Online Status

Por gpf13 |

A question for Rick Ricci ...

In your info on the Villalpandos posted a few days ago, you mentioned that Petronila de Moctezuma is mentioned that court records show that Petronila is named in the litigation over inheritance (the encomienda?), which confirms she is one of the "other five children" (these, I assume being the children vaguely referenced in the Codex Chimalpahin).

Do you have a reference or citation to a specific document, or group of documents? In PARES, perhaps?

I have read the postings here at NR concerning Guillermo Tovar de Teresa's unpublished work that discusses her ancestry, but no documents were identified. It is unclear if his final work will be published.

I have also read numerous posts that identify Martin Navarro, as "Martin Gabai, el Navarro," but I have seen no contemporary documents that name him in this manner.

I have seen only one document that names Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma. Are there others that have been digitized? This is a marriage dispensation for Bartholome Rodrigues Baxo (or Bajo); this was excerpted in "Genealogia de Nochistlan Antiguio Reino de la Nueva Galicia" and it's location identified by the work of Claudia Reynoso, and others. Please see my NR posting at http://www.nuestrosranchos.org/es/node/20112, and the comments/replies made by other members (such as Armando who provide a transcription at http://www.nuestrosranchos.org/es/node/20566).

If there are other documents that name Petronila, and/or Martin, even if they are not digitized and available on the web, identifying them would be beneficial.

----

On another topic ....

At the Denver Public Library's website, there is information on early New Mexico families, including a report on the descendants of Juan de Villalpando and Ursula Olaes. They were from Leon, GTO, as were at least some of the Villalpando's in Aguascalientes.

This report names more than 2500 descendants of Juan and Ursula, but unfortunately there are no references whatsoever, thus diminishing its value.

I have not been able to connect Tomas de Villalpando, and his wife Maria Velez, with Juan de Villalpando of Leon, or with Diego de Villalpando of Aguascalientes.

Tomas and Maria had at least two sons, Tomas (II) and Marcos. Tomas (II) left many descendants in Aguascalientes, but I have yet to identify any descendants of Marcos (but I will admit not having spent much time researching in the Guanajuato church records).

George Fulton

Buenas Noches
le envio un cordial saludo a usted y a todos los miembros de este foro
una pregunta compañeros

alguien a tenido noticias sobre la publicación del libro de don Guillermo tovar de teresa donde menciona los documento en donde habla del linaje de Petronila de Moctezuma asi como su relación con el emperador Moctezuma ll?

yo soy descendiente de martin gabay navarro y de Petronila de Moctezuma y de esta pareja de su hija ana francisca gabay y lope ruiz de esparza por varias líneas de los hijos de esta ultima pareja.

espero y podremos encontrar el eslabón que nos faltan a muchos de nosotros para relacionar a Petronila de Moctezuma con el emperador Moctezuma ll
por su atención muchas gracias a todos
que tengan un excelente noche saludos
estamos en contacto.

Dear George,

The Vallalpando (Flores Villalpando) branch from Valle de Guadalupe/ Tepatitlan / Ayo el Chico / Arandas leads to ciudad Manuel Doblado, Guanajuato. From there I believe it leads to Tomas son married to a Flores that you posted . I don't recall whether you had them marrying in Aguascalientes or Guanajuato.

The other branch from Valle de Guadalupe / jalostotitlan/ Teocaltiche /Zacatecas was the one you helped me connect to Aguascalientes.

Since both branches left descendants in Valle de Guadalupe where two couples of the same names (Casillas-Villalpando are married in the same year there has been great confusion as which of these two couples are the parents of Francisco Casillas Villalpando. It was only through a document from Claudias dispenses, and real estate records of inheritance that the issue was finally resolved.

I am bringing this same confusion to the "established Romo de Vivar lineage". People that want to stay with the established lines will just ignore this evidence. But I am only seeking to clarify and make sense of the new information that we been provided with. Acknowledging the information in the inquisition records, and Señor Teresa de Tovars claims necessitates questioning accepted truths, and changing our beliefs is a necessity if the facts warrant it.

Thanks again,
Rick A Ricci

A few months ago, a nuestroranchos member mentioned that court records show that Petronila is named in the litigation over inheritance, which confirms she is one of the "other five vaguely referenced in the Codex Chimalpahin. I have not seen those records. They spoke of more than one record.

