By Lawrence Bouett |

The line I am researching is documented through Ana Francisca Gabadí (marriage of her daughter Lorensa in 1623 and birth of her son Bernabé in 1618) or Gabay (from her burial record in 1652).

I have gone back and read the threads on the topic of Martín Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma (beginning about 2006), and I understand that there is the widespread supposition that Ana Francisca is a daughter of Martín and Petronila. My question is this: has there been anything definitive since then (the 2006 and later threads) to establish proof of this connection?

I should point out that, while it would be fascinating to establish a connection to Moctezuma II, that is an historical curiosity; my purpose is to follow the genealogical leads wherever they go. I am currently reading Chipman's "Moctezuma's Children", which I purchased online from the UT Press—on-demand printing, quick service, and not expensive.

Prospero Año Nuevo / Happy New Year to all,
Lawrence Bouett

Lawrence

Like you, I spent a considerable amount of time looking at this family. I got so frustrated with the lack of sources in all the internet posted genealogies that I was starting to think that Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma did not exist.

I eventually located a copy of Genealogía de Nochistlán Antiguo Reino de la Nueva Galicia en el Siglo XVII según sus Archivos Parroquiales which has an excerpt from the dispensation requested by Bartholome Rodrigues Baxo (or Bajo). The dispensation request was because of the relationship between his first wife and second wife to be. They both descend from Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma, but through different daughters.

This document clearly identifies the daughters of Martin and Petronila. Thanks to Claudia Reynoso's (& colleagues'!) work on the Guadalajara dispensations the document is readily locatable. Claudia's index is at http://www.guadalajaradispensas.com/2011/11/1700-1705-fhl-source-film-1…

It is images 316-24 for the dispensations for 1700-1705, film 168605. It is online at Family Search (Jalisco Church Records -> Guadalajara -> Diocese of Guadalajara -> Matrimonios 1700-05).

There may be other documents, but I have not seen them. Perhaps someone knows what they are, and can help?

George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA

(After 2½ years ...) I have read carefully the dispensa requested by Bartholome Rodrígues Baxo for his marriage to Thomasa de la Rosa Ulloa, based upon the 'cuarto grado de afinidad' between Thomasa and Bartholome's first wife, Theresa Ponze. After constructing the lineage given by two of the testigos in the dispensa, it now seems clear that the two daughters of Martín Navarro and Petronila Moctezuma referred to are María and Ana Francisca Gabay. That would certainly seem to establish definitively the connection to the line I am working on (that of Ana Francisca) of Martín Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma, wouldn't it?

I have three questions about those lines established by the dispensa, however: (1) who is the spouse of María Gabay; (2) who is the 'Juana' referred to in the dispensa, given as the wife of Lorenso Ruís de Esparsa; and finally, (3) who is the apparent daughter of Lorenso Ruís de Esparsa and the above-named Juana who married Nicolás Ponze, father of Bartholome's second wife, Theresa Ponze?

I have not been able to discover the answers to those questions during the past several days of research. All of the other relationships are now well-documented.

Lawrence Bouett
Moraga, California

P.S.: Funny; as soon as I posted this, I found the answer to question 2, above: She is Juana de la Cruz; her name is given in the burial record of Nicolás Ponze from 22 December 1742 in Aguascalientes.

Hello Lawrence,

Maria de Gabai Ruiz de Esparza is married to Nicolas Ulloa they were married c. 1630 in Teocaltiche, Jalisco, Mexico. He is the son of Alonso Ulloa and Juana Munoz de Jerez. Maria was born c. 1613

I descend from Bartholomew Rodriguez Bajo and thomassina de la Rosa Ulloa.

R A Ricci

Denise Hernand…

12 years 11 months ago

Permalink

Hi Lawrence

George is right that the only recent definitive information is the marriage dispensation. He also mentions (in an email in Ancestry.com.au) that in the Codex Chimalpahin there is a reference to children of Diego Sotela and Leonor Valderrama, other than the known ones (mentioned in Chipman's book, which you are reading and which I have also read). Diego was accused and tried and found guilty of conspiring against the Crown. He was banished to a place called Oran in North Africa. His brother was executed. This conspiracy is discussed in Chipman - remember to check the footnotes!

