Talk:Íñigo López de Mendoza, 4th Duke of the Infantado

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2020.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sorting out a mess

I've made some basic edits—cleaning up English and removing some irrelevant remarks on the academic background of a cited author—but I'm still having a very hard time sorting this out. The usually helpful www.geneall.net is only moderately helpful here. From what I can follow, our present subject must be the person discussed on this page: the name, dates, and title all match. So we have (all links are to geneall.net)

Father: Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, 3. duque de Infantado (1461–1531)
Mother: Maria Pimentel, (dates unknown, but presumably dead by the time her husband remarried in 1530, shortly before he also died).

Subject of article: Íñigo López de Mendoza, 4th Duke of the Infantado (1493–1566).
Wife of subject of article: Isabel de Aragón (listed as c. 1500, which makes sense).

According to geneall.net, they have many children, but most important for our purposes is:

Son: Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, conde de Saldaña. Dates are oddly listed as "1500 + 14.03.1566". That first is an impossible birthdate, if the rest of this is correct: he can't be born the same year as his mother! (It would appear, though, that he does die the same year as his father: he dies young and never inherits the major titles in the family.) Inconveniently, no number associated with him as Count of Saldaña.
Daughter-in-law: Maria de Mendoza, 3ª marquesa del Cenete She is the María mentioned at Marquisate of Cenete, younger daughter of the 1st Marquess of Cenete, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar y Mendoza. Again, though, the dates are confusing. geneall.net gives a single date for her, c. 1510. So his son's marriage brings the title of Marquess of Cenete into the House of Infantado.

These two again have many offspring, most notably:

Grandson: Iñigo López de Mendoza, 5. duque de Infantado, (1536–20.08.1601) and, we might add, 4th Marquess of Cenete.

Does everyone agree that other than the obviously shaky dates, this appears to be the picture? The post-1601 material seems to me not particularly to belong in this article (eventually it should be moved to a new article at House of Infantado), but I'd at least like to see if we can agree on the general story down to 1601 and sort out the rest later. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This individual checks out on Roglo database[1] and Leo van de Pas' genealogics(with a minor difference in his name)[2]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take it forward on that basis. - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luna

Resolved

From the article: "For instance, his paternal grandmother, a Luna, happened to be the wealthiest daughter of Álvaro de Luna, Constable of the Kingdom of Castile, beheaded in 1453." (I had moved the "for instance" from the middle of the sentence to the front myself.)

The subject's father carring the name Luna from his own mother doesn't seem to be an example of anything unusual about naming practices: that's just a normal segundo apellido, and the y in it is common enough among nobility even today. Correction: At this date, a segundo apellido was by no means a given, this would have been the older custom of acknowledging an important ancestor.

This ancestry is still worth a mention in the article, ~~but I'm inclined to remove the indication that it is an example of anything unusual about naming practices.~~ Also, "wealthiest" would seem to need citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks in the article about surnames

The remarks about the somewhat unusual pattern of surnames seems to me to be on the mark, informative to the typical English-speaking reader, and I'd very much like to keep them even if they are uncited. I suspect that they could in principle be cited from the books mentioned in the "References" section, and that citation would be welcome. An example of citing for this sort of thing can be seen at Niño brothers#The Niño family. - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Saldaña

Soler Salcedo, p. 244 says he had an elder brother, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza y Pimentel, who died before their father (meaning before 1531) and that this brother was the 4th Count of Saldaña, Íñigo the 5th Count, and Íñigo's son Diego (who all sources seem to agree died shortly before Diego) as the 6th Count. I am not expert in this area, but since I've found no other explicit mention of this older brother in several genealogical sites, I'm a bit suspicious.

Is it possible that Soler Salcedo has conjured the older brother out of thin air, that the 4th Count of Saldaña is actually Íñigo's son Diego, and that Íñigo briefly became 5th Count when his son died several months before him? I'm doing my best simply to cite the confusing sources and indicate what they say, rather than to draw conclusions in an area where I'm not too knowledgable, but I thought I'd leave this remark in hopes that someone more expert than I can sort things out. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things more complicated, http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00124570&tree=LEO reckons Íñigo's son Diego to be the 11th Count of Saldaña. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the 5th Duke?

The article says that the 5th Duke had a male child. If so, the sources I've been working from all seem unaware of that son. The relevant pages of Soler Salcedo are unavailable online and I have no access to a hard copy. However, none of the other sources I've been using (geneall.net, genealogics.org, roglo.eu, and perhaps most notably fundacionmedinaceli.org) seem to be aware of such a person. So, what is the source? I'm going to leave the last paragraph intact but largely uncited until this is sorted out. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A first marriage"

The 7th Duke was a Gomez de Sandoval y Mendoza, but not connected via direct descent with the 6th Duchess. His mother Luisa was a daughter of a first marriage of the 6th Duchess with another Mendoza from this complicated family.

Why "a first marriage"? Did she have any other marriage? Fundación Medinaceli doesn't seem to think so: Ana de Mendoza, Fundación Medinaceli, accessed online 2010-02-12. - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Got it. Cenete, Grandes de España, accessed online 2010-02-12 shows her as having two marriages, the first to Rodrigo de Mendoza, the second to Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, 2. duque de Mandas y Villanueva. - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still "not connected via direct descent" is obviously wrong. A grandson is a direct descendant. I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 07:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "The 7th Duke was a Gomez de Sandoval y Mendoza" appears incorrect, at least from the sources I've found. Again, following Cenete, Grandes de España: Diego Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas would be Luisa's husband, who was never Duke of the Infantado; the 7th Duke was their son Rodrigo. Unless someone has a source to the contrary, I'll edit this accordingly; I'll give at least 48 hours before I do so, though. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]