I do not have a reference or citation to a specific document, or group of documents. I was hoping that the person that had stated this information would speak up and identify where we could find this information.

I would like to hear your opinion on Guillermo Tovar de Teresa's statements regarding the Romo de Vivar / Rangel ancestors..

You have seen only one document that names Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma. I have seen two. Besides the Bartolome Rodriguez Bajo dispensation there is the document that I saw in the west Los Angeles Mormon Library that I can no longer find.

The other documents that name Petronila but the nuestroranchos member did not mention Martin being in those records. I don't know if they are digitized and available on the web, but I agree with you, identifying them would be highly beneficial.

On the other topic of the Villalpandos, While we have not completed the connections between the Juan de Villalpando, Diego Villalpando, and Tomas Villapando, we have identified that they have connections to Aguascalientes, Guanajuato and New Mexico. I believe that we have connected enough pieces to the puzzle to show that they knew and embraced the connection between them. One My Villalpandos ancestors birth in Taos New Mexico while his children and parents were born in Jalostotitlan has sparked a curiosity that leads me to seek out the connection between all these branches. I connected this branch to Zacatecas and then you connected it to Diego Villalpando in Aguascalientes. I connected The Tepatitlan branch to the Flores Villalpando branch in Guanajuato which I believe descends from one of Tomas Villalpandos sons who marries a Flores. You have connected these Villalpandos to the Villalpandos from Aguascalientes. Juan Villalpando and Ursula Olaes have been identified as being from Leon Guanajuato but I believe that we should be able to find the connection through my ancestors in Jalostotitlan. When my ancestors visited their family in New Mexico they may have left some record of how they were related since during this visit one ancestor of mine was born there. I'm hoping his baptismal record or birth record may shed some light when we identify his padrinos. Though we do not have enough pieces to connect all of these people, they all seem to be interconnected and a pride in their Villalpando name and family members

Rick

It is very hard to have a meaningful opinion on this ancestry. There are no citations to accessible documents (note that I posted a request for a scan of Diego Romo de Vivar's baptismal record, but I have not had a response) that I have seen. Posted genealogies with their ancestry are undocumented, thus are not much value.

Without evidence to review, any opinion is simply speculation.

George Fulton

The problem is that most people, over 99 %, just repeat what genealogists have stated over the years. I myself continue to have the traditional dates and people as the parents in my family tree but I do add notes that there are a couple of points that should be addressed before stating that they are 100 per cent confirmed.
First Sr. Teresa de Tovar stated that he had a lot of proof showing a different Rangel tree. The second point is that in the records that show the officials of the inquisition there is a Diego Romo de Vivar from the same time frame as our Diego de Vivar but his parents have different names. Either our Diego Romo de Vivar was not an official of the inquisition as the genealogists have stated or there is an error in the records. If our Diego Romo de Vivar was not a member of the inquisition than Guillermo Teresa de Tovar statements regarding him being deeply involved in the silver mines, and the different Rangel ancestry makes more sense. Since Guillermo Teresa de Tovar is not here to defend his statements we are left to wonder where he found his information.

If the statement that our Diego Romo de Vivar ancestor was an official of the inquisition is true, then we need to change who we have as his parents. I personally read the inquisition records, they definitely name different parents.

Rick A. Ricci

Mr. Ricci,

Couldn't our Diego Romo de Vivar have also been working for the Inquisition
and been a miner too. why do they have to be different people. where does
it say that the other Diego Romo de Vivar has different parents? is there a
source that we can see.

Danny C. Alonso

Dear Danny,

Yes, our Diego Romo de Vivar could have been both a member off the inquisition and worked extensively in the mines. But if he was in the inquisition, then he should have been in the book that recorded all the officials of the inquisition in Mexico. If he was an official of the inquisition, and he was the one listed in the records, then he has different parents than the ones that everyone claims. If he was not an official of the inquisition, and he was the Diego Romo de Vivar that worked in the mines then he had a wife that was surnamed Rangel but had different parents then the ones listed. There are two Diego Romo de Vivars with two spouses with the Rangel surname apparently. Since the wives have different parents and the husbands have different parents we must identify them as two separate couples. Then we must identify the correct couple that is the ancestor to our Romo de Vivar line. It seems that either everyone has the wrong husband or the wrong wife listed as an ancestor.

