> > If she was mentioned in the inscriptions post coronation of RRC, > (Kalki brought in the sabatham of vanathi not to take the throne - > based on what ??? > > venkat - in kaveri mainthan you had taken that she dies prior to his > ascension - >
Hi Vijay
KM just followed PS's epilougue where kalki mentions that vanathi did not ascend the throne with rrc. in fact it was based on the notion that rjc was brought up by a step mother for whom he built a pallipadai.
Udaya Pirattiyar THAMBIRANADIGAL VANAVANMADEVIAR @ THIRUBUVANA MADEVIAR (thanks for the quote Dear Srihari @ Virarajendra)is none other than mother of Rajendra I ... query of Sathis is answered already by Virarajendra.
But Virarajendra placed HER after Panchavanmadevi .. whose inscriptions are found in RRC's 3rd year. !
VR (@ Veerarajendra) also accorded a Seniority list of Queens according to their figuring in RRC's (available / selected) inscriptions... and based on this derived that Olagamadevi @ Danthi Sakthividangi was not RRC's Crown Queen since she figured in later (than 3rd year) inscriptions only..
I posted OLAGAMADEVIPURAM stating that she figued as early in RRC's 3rd year inscription itself..
Gokul posted the Special status enjoyed by Olagamadevi and her Mother - as recently (2004-2005) found by Dr. Kalaikkovan and DR. Nalini in Thiruvalanchuzhi inscriptions ... varalaaru issue has brought out an exclusive volume on these inscriptions as well..
Now Vijay raised the Query that from the inscriptions posted by Virarajendra, it is seen that Vanathi shared the Throne with RRC, and she was alive after he ascended the Throne !
And how did KALKI get this inference that She did not share throne with RRC .. which was repeated in Kavirimaindhan also.
I wish to provide my very humble reply for your posting below, for your study and further comments, to make same a healthy discussion in our common interest in exploring the actual past of the great Cholas.
"Thanking you very much" for your introduction to me, the three Inscriptions which speaks on the construction of a Kattrali at Ulaga(Olaga)mahadevipuram, and on the construction of a Vimanam at a temple at Vanavanmahadevi Chathurvedimangalam. The inscriptions indicate that both these constructions were executed by a noble named Ambalavan, both belonging to the 3rd year of reign of king Rajaraja Chola-1.
The inscriptions indicate that at a time during the Uttama Chola's period of rule, the "wives" (not yet the Queens and the Chief Queen)of Rajaraja namely the Ulagamahadevi & Vanavanmahadevi would have arranged the renaming of a village and the structuring of the brahmin village the Chathurvedimangalam.
These inscriptions, also goes to prove even though Rajaraja Chola - 1 was only a Uvaraja (i.e.heir to the throne)during the 17 year period of rule of Uttama Chola, temples were built and religious endowments to temples were provided - by others in the name of the wives of Rajaraja Chola, namely the Ulaga(Olaga or Loka)mahadeviyar and the Vanavanmahadeviyar probably on their instructions, and also the villages where these temples stood being renamed after them.
It is also somewhat clear from the above, and my list on Rajaraja's Queens given in a chronological order posted in this same website - that Ulagamahadeviyar, Vanavanmahadeviyar and Panchavanmahadeviyar were the three important "wifes" of Rajaraja Chola (of same status level), during his period as Uvaraja of the Chola country under Uttama Chola.
But still there are no "very positive evidences" from the inscriptions and the copper-plate grants that has surfaced upto now, to indicate as to who was the actual "Patta Mahishi" (Chief Queen)of Rajaraja Chola - 1 at the time he ascended the Chola throne in A.D.985, like how one of the inscriptions of Uttama Chola states postively that "....Urattayan Sorabbaiyar the (alias Thiribhuvana Mahadeviyar) the mutta-nampirattiyar of Uttama Chola...." (488 of 1925 from Sembiyanmahadevi, Thanjavur).
Hence we are left with no option other than sequencing their inscriptions in the order of Rajaaja Chola's ruling year and reasoning out in the way indicated in my posting.