today released the text, in response to the position taken by Don Luis Pinillos Lafuente on Solar de Tejada, we sent Don José Luis Sampedro Escolar.
again reaffirm our concern of being exclusively vehicles in a major controversy as solar Rioja, with the sole responsibility of the authors of texts, opinions, comments, descriptions and content either end thereof.
In the final reference of the letter referred to Mr. Sampson School, on the merits of joining the House of the Twelve Core Lineages of Soria by Don Luis Pinillos Lafuente, we would like to point out that their income was upon request and after appropriate instruction file, which was duly accredited nobility of his paternal surname. By not prove links with any of the Twelve Lineages, their attachment to the House Trunk occurred, pursuant to statutory regulation, as Honorary Knighthood.
REPLY TO DON LUIS PINILLOS LAFUENTE
José Luis Sampedro Escolar, Bachelor of Law from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, of the Royal Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy Matritense , Vice President of the Association of Graduates in Genealogy, Heraldry and Nobility.
D. Luis Pinillos Lafuente (DLP) has published on a blog written Twelve Lineages which says to answer the criticism that the undersigned made his publication about Solar Valdeosera. DLP was generous enough to send a copy of this publication to whom these lines signature, thank you properly, but it can not stop expressing its strongest condemnation of what this pamphlet demerit states and infamy in the Solar de Tejada, the accusing them of usurping the dominion status, forging documents and stealing others who would, as DLP, Valdeosera exclusive. DLP
recognizes its lack of historical training to tackle a job like the one intended, and amply demonstrates. He seems to believe what they say old legends and chronicles interpreted only in light of modern historiography and the rational study of historical attitudes can provide noteworthy data. But this must be asking too much to those who accept that the arms of the confer solar Ramiro I in the ninth century and who, with the appearance of fairness, recommended reading and Orive Cantera book about the battle of Clavijo, neglecting ( or perhaps ignoring) other much more reputable authors.
From the beginning, DLP is lost in absurd considerations about the different versions given by the authors about the legendary figures of Sancho de Tejada, his sons and his comrades in arms and, as on page 1, states that voluntarily omitted by not considering certain documents objectives, which must be a document signed in 1460 King Henry IV of Castile, the capital for the serious and rigorous study of the sites mentioned therein and acknowledge undoubtedly, that of the Cardines Montes, then called de Tejada, and the Valdeosera. Why DLP omitted this document? Perhaps because it specifically mentions the lordship of Tejada and in the fifteenth century, which does not suit their disparate and unfair assertions that are unfounded. On the contrary, gives a value to a so-called unjustifiable real relationship of old and founded the town and Solar Valdeosera ... dated back to 1460, perhaps because it refutes the statement by the paper of Henry IV. Self-appointed judge of what you crave, DLP, no scientific background, decided to give value to another version, without base, altering what was said in 1460, which in 1636 issued Jerónimo de Mata, at the request of Solar Valdeosera. This Mata, King of Arms of the seventeenth century, thus becomes a more secure source (DLP) that Fray Atanasio Lobera (1595), according to DLP (p.19) without explaining why he changed the 13 sons of Sancho peers. No, DLP, which changed without explaining why the original legend was his employee Jerónimo de Mata (say your employee because he paid for his work on solar Valdeosera). DLP should not be surprising therefore that Fray Atanasio says the same as Henry IV and yes you should wonder, however, the new version of Jerome unexplained Mata. Mata copy it clear that the real relationship in the self-described ... above is preserved, clear, Valdeosera file. By the way, DLP Tejada should ask repeatedly criticizes the confirmation of his privilege to successive kings but does not explain why calls Valdeosera Mata certification in 1636.
Why ramble on about such trifles? More serious is that in the pages. 29 and 134 as a character mentioned DLP Valdeosera illustrious John Heredia Tejada, divisero of Valdeosera, Mayor of Jubera, Notary of the Secret of the Inquisition in Logroño in 1697. A researcher who studied for years in the appropriate files, and read documents, and finds out what they say, Don Romualdo Sainz de Matienzo, informs us that Heredia was sentenced to four years in prison and another four banimiento (expulsion ) to 20 miles from Logroño to falsify evidence Valdeosera income. Ironically accusing the diviseros DLP Tejada usurpations, thefts and forgeries without evidence when he praises a counterfeiter convicted offender in the early eighteenth century.
