Online Status

By NathanJones |

It is hard to find. I located a library in Texas with a copy. but they were not willing to let it out of their state on an inter library loan.

But they were kind enough to copy the ten pages of chapter 58, capitulo 58.
The descent of Petronila Moctezuma and Martin Navarro down through both of their daughters.

The chapter corroborates Petronila's descent from the emperor of the Aztecs. Something I've been looking for for years.

I also have Petronila's marriage record as compiled by Jaime Holcombe. Further proof of her imperial descent.

I would be gald to email my scans to you so everyone can view this valuable material.

And, in hopes that others will contribute what they have and know about Petronila Moctezuma.
My cause celebre!

Online Status

Rose Hardy

18 years 4 months ago

Permalink

Ernie

I would love to see what Jaime Holcomb complied on Petronila. Have you seen
the book "Moctezuma's Children, Aztec Royalty Under Spanish Rule, 1520-1700"
by Donald E Chipman? It's a good book, I bought it from University of Texas
Press. It can also be purchased through Amazon.com

Rose

>From:
>Reply-To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
>To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
>Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Genealogia de Nochistlan
>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 9:19:44 -0700
>
>It is hard to find. I located a library in Texas with a copy. but they were
>not willing to let it out of their state on an inter library loan.
>
>But they were kind enough to copy the ten pages of chapter 58, capitulo 58.
>The descent of Petronila Moctezuma and Martin Navarro down through both of
>their daughters.
>
>The chapter corroborates Petronila's descent from the emperor of the
>Aztecs. Something I've been looking for for years.
>
>I also have Petronila's marriage record as compiled by Jaime Holcombe.
>Further proof of her imperial descent.
>
>I would be gald to email my scans to you so everyone can view this valuable
>material.
>
>And, in hopes that others will contribute what they have and know about
>Petronila Moctezuma.
>My cause celebre!
>

Ernie,
I, too, would love to see those scans. I've yet to find actual
lineage from Moctezuma...in all documents her relationship is
mentioned (grandaughter or great-grandaughter of Moctezuma),
but I've never seen it actually documented (i.e. names and dates).

Please send what you might have. I am really working to piece
together this family's life. By the way, do you have any more
information on Lope Ruis de Esparza's brother, Andres? Would
really appreciate that, too. :)

Thanks,

Connie

P.S. I try to do what I can when I've got a minute. I'm glad
the "Cartas" information helped a bit. I will try to contribute
more. C.

Connie Dominguez
El Paso, TX, USA

My cousin in Las Vegas sent me an article from the Sunday July 2nd newspaper.

According to the article which was excerpted from a lager story in, I think, the magazine Nature.

We are ALL descended from a single person who was born about five thousand years ago!
And possibly as recently as the time of Christ, 2 millenium ago.

Now that one of you mentioned you have not yet directly established your Moctezuma anestry, I wanted to paraphrase it.

According to this article we are all descended from one royal line, or another.
We are all descended from the people who built the great pyramids of Egypt.

We are all descened from the people who domesticated agriculture.

The concept sounded more like numerology, than geneaology. It discussed how it was a mathematical certainty.

Supposedly, all other human lines died out, and only one survived to this day.

This is a fantastic notion. And I am not sure if I agree with the conclusion. But there you have it.

In esssence, we are all the children of Moctezuma.

Hey Ernie:

I am opening a discussion subject.

I am sorry, but I can't agree with your statement that: "In essence, we are
all children of Moctezuma"
Moctezuma lived in the 15th century. What about all the people before him?
There is no way that they were descendents of Moctezuma! There were a lot
of Spaniards during the "Conquista" that did not get "involved" with the
Moctezumas. Yes, we might all be descendents of a single person who was born
five thousand years ago, Moctezuma was one of those descendents, but not
everybody descends from Moctezuma. Just take a look at some of the "Nuestros
Ranchos" genealogy files.

John Gonzalez
gnzlz@verizon.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Online Status

wixaritori (not verified)

18 years 4 months ago

Permalink

On 7/15/06, John Gonzalez <1gnzlz@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Ernie:
>
> I am opening a discussion subject.
>
> I am sorry, but I can't agree with your statement that: "In essence, we
> are
> all children of Moctezuma"
> Moctezuma lived in the 15th century. What about all the people before
> him?
> There is no way that they were descendents of Moctezuma! There were a lot
> of Spaniards during the "Conquista" that did not get "involved" with the
> Moctezumas. Yes, we might all be descendents of a single person who was
> born
> five thousand years ago, Moctezuma was one of those descendents, but not
> everybody descends from Moctezuma. Just take a look at some of the
> "Nuestros
> Ranchos" genealogy files.
>
> John Gonzalez
> gnzlz@verizon.net
>

I think the article Ernie refers to is the following:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00.html

Profile picture for user arturoramos

Online Status

arturoramos

18 years 4 months ago

Permalink

Here is the quote from the Fox News story about our common ancestry:

You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years — and probably on the low side of that range — to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors

So basically, Moctezuma lived about 4500 years too late to be our common ancestor and furthermore, the theory does not state that every person alive at that time was our common ancestor, but rather, that there was a person alive at that time who can count everyone alive today as a descendant. Obviously there were people alive then that can count a far smaller percentage of the population as descendants.

The second claim I don't buy. Early migrations (prior to the ice age) and subsequent genetic isolation due to receding ocean levels would make this impossible from what I know of anthropology. The aborigines in Australia and Native Americans who crossed into continents long before 7000 years ago that remained isolate for some time would make it impossible that the descendants of these people shared the exact same ancestors as the people who remained in the Asia/Africa/Europe landmass.

Genealogy Research