If there is something wrong with this logic I would hope that someone would clarify the situation for me. Except for George, I don't see anyone else questioning what everyone takes for granted.

PS. I have looked over the inquisition records over and over again. There is only one Diego Romo de Vivar listed as an official of the inquisition and he is not the one that everyone identifies as our ancestor.

Some clarification should be provided when Sr.Teresa de Tovars book is published. We could then look at his information on the miner diego romo de Vivar and see if correlates with the data we have confirmed. He was positive that the diego romo de Vivar that we claim as an ancestor was married to a different woman/Rangel then the one that is claimed. Actually the claim is different parents for her. If we find evidence that we descend from the other Rangel woman then that means we descend from the Diego Romo de Vivar that was an inquisitor and not the miner.

Even though the Romo de Vivar is of great interest to my family, I Can not spend a lot of time researching this at this moment because I have some other goodies already on the fire where I do have answers to questions that have befuddled genealogists for generations. Much of my present research is directed to areas that pertain to the book I am presently writing. As it is, because of work commitments, I will most probably do little genealogical research in the next few months. Then it will most likely involve research for last second additions to the book. My Romo de Vivar research will most likely have to wait to mid 2016.

Thanks,
Rick A. Ricci

Dear George,

In my book on my Romo de Vivar family I do provide a citation to the record naming a Diego Romo de Vivar as an official to the inquisition. I would like to clarify Señor Teresa de Tovars claims before I publish this book since I need clarification on the Rangel branch of the family. Also research into Señor Teresa' de Tovars claims will be needed to support my claims since everyone takes the information that is out there for granted. His research should confirm my claims that the two Diego Romo de Vivars are being confused with one another and once this acknowledgement is made than we can look to separate the two individuals and indent iffy the correct one. Sr. Teresa de Tovar himself took for granted Diego Romo de Vivar and only questioned, and identified, different parents for the wife. He never questioned if There was another Diego Romo De Vivar that was our ancestor. But his statements only renewed my confusion over the inquisition records which state different parents.

Thanks again for all your help,
Rick A Ricci

Dear George,

You asked if anyone had a copy of Diego Romo de vivar's baptismal record. Don't worry about finding that record. Many genealogists have traveled to Toledo to look up this record. They have found a record of a Diego Romo de Vivar with the parents that everyone has. The question is not who his parents are. The question should be "which Diego Romo de Vivar is our ancestor?"

If genealogists knew that our ancestor was named Diego Romo De Vivar and that he was from Rielves, proceeded to go to Rielves to search for a Diego Romo de Vivar born about 1590, and then found a record of one born in 1589 in Rielves they must have jumped for joy as they learned his parents names. The question is did they find the right Diego Romo de Vivar. I have confirmed that the other Diego Romo de Vivar was an official of the inquisition, but they may have overlooked his baptismal record as his record would show his father's name as Perez de Vivar and not Romo. His mother is the one surnamed Romo. If we insist that our ancestor is an official of the inquisition than we need to rethink who our ancestor is. Vital to this discussion is the information the Señor Teresa de tovar claimed to have identifying a wife with different parents. I can't publish until I can review Señor Teresa de Tovars and dig deeper into his claims. His information, combined with mine should identify the correct Diego Romo de Vivar along with the correct Maria Rangel.

A third point that I forgot to bring up was that there has always been confusion about Diego Romo de Vivars death date. The two dates that are used both can't be true since He can't pass away in 1640 and also be alive after 1659. This in itself is a big red flag that we are talking about two Diego Romo de Vivar s.