contacts are evident in the forger Heredia with another divisero of Valdeosera, Canon Jose Gonzalez de Tejada, who needs no introduction for those who have read his work critically (which seems to lack DLP, fattening your posts by copying large number of pages of the canon). Repeated calls DLP strong arguments that you are sympathetic of Gonzalez de Tejada. He knows why they deserve the adjective strong.
fill a volume of comments, but suffice it to discredit the work of DLP, which is only a libel, and I how the dictionary defines libel save perhaps too much work for his method: Libel: written in which denigrates or defames people. DLP denigrates and defames he calls liars on pg. 85 to diviseros de Tejada. People are diviseros de Tejada to which alleges demeaning actions, and clarify what the dictionary says to denigrate and defame. Humiliating
: tarnish, offend the opinion or reputation of a person. Insult, offend in word and deed
infamous remove fame, honor and esteem to a person or a thing personified.
So much that by Sampedro on October 4, 2009 and ratified in full to March 15, 2011, after reading the "alleged" answer given by DLP in different ways, exercising a "right of reply" to anything I said to this replica.
detailed response to the accumulation of inconsistencies in Twelve DLP pouring Lineages 11 and March 12, 2011 requires eleven other pages, at a minimum, so that those who subscribe will answer only to what he directly is concerned, even at the risk of giving publicity DLP and importance deserved. For starters, Sampedro DLP requested to say how personally offended him or insults him, as the scientific criticism should not be confused with injury or insult and merely criticizes Sampedro trials and exposure patterns of these for DLP.
DLP has spoken with clarity, but with sarcasm: the requirement to prove the agnatic line was not going to Tejada, who, unusually, has been consecrated the transmissibility of the nobility in the female line by Henry IV in 1460, by the Catholic Monarchs in 1491 and by Charles V in 1527. If DLP maintains that these documents are forgeries made by Tejada manor is required to provide conclusive evidence of such a serious allegation, since enough of veiled allusions.
The requirement to prove the agnatic line was not in principle Valdeosera, who is stolen this singular privilege of the Charter Henry IV. You should read without prejudice, Chapter XIV of the book Historical Anthropology of the lords of Tejada and Valdeosera, Romualdo Saenz Matienzo, Editorial Dunken, Buenos Aires, 2010, pp. 267 to 284, which can be purchased at the bookstore Hijazo of Logroño. It explains why the manor Valdeosera Tejada and voluntarily dispensed with trying to exercise their right exceptional transfer of the nobility through the female line. Did not have much merit, in fact, give it time because of the inbreeding of the seed, most of those affected had also tested the nobility by the father.
DLP wondered if Sanpedro think that Joan of Arc "will touch something" (sic in original) to the descendants of the lineage of Tejada. Sampson has not ever told us that Joan of Arc "touch" anything or Valdeosera or Tejada (DLP seems to think they are different things), if by "play" means "having relationship." The relationship between the privilege of the King of Castile from 1460 to the transfer in the female line of the nobility recognized in 1430 by the King of France to the family of Joan of Arc is explicit in the text of the lecture given on 14 October Sampedro 2009, speech that is available on the website of the Center Rioja Madrid and that collected in full in Bulletin No. 2 of the Association for Genealogy and Heraldry Rioja, May 2010, whose PDF is also found on the Internet. DLP
Sanpedro accused of saying that the documents of the Chancellery of Valladolid is a libel. No, Sampedro says "libel" is the book as a DLP, and Sampedro says further that the DLP to disregard the rules of punctuation makes it very difficult to read this pamphlet (as shown in the last paragraph on page . 42, truly hilarious). The text of the Chancery of Valladolid are very respectable and dictate rules on proof of nobility are not discussed, but against general rule is the unique, the basic principle of law that ignores DLP in its inability to subtle shading. And the Charter of 1460 is an exception that seems to bother DLP significantly, we do not know why.
DLP was surprised that King Henry was in Segovia on 10 September 1460, when, in the same period, he published his charter to Tejada in Valladolid. If studies DLP knew about Torres Fontes teacher would not fall into naive Carlitos. DLP should know that it was common for the Foreign Ministry to publish the documents when he finished his drawing, long over at that time. For example, the Catholic Monarchs were in Vitoria on December 5, 1483, while Medina del Campo is where is dated the same day the Privilege of Teresa Martinez, DLP should study, for which you can go back to the aforementioned book Saenz de Matienzo ( pg. 129, note 431).
