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!

 

[Kathar1na]

the unceasing energy and dedication of those of you, forgive my clumping you together, who ferret away and open up treasures of times past!

I always vow that I will not get involved and then there is something that draws me in after all. When it's about understanding a medieval Latin inscription, my resistance gets already lowered. And by understanding I don't just mean the words, it's about understanding the mindset at the time, the social fabric, which is harder to do.

These 10th century kingdoms are more like small fiefdoms that changed ownerships frequently and with their owners constantly on the warpath with their neighbours as well as forging alliances with their neighbours, and in both cases both the enemy and the ally could be either Christian or Muslim. This gets often overlooked. One of this queen's daughters was married into an Al-Andalus dynasty IIRC.

 

[Kathar1na]

Sorry, forgot to add this. The funniest bit is the look of this inscription.

When I look at it, I don't wonder why there are the letters CLARA in it, provided that I had even bothered to try to decipher this Spanish inscription. I would ask myself who on earth did this job in the 16th century when the tools and skills of stone masonry were no longer at Stone Age level.

Just look at it: The wobbly first line? And this line contains five letters A but three different kinds of typeface are used for them? At the end of the second line is the letter S - the first letter of Sancho - and the rest of the king's name i.e ANCHO is squeezed on a decorative bit at a 45 degree angle? Was this stone repurposed - is there a symmetrical chunk missing on the left side?

That's the thoughts that go through my mind.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

And if the inscription means her why is it there in Najera when her body is supposed to be elsewhere?

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

I wanted to point out that there are two places marked as the resting place of Urraca. I didn't mean to express a preference of one over the other. In the thread Three Blancas there was an explanation given for the two sepulchers for Blanca. I didn't have a reason for the movement of Urraca's body.

When I look at it, I don't wonder why there are the letters CLARA in it, provided that I had even bothered to try to decipher this Spanish inscription. I would ask myself who on earth did this job in the 16th century when the tools and skills of stone masonry were no longer at Stone Age level.

The picture showed the inscription in Najera. Why do you think it was 16th century?

 

[Bert45]

I haven't received any notifications that there had been replies to this post of mine. So can I just say "Thanks" to all who have commented. I will keep all these things, and ponder them in my heart, more or less as it says in Luke 2, 19.

The picture showed the inscription in Najera. Why do you think it was 16th century?

The monastery's leaflet says that the Royal Pantheon was "Made in around 1556. These tombs date from much later than the death of the monarchs."

 

[Kirkie]

I haven't received any notifications that there had been replies to this post of mine. So can I just say "Thanks" to all who have commented. I will keep all these things, and ponder them in my heart, more or less as it says in Luke 2, 19.

The monastery's leaflet says that the Royal Pantheon was "Made in around 1556. These tombs date from much later than the death of the monarchs."

Good to see you checking back in, always a positive gesture. Also, a generous response to those who have replied. I am the one in the back row in terms of detail and research, but I do love to learn, so keep them coming, after you have pondered all these things in your heart...

 

[Kathar1na]

Research is a word that is used with a variety of meanings. For me it is systematic work done by trained specialists who know their job. I never regard surfing the net and picking up bits and pieces with the hope, and even the conviction, that it is wheat and not chaff as research.

It does not do any harm when making more use of common sense and asking more often "Does that even make any sense"? when we surf the webpages with blogs and the Tourist Office websites and the quotes of quotes of quotes and when we pick up a piece here and there.

Inscriptions that we read today and that were written in stone 400 years ago on the basis of the knowledge that people had at the time about events that had happened another 400 years earlier or about people who had lived another 400 years earlier contain errors and mistakes. The scholars and researchers of their time were as diligent as they are today but they did not have access to the wealth of original documents and accumulated knowledge that we can tap into today.

One may ask why such errors and mistakes that have come to light are not corrected. Why are these inscriptions not dismantled and replaced with a different piece of stone with the correct information or, at least, with correct information according to current knowledge? There are probably various answers to the question. I am sure though that one of the reasons is this: such inscriptions have become a historical fact in themselves, have artistic and historic value as such, and they are left as they are.

(And please no comments about the correct use of historic vs historical or whether a capital letter follows a colon or not).

 

[Bert45]

(And please no comments about the correct use of historic vs historical or whether a capital letter follows a colon or not).

Correct on both counts, Kathar1na. But you knew that already.
I'm getting notifications now.