Since you are rightfully concerned that any information on this subject can be verified, be assured that I am in possession of the inquisition and limpieza de Sangre over many centuries. I have to be careful with the documents as they are older than me and fragile. They weren't handled much but they are very old. I very carefully turn the pages. The documents actually contain a wealth of information, often indentifying not only parents but paternal and maternal grandparents along with where even the parents and grandparents come from which is not always the same location. While looking at the records today looking for Diegos record, I found Bartolome Martin del campo and his limpieza de Sangre and three generations are listed along with where they are from. There are many names in these documents. They are too fragile to handle often. I won't make copies as I don't want to damage the sheets. The sheets are in perfect condition, just very old, and I am afraid of damaging them. I am sure other people must also have these records but I don't know anyone who does. When I had the opportunity to buy them I didn't think twice though I thought it was a little expensive when I made the purchase. I was just so shocked that they were for sale that I just bought them at the asking price.
Thanks again,
Rick A. Ricci

Mr. Ricci and others,

last night I looked for information on Diego Romo de Vivar. theres a bunch
of stuff on the internet and in posts of Nuestros Ranchos and some mention
our Diego Romo de Vivar went to Chihuahua places like Rancho Canutilo and
Santa Maria Del Rio Florida and Hidalgo De Parral, if thats true it sounds
like our Diego Romo de Vivar is the one that's the miner also do you know
when our Diego Romo de Vivar was supposed to die? I saw on Nuestros Ranchos
and other places a lot of different dates. Some say he died in 1650 in
Hacienda Canutilo and some say he died in 1649 in Santa Maria Del Rio
Florida. this geni.com tree, which I know usually has errors says he died
in Parral in 1640
http://www.geni.com/people/Diego-Romo-de-Vivar-y-P%C3%A9rez/60000000092…

do you know if our Diego Romo de Vivar was in Chihuahua and which death
date is right?

Danny C. Alonso

Hi Danny,

Yes, our Diego Romo de Vivar did own property in Chihuahua and travelled extensively to the northern territories of Mexico. Also, he couldn't have died in any of those years since he was still purchasing property in 1658. And, when his wife, María Rangel died in 1659, he was also still alive:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11773-147776-25?cc=1502404…

Here is a record of the death of one of his indigenous servants named Ana in 1662 who is listed as being from Sonora. Her husband is listed as being from Sinaloa. The record is proof of Diego Romo de Vivar's travels to northern Mexico:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11773-145260-58?cc=1502404…

Below that is probably the defuncion for his daughter in law, Luisa de los Ángeles de los Reyes, who was married to his son, also named Diego Romo de Vivar.

Diego Romo de Vivar was getting fairly advanced in age when his wife died, so he probably died shortly thereafter, sometime during the 1660s.

Chris

I reread the section on Diego Romo de Vivar in Retoños de España en La Nueva Galicia 2011 by Mariano González Leal.

Here is some information found in it:

He states that the Romo, Vivar, Rincón, and Agüero are from Toledo.

In 1795 he profoundly studied records found in the Archivo Histórico Nacional de Madrid that relate to those families. Rielves has one of the best conserved records which start in 1573 and in 1574 the records the records show several Romo families enormously extended throughout the jurisdiction and there are various branches of this lineage.

In the Archivo Histórico Nacional de Madrid, ramo Inquisición, legajo 122, número 12 from 1629 there is a limpieza de sangre (proof of noble lineage) for Diego Pérez de Vivar y Romo vecino de la villa de Teguantepeque en esta Nueva España y natural de la villa de México. Padres Diego Pérez de Vivar y María Romo vecinos de Tehuantepec y naturales de Rielves en el Arzobispado de Toledo, a tres leguas de Toledo.....Pedro Romo hermano de María Romo fue Comisario del Santo Oficio en Fuensalida.

****

De estos linajes regionales. los Romos y los Vivares....hubo varios caballeros que pasaron a Indias, todos ellos parientes entre si.

Uno de los primeros emigrantes de este linaje a la Nueva España fue Diego Pérez de Vivar y Romo...

[The above person is probably the one the Ricci found a document about and is not our ancestor although likely a relative of his. There is some information about the document at the Pares site. Just search for Diego Perez de Vivar año 1629. Once you click on it you will find that it says Informaciones genealógicas de Diego Pérez de Vivar, natural de México, pretendiente a familiar del Tribunal de la Inquisición de la citada ciudad, y de su mujer Catalina Ponce de León, natural de Huehuetlán (México)]

Don Mariano said he found the baptismal record of Diego Romo de Vivar on 16 Sep 1975 which is listed as 12 Mar 1589. So he is the one that reported the baptismal date.