DLP says that the good faith of Don Juan Carlos I was struck by the representatives of Tejada in 1980. Serious is that saying, it also was hit from Henry IV, the Catholic Monarchs and Charles V to Ferdinand VI, Charles III, Charles IV, Isabel II, the Provisional Government of 1868, Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII and the Generalissimo Franco. Board much stupidity! DLP has only succeeded in see the reality of the facts which have misled many people, although it is tedious to enumerate all the fables that DLP accepted as dogmas of faith. For him, the King of Arms Mata Jerome is not fooled and tells the whole truth in 1636, enlighten us with the "true" facts about the lineage and the true placement of the children of Sancho de Tejada Valdeosera barracks. This itself is a reliable document for DLP. Kill offers all the guarantees that everything he says is the only truth concerning the solar Valdeosera Tejada and, because it will peta to DLP, and nothing but that.
assessment of litigation on Nobility of DLP is very picturesque. Diego follows some details of School Manuel Martínez (Ajamil, from 1725 to 1789), Lord of Valdeosera in 1768. In 1752 the Land Registry is made of the Marquis de la Ensenada, who did not have official sanction, in which Register and Ajamil seat neighbors (Archivo Histórico Provincial de Logroño, C-12, page 11) says: "Diego School, married , on its own pastor and general condition. " Elected Ajamil Bulls Collector General by the State in that year of 1752, and Faithful of scales by the same State General in 1754, protested both elections, Hidalgo being recognized as the Chancery of Valladolid in 1776 (file 1149-3 of the Board of Hijosdalgo) on record in the not mentioned at any time be divisero of this quality Valdeosera not concur in their agnatic ancestors, though I attended indeed. After winning the provision of Nobility was appointed Receiver General by the State in 1777 and Noble Faithful scales by the same State in 1785 and 1787. If we interpreted so as absurd as DLP does the documentation, we would conclude that being Valdeosera divisero of Nobility was not proof of, if not claimed. The explanation is simple: the applicant provides additional evidence to prove his membership in the noble status and choose not to spend more money and time to turn informant and write the file to lift the relevant Valdeosera minutes. Let
another point. DLP unpublished findings are puzzling. DLP "knows" the identity of the original owner of the styling that looks the House Tejada said he was a Valdeosera divisero of Knight of the Order of Santiago. It does not say who that gentleman or the source to say that. What new sources of genealogy that DLP offers the Marquis of Valdeíñigo? Because DLP completely alter the hitherto held as true as to the identity of the I Marquis, who becomes unwittingly in his father's brother.
DLP Can you give details of the figure 157 of his book? If anyone is interested it can ask Sampedro, it is the original owner, a copy of which happened many years ago to D. Damaso Ruiz de Clavijo. And the figure 216? Sanpedro can ensure that this portrait is not in Chile, as stated DLP because Sampson was the one who passed this information to Ruiz de Clavijo also many years ago. And the fig. 248? ...
already entered into the matter of arms, including incoherent unintelligible sentences for their peculiar punctuation, DLP seems to proclaim a problem for the lamplighters of Sevilla use coat of arms. It is at this point is that DLP drinks from sources that he was being poisoned, perhaps without knowing it. Because this reference shows you hear bells and do not know where. DLP should be saved from his informants, perhaps, to manipulate and use to satisfy personal interests.
Very illustrative is that Sampson has to inform current DLP is a formal agreement subscribed by the legitimate representatives of the solar and Valdeosera Tejada, authorizing each other, with good logic, interchangeably use different versions of heraldic arms over the long history of these respectable corporations have been used in different media. Here begins to be part of the explanation for both DLP incoherent nonsense. As we read on the page. 102 of libel (and understood, despite his own way of scoring) DLP is faced with the rector of Valdeosera team that in 2004, chose to ask, following the example of Tejada, the ratification of their privileges to HM the King. And to attack that sector of Valdeosera diviseros, do not hesitate to seek an excuse to attack unjustly after Tejada. Apart from attacking the board of Solar Valdeosera which held the address of that entity in 2004, DLP, with its attacks on Tejada, get an importance that did not raise the songbooks support Asturiana Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy, the Order of St. Michael of the Wing and the Twelve lineages of Soria, who have received honorary. DLP
calls "Pamphlet" Sanpedro response to libel, but that answer is not a pamphlet, which is "aggressive", the letter of Sanpedro is "defensive" because if there had been no DLP had not released before the libel, aggressive and unjustified, and that is promoting too much thanks to all this mess. Until that time Sampson had not dealt with DLP or his work, clearly, not to interpret ancient legends and chronicles in the light of modern historiography and the rational study of historical attitudes. Since DLP is unable to undertake work and try to ridicule.
0 comments:
Post a Comment