At some point during this controversy or perhaps before it, Leonor must have died, because when Diego was banished, one of the sons took over the encomienda as his inheritance, whereupon the other son sued him. If Petronila was the daughter of Diego and Leonor, let's say the youngest, its not suprising that she is not mentioned in the subsequent lawsuits. If she was born around 1560, she'd have been around 10 years or younger, and with brothers who were not interested in sharing with her. Their only responsibility toward her would have been to arrange a suitable marriage and give her a dowry. Assuming she was married before 1593, that might explain why there was a three part settlement and not a four part settlement of the inheritance issue in 1593.(The third party was their sister Ana, who was a nun). My point with this is that we don't have to rule out the possibility that Petronila was the child of Leonor and Diego. Its still a line of research worth pursuing.

http://www.amazon.com/Codex-Chimalpahin-Vol-Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco/dp/…
Above is a link to the translation of Codex Chimalpahin, available through amazon, if you are so inclined to read it, or perhaps your local library can get hold of it...

http://www.archive.org/stream/noticiahistrica00berrgoog/noticiahistrica…
And above is a link to a text about the conspiracy (in Spanish) where there is a section devoted to the Sotelo brothers, if you want to read more about that.

Regards
Denise

Denise Hernand…

12 years 11 months ago

Permalink

Hi Lawrence

I was skimming through one of the sources for which I provided a link in my previous comment (the description of Martin Cortes conspiracy) and came across the following:
(there are a lot of mistakes because its an old text someone scanned in)
____

11 de Abril. La audiencia manda soltar en fiado á Diego
Arias, que está preso en las casas del tesorero D. Hernando de
Portugal, por los sesenta dias primeros siguientes.

30 de Mayo. A petición del procurador de Diego Arias, se le
proroga por sesenta dias mas la soltura en fiado, para que acabe
de convalecer de sus enfermedades en Michoacán, donde está con
su muger e hijos.

30 de Julio. Segunda próroga por otros sesenta dias en favor
de Diego Arias.

____

It mentions that his wife (by that time - 1566 - he is married to Dona Maria Tramuel, mentioned earlier in the text) and his children are in Michoacan.
If he lived there with his second wife, perhaps he also lived there with his first wife, Leonor? Earlier in the text it is mentioned that Diegos encomiendo is there in the province of Michoacan, pueblos of Tarinbaro. Perhaps Petronila was born there?

Also, a third Sotelo brother is mention: Gaspar. The text also mentions the names of Baltasar Sotelos parents:
__________

dixo
que este confesante es baltasar de sotelo hijo de antonio de sotelo
capitán que fué de gente de armas por su magestad natural de la
ciudad de Qamora e de usenda nuñez hija de pero nufiez vela na-
tural de cuellar e que este confesante nació en aldea de palo junto
á la dicha cibdad de Qamora e que es de hedad de quarenta e cin-
co años poco mas o menos e que a veinte e quatro años que pasó
de los reynos de castilla a las provincias del perú en el tienpo que...
___________

I dont know if Baltasar and Diego had the same mother, but at least the info on the father would be reliable...

Regards,
Denise
ps thanks for writing in, I have this text in a doc since before Christmas but hadnt had time to read it. Your post made me pull it up and read it!

Carlos Peredo

Hello everybody !

I just found a document that promises to be very interesting but that is very hard to read, so I´m here begging for help !!!

The document is from around 1560 and is located in the Arquidiocesis of Morelia , Mexico, Michoacan Catholic Church Records 1555-1599; información matrimonial y actas diversas 1555-1599.

It starts :

"Sepan cuantos esta carta vieren, como NOS Diego Arias de Sotelo vecino de la cibdad de ....."

In the end of the 24th and 25th line I can read :
"........e con los pueblos"
" e indios a NOS encomendados......"

There may be some important information about this ancestor of so many "Alteños" so I hope somebody with better skills than mine to read these old characters will give a hand.

I´m really intrigued by the fact tha Don Diego uses the word "NOS" instead of "YO" , I thought that only Bishops used that word to refer to themselves.