In the genealogical information of a Capuchin nun in Lagos de Moreno named María Isabel Josefa a witness stated that she was a descendant of a Governor of Parral. Mariano González Leal states that he was actually a Teniente de Alcalde Mayor de las minas de Yndee, en las inmediaciones del Real de Parral. There is another piece of information about his cousin Diego Romo de Arellano who was also a cousin of Pedro Rincón the (originally from Rielves and direct ancestor of the Mayorazo de Cienega de Mata) [mentioned at http://bibliotecadigital.ilce.edu.mx/sites/estados/libros/aguas/html/se…], as was Diego Romo de Vivar. He wrote in his will that he had helped Diego Romo de Vivar and he had lent him a slave that he sold to Hernando Bustillos. Mariano mentions that Hernando Bustillos was the owner of hacienda de Canutillo in the jurisdiction of Real de Parral. [For those that didn't already know, a Real is a mining town.]

Mariano mentions documents about Diego Romo de Vivar from 1620 and 1621 showing that he was in Mexico City. Then he mentions a couple of other documents showing him to be an administrator of haciendas in Ayo El Grande and Atotonilco.

On 30 June 1625 his son is baptized in San Felipe del Obispado de Michoacán. [Currently San Felipe, Guanajuato also known as San Felipe Torres Mochas]

10 Oct 1634 he was at the hacienda de el Canutillo in which he states he is Teniente de Alcalde Mayor.

Then 3 Feb 1647 as a vecino y labrador del valle de San Bartolomé, provincia de Santa Barbara y primer poblador en el río de Conchos. On another document from 6 Feb 1647 he states that he is pacificador de los indios mansos del Río del Norte.

26 Mar 1658 he buys the hacienda Rincón, today Rincón de Romos, and he left his family there and went back north after the death of his wife in 1659. He was still alive in 1666. [He doesn't mention the source for him still being alive in 1666].

Guillermo Tovar de Teresa had Diego Romo de Vivar's death as 1650 - Santa Maria del Río Florido according to his Geneanet site at http://gw.geneanet.org/monardes?lang=es;p=diego;n=romo+de+vivar so he had a mistake there also.

Does anyone have a copy of the Jaime Holcombe Isunza sheet on Diego Romo de Vivar that they are willing to share? In his Letters, Jaime also states "María died on 19 June 1659. Shortly after, Diego returned to Parral." so I wonder why Guillermo Tovar de Teresa thought that Diego Romo de Vivar died in 1650. You can read the letters at https://www.dropbox.com/s/6invajbk0zzo4jm/Letters%20Edited%20for%20Dist…

Dear Armando,
I have many questions on both Diego Romo de Vivar and Maria Rangel.
Where is the evidence that our Diego Romo de Vivar is the one that is baptized in 1589?
Why the different ancestries on Maria Rangel?
Why the different dates of death?
If he is an official of the inquisition where is limpieza de Sangre?
How is it that our Diego romo de Vivar is found all over Mexico from Northern Mexico, to Aguacalientes, and to Mexico City without mention of the other Diego Romo de Vivars?
A couple of years ago a professional genealogist in Spain stated that our Diego romo de Vivar descended from a Diego Romo de Vivar married to a Catalina Ponce de Leon. This genealogist even provided their parents. I tossed this information aside but now that you bring it up I believe it is now relevant to our discussion. Now that you connect Catalina Ponce de Leon to our Mexican Inquisitor Diego Romo de Vivar (Diego Perez de Vivar Romo) there is even more reason to dig deeper into these questions.

Señor Guillermo tovar de Teresa was insistent that he had strong evidence that The Diego Romo de Vivar born in 1589 was born to a Maria Rangel with different parents. We need to look at all the evidence and decide who is the correct diego romo de Vivar and who is the correct Maria Rangel.

If you insist that our Diego Romo de Vivar is a pacificador de Indios, then where is his limpieza de Sangre? Right now, with the documents in hand, the only Diego Romo de Vivar that is an official of the inquisition is the one that was at one time married to Catalina Ponce and is also known as Diego Perez de Vivar. It seems more likely that our Diego Romo de Vivar was married twice, first to Catalina Ponce and later to a Maria Rangel in mexico with her parents still in dispute. The work by the professional genealogist that I had discarded needs to be found and searched for clues .

