about this queen but legal documents that she herself and the king himself and others signed, mostly with the dates of their signatures in the years between 970 and 980.

I can't see who the author is who put these transcriptions of documents from the 10th century together but he appears to understand his business. He describes these words as epitetos dedicated to the queen, i.e. descriptive terms, and they all mean more or less the same.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Assuming that this Urraca, wife of Sancho II is the one buried in the monastery, why. in all the scholarly posts on the internet, does nobody call her Clara?

And if the inscription means her why is it there in Najera when her body is supposed to be elsewhere? See: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urraca_Fernández#Sepultura

BTW, a clearer photo of the Najera inscription is available here:

http://hesperia.ucm.es/imagenes_aehtam/5480/LAMINA_046.jpg

Enlarge to see the various ways the stone carver uses to save space and carving time. I particularly like the E inside the D (for de) and Rei (Rey) followed by an O within the D (to start Don).

 

[Kathar1na]

And if the inscription means her why is it there in Najera when her body is supposed to be elsewhere? See: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urraca_Fernández#Sepultura

@Rick of Rick and Peg, don't you find this inscription in Covarrubias seriously weird?

It, too, appears to have been crafted some 500+ years after the death of this queen.

A queen who, by modern accounts, was married three times and was queen three times. A queen who was born around 933 and died around 1007 at the age of 70+. A queen who married the first king around 945 and stayed with him until his death in 956. She married another king from the same kingdom in 958 who died a few years later. Shortly afterwards she married a third king from a neighbouring kingdom.

@lalaone posted links to transcripted legal documents that this queen and her royal spouse #3 signed during the years 970 to 980. When this husband died the oldest son became king and after his death a nephew. She was Queen Mother and Queen Grandmother in this monarchy until her death.

So, first time queen for 5 years and second time queen for 2 years in the first kingdom and third time queen for 25 years in the second kingdom and older royal for the last 10 years of her life in the second kingdom. And then she gets a (17th century) inscription in stone that mentions only husband #1 of the first kingdom? And gets buried in the first kingdom? Is that even plausible let alone credible?

BTW, she did not actively marry, she was passively married as part of territorial politics and her father's power politics. The husbands became kings during the marriages but I left out dates of their accession to the throne for TL;DR reasons.

Source: Biography in Real Academia de la Historia.

 

[Kirkie]

@lalaone, I've gone through the other relevant transcriptions in the linked document.

So we have clara Urraka regina; domna Urraka clara regina; regina Urraca preclara; and inclita domna Urraca. These are all found in 10th century documents. They are not narratives about this queen but legal documents that she herself and the king himself and others signed, mostly with the dates of their signatures in the years between 970 and 980.

I can't see who the author is who put these transcriptions of documents from the 10th century together but he appears to understand his business. He describes these words as epitetos dedicated to the queen, i.e. descriptive terms, and they all mean more or less the same.

At this point, I say: may the relevant people, if they have any means of following this discourse, have the chance to laugh their heads off.
I need to get on with my day.
I absolutely value the unceasing energy and dedication of those of you, forgive my clumping you together, who ferret away and open up treasures of times past!