I´ll try to read what I can and will post here if I have some succes.

Regards

Carlos A. Peredo

Hi carlos
The number 55 appears at the top of the page of image 20 where the document starts. The document ends on image 21 and a new entry starts just below it and continues on image 22 on the left side. On the right side another entry starts and at the top there is the number 56. I am thinking that these numbers refer to the years 1555 and 1556, before he married maria manuel portugal.
I also think it says "vecino de la ciudad de mexico". If so, this is a good lead to where to look for records related to his children with leonor.

Regards,
Denise

Carlos Peredo

Hello Denise , good morning !

Here I write some of the things I seem to "read" line by line with spaces in the places of words I don´t understand :

"Sepan cuantos estas carta vieren como nos Diego Arias
de Sotelo vecino de la Cibdad d de .....e Juan Pavlo e Antón de
Silva e Domingo de Medina e Gonzalo Gómez (ó Ponce?)vecinos ....
..... de la cibdad de Mechuacan otorgamos ...... ...
por esta presente carta ........ e otorgamos todo cuio poder
cumpliere aser e servicio ..... ...... .... nos avemos e
tenemos ................cunplidamente lo po-
demos e devemos ...... otorgarselo a vos .........
e a Gonzalo Ruíz e a Juan Velazcos de Salazar vezinos de la cib-
dad de Mexico todos ausentes como si fuesedes presentes a vos
en junta e a cada uno de vos .......... especial-
mente ................ fuereles ........................
de los pueblos a nos encomendados .....................
.... de los tributos que nos dan................
panscuaro ...........mechuacan ......" (line 15)

Then I can only read one or two words till line 20 :

" extremos e tenemos e esperamos ..... tener e mover ..."

then I jump to line 24 :
"... e tener e mover contra nos .... e los dichos pueblos
e indios a nos encomendados .......... movidos

then till line 27 where I only read :
"..... ante su magestad....ante los jueces ...."
e oidores de su real consejo de indias e ante su visorey
aquí presente e oidores de su muy consejo de esta nueva
españa e ante los cuales dichos sus jueces ..........
............ pueda e devan ........res-
ponder , negar e contestar e razonar ........
.......... e juicios e alegar ....

The next page is even more difficult to read and in the final page in the end of line 3 I think I read :

"................................... de lo cual lo otorga-
mos ante dorante escrivano ...........
...................en la cibdad de mechuacan a 7
días del mes de marzo año de el ........ de nuestro sal-
vador Iesu .... de mil e .... e (quinientos?) e (cincuenta?) e cinco años ...
.................. firman (Fernán?) Rodríguez e Pedro ...
e Pedro de ..... e Nicolás Ruíz e Juan Pérez e ....
esta dicha cibdad e lo firmamos de cuios nos tres-
se regydores .... aquí doy fee conozco a los
dichos otorgantes .........................
.................a Juan Velazquez de Salazar e a Gon-
zalo Ruíz .............. Gonzalo Ruíz y
a Diego Arias de Sotelo.........

In the center of the page we can see the elegant sinature of Don Diego Arias de Sotelo and next to it that of Antón Silva.

So far is what I "read" or "imagine" to read.

I´m feeling that in the end there´s not much in this document but is a good excercise to develop our skills in paleography.

I really hope some of our fellow "alteños" give a try and surely they will see some of the words that I couldn´t and complete a better part of this document.

Regards

Carlos Peredo

Regarding the date I thougth I read and mentioned in my last post, hereby I confirm: it is what is writen because I just saw image 23 and we can see the way they used to write "quinientos" and "cincuenta" and those two "signs" are the same that are used in Diego Arias de Sotelo´s document

Thanks Carlos for posting what you get from this doc...you are right that it can be a good execise inpaleography. I am looking forward to next weekend when I will have time to compare your transcription with the image, hopefully it will help me improve my skills, as i am still very much a beginner!

Regards,
Denise
Ps looking at records from 1550s mexico city about once a week...came across multiple entries of don fernando portugal as padrino, and one with baltasar sotelo as padrino, probably diego's brother, in the same book where Ana sotelo's baptism was found. But no smoking gun on petronila!

Genealogy Research