Tovar de Teresa's work on the Rangel family and the work of the genealogist from Spain is extremely important to this discussion.
Or you could just leave things alone and accept Mariano Gonzalez leals word.

Is this the same Armando that wouldn't accept me telling him that I held in my hand the document that connected our Petronila To Moctezuma? Won't accept that I saw it with my own eyes? Yet accepts Diego Romo de Vivars parentage despite all of these issues? Your response actually reinforces The inquisitors case because now you have brought Catalina Ponce de Leon and the other genealogists work into the discussion.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my comments,
Thanks,
Rick A Ricci

oops I posted this with no subject so I have to bring it over here.

Armando,

I have sort of the same question of Mr. Ricci, but I noticed on several
peoples different trees they have Diego Perez De Vivar and Catalina Ponce
De Leon as the Grandparents of our Capitan Diego Romo De Vivar like these
peoples

http://gw.geneanet.org/turandot1?lang=en;pz=luis;nz=nunez+gornes;ocz=0;…

http://www.paginasprodigy.com.mx/glezgo/familiago/pafg61.htm#203

Could the people thats mentioned in pares as a person from the inquisicion
be the grandparents of our Capitan Diego Romo De Vivar?

Danny C. Alonso

No, he is not the grandfather, he is a contemporary of the time frame we have for our ancestor. He is in Mexico. Unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, he is the pacificador de los Indios. He is the Diego Romo de Vivar with a limpieza de Sangre. Placing him as the grandfather is a way of not disrupting the lines that everyone follows.

And yes he could have been involved in the mines, but he is the only one that is an inquisitor, and our ancestor is identified as an inquisitor. The identification of our Diego Romo de Vivar as an inquisitor has to be a mistake if we keep saying that he is the Diego Romo de Vivar born in 1589 in Rielves.

I don't mind if someone proves this wrong, let's see the evidence.

Rick A. Ricci

Mr. Ricci,

I looked at the information Armando posted and it seems to be proof that
your person and our Diego Romo De Vivar are different people. it doesn't
seem there's really any evidence to suggest he is the same person. the
stuff on the internet and google books show lots of information on our
Diego Romo De Vivar and most of them show him buying property in
Aguascalientes and Chihuahua and pacifying Indians and being at the Mines
in Durango but nothing about the inquisition. Plus your person doesn't seem
to be called Diego Romo de Vivar, he seems to be called Diego Perez de
Vivar according to Pares and this site

http://www.archivesportaleurope.net/ead-display/-/ead/pl/aicode/ES-2807…

Danny C. Alonso

Dear Rick,

No one has his death record for our Diego Romo de Vivar nor have they reported to have seen it. We only know when he was alive. On 26 Mar 1658 he purchased la hacienda El Rincón so he was definitely alive then. The death record of his wife María Rangel 19 June 1659 does not say she was a viuda so the assumption is that he was still alive then also. The record that Christopher shared with us showed that he had Chichimeca servants from Sonora and Sinaloa in 24 Nov 1662. We still need the record from 1666 that don Mariano González Leal implied existed to determine that he was alive at that time also.

Since our Diego Romo de Vivar was still married to María Rangel in 1659 and their first son Joseph was baptized 30 June 1625 in San Felipe, Gto then we know that they were married the entire time from 1625 to 1659. Therefore, he could not be the Diego Pérez de Vivar that submitted his genealogical information in 1629 since Diego Pérez de Vivar was married to Catalina Ponce de León and Diego Romo de Vivar was married to María Rangel in that same year.

The testament of his son Pedro Romo de Vivar states yo, el Capitán Pedro Romo de Vivar vecino de esta Villa de Aguascalientes y natural del Real y minas de San Joseph del Parral en el Reino de la Vizcaya, hijo legítimo del Capitán Diego Romo de Vivar y de María Rangel, vecinos que fueron del dicho Real ya difuntos…. soy casado y velado según orden de nuestra santa madre Iglesia católica romana con Lorenza Ruiz de Esparza. http://www.nuestrosranchos.org/node/15484 So with that we have a document of a son of our Diego Romo de Vivar and our Miaría Rangel stating that he was born in Real y minas de San Joseph del Parral en el Reino de la Vizcaya which is now in Chihuahua but was living in Aguascalientes and married and died in Aguascalientes.

Through various dispensas we know that Pedro was the brother of Diego, Gerónimo, and Isabel. From at least one other dispensa we know that Isabel was the sister of María Rangel Romo de Vivar the wife of Miguel de Cobos https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-18415-16200-82?cc=1874591&wc…. From the following dispensa https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-18411-18560-93?cc=1874591&wc… we know that Francisco Romo and Juan Romo were brothers and both were sons of Diego Romo and María Rangel. From the dispensa at https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-18410-37591-7?cc=1874591&wc=… we know that Francisco and Gerónimo Romo were brothers. Some descendants of Francisco Romo used the Rangel surname and there is never a descendant of our Diego Romo that uses the Ponce de León surname.

I have yet to see well documented ancestries on Maria Rangel so I have no idea why anyone has an ancestry on her.

There aren’t documents showing that our Diego Romo de Vivar was an official of the Inquisition. That was Diego Pérez de Vivar.

I have no idea why there is no other mention of Diego Pérez de Vivar in México. Maybe he never became an official. Maybe he died shortly after becoming an offical. Maybe the documents have been lost or just not identified yet. There are too many possible reasons.

I never connected Catalina Ponce de León to our Diego Romo de Vivar. He is connected to Diego Pérez de Vivar.

There is no proof that our Diego Romo de Vivar is the one that is baptized in 1589 so if you want to toss that baptismal date and location that is fine. However, he is not the same person as Diego Pérez de Vivar.

I don’t know of any evidence that our Diego Romo de Vivar was born to a María Rangel. We only have evidence that he was married to María Rangel.

There are plenty of people that held posts such as that of our Diego Romo de Vivar that we don’t have a limpieza de sangre for. It shouldn’t be surprising that his hasn’t been found.

Guillermo Tovar de Teresa's work would be valuable if we had access to it. He has made several mistakes just like all other genealogists have. One of them was not understanding the genealogy of Juan González de Hermosillo even after Sergio Gutiérrez pointed it out to him.

No doubt that the genealogist from Spain hadn’t seen all of the documents on Diego Romo de Vivar and his descendants. Otherwise he would not have confused Diego Romo de Vivar and Diego Pérez de Vivar.

I have never met you so I am not the Armando you had a discussion with about a document that you held in your hand. I have never argued against Petronila being a descendant of Moctezuma. You are either confusing me with someone or confusing what was said in discussions on this site. Please don’t do that.

Why are you accepting that Diego Romo de Vivar and Diego Pérez de Vivar is the same person despite all of the evidence against it? Diego Romo de Vivar could not have been married with María Rangel between 1625 and 1659 and have been married with Catalina Ponce de León in 1629.

Dear Armando,

I agree that Diego Romo de Vivar and Diego Perez de Vivar are not likely the same person if Diego Perez de Vivar is already married to Catalina Ponce. I did not realize that this Diego Perez de Vivar is the same one married to Catalina Ponce, my recollection was that she was from earlier in the 1500s and was married to a Diego Perez de Vivar with different parents. My records don't show him as being married to her.

What I am not sold on is that our Diego Romo de Vivar is the same one as the one born in 1589. The third Diego Romo de Vivar that George Fulton brought up as arriving in Mexico also fits the time frame and arrives with family. I am looking for the evidence that shows that our Diego Romo de Vivar is the one born in 1589, came over to Mexico and was an official of the inquisition. I have not found thAt evidence and wonder why. The claim that he was an official of the inquisition did require a limpieza de Sangre if they followed their rules so your statement that he didn't need one is new to me. I guess they didn't always follow their rules.

I also feel that we shouldn't disregard Guillermo Tovar de Teresa's claims. If he is correct than I still believe that all these things that we claim to be done by one person was actually done by two people with the same name with possibly wives with also the same name.
Rick A Ricci

Dear Rick,

You continually post about your records but you rarely cite sources, dates, or what information is contained in them. It looks like your information is the same that some other people have that is without primary sources and has the wrong genealogy. Any genealogy that has Catalina Ponce as an ancestor has the wrong genealogy because the only document that mentions her as being part of a Romo family is the one that is for Diego Pérez de Vivar.

George Fulton did not bring up a third Diego Romo de Vivar as arriving in Mexico. That Diego Romo doesn’t use the surname Vivar and he went to Peru. Diego Pérez de Vivar was the one that submitted his genealogy to be an inquisitor. There is only one Diego Romo de Vivar which is the one we descend from. You are confusing very simple facts.

You are the only one that is claiming that our Diego Romo de Vivar was an official of the inquisition. Mariano González de Leal never did and Jaime Holcombe Isunza never did. That’s because it was Diego Pérez de Vivar and not Diego Romo de Vivar.

We don't even know which two people named Diego Romo de Vivar it was that Guillermo Tovar de Teresa claims were being confused. If they were Diego Romo de Vivar and Diego Pérez de Vivar then we have already established that they are two different people and there is no longer a reason to mention Guillermo Tovar de Teresa's claim.

When I looked for Diego Romo de Vivar in PARES some time ago, I did not find anything; so I then looked for Romo. A number of records come up, and I went through the whole list.

There are a few Romo's from Rielves, and I asked, through a posting at NR, if anyone knew if there was a connection between these Romo families and our Romo de Vivar. None of these records were digitized. Daniel offered an opinion that there may be or could be a relationship, but it was only an opinion.

Can anyone cite a primary reference that connects Diego Romo de Vivar in Mexico to Rielves in Castille?

I know that sometimes compound names are not always used in full - I've seen this with the Macias Valades and Ruis de Esparsa. Thus these Romo's may be Romo de Vivar, but that is only speculation at this point.

The Rielves church records are not listed in the Family History Library catalog; it seems that few Spanish church records are available at Family Search. Thus, we must rely on secondary sources.

I would like to see what is in Mariano Gonzalez Leal's latest work on the Romo de Vivar family, but I have yet to see a copy.

George Fulton

Danny,

Instead of using the site http://www.archivesportaleurope.net for records from Spain it is best to use the site http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=100 where you can see more information directly from the Spanish portal.

Put the following in:

Buscar: Diego Pérez de Vivar
Fecha desde: 1629
Signatura: INQUISICIÓN,1222,Exp.12

Then click on Buscar at the bottom. Then click Consejo de Inquisición then click Informaciones genealógicas de Diego Pérez de Vivar y de Catalina Ponce de León, su mujer

In this case the only extra information is Informaciones genealógicas de Diego Pérez de Vivar, natural de México, pretendiente a familiar del Tribunal de la Inquisición de la citada ciudad, y de su mujer Catalina Ponce de León, natural de Huehuetlán (México) but other times the extra information will be more and at times you can see digital copies of documents.

Armando,

Thank you so much. I will only use the Pares site instead, and thank you for explaining all of the information. This clears up a lot. you explained everything that I was confused about and proved once and for all that the two Diego's couldnt be the same people.

Danny C. Alonso

Armando, I don't think i'm doing the Pares right. I entered the information and clicked the buttons you said but mine doesn't show me the grandparents of Catalina Ponce De Leon like yours does.

Danny C. Alonso

Danny,

The Pares sites doesn't have the parents and grandparents of Catalina Ponce de León. Mariano González Leal had transcribed the information into his book Retoños de España en La Nueva Galicia. He has a copy of the original document.

Armando,

Thank you. I thought I was missing something. Did he travel to spain to get those records or are they available somewhere here

Danny C. Alonso

Danny,

Mariano González Leal traveled to Spain in 1975 to view the records at the Archivo Histórico Nacional de Madrid. I had also mentioned that in the post titled Diego Romo de Vivar in Retoños de España.

Danny,

The reason those people have Diego Pérez de Vivar and Catalina Ponce de León Fernández de Castañeda as the grandparents of our Capitán Diego Romo de Vivar is because they copied a genealogy that someone confused the limpieza de sangre of 1629 for Diego Pérez de Vivar as being for the grandfather of our Diego Romo de Vivar which is exactly what Rick Ricci seems to be doing. Notice that they don't cite sources for their work either.

Our Diego Romo de Vivar stated on 30 Oct 1620 that he was 33 years old. We know that in those days people couldn't remember their exact age so it shouldn't be taken literally but as a guide to the age within a few years. This would make Diego Pérez de Vivar too young to be the grandfather of our Diego Romo de Vivar since a grandfather of a person that was 42 years old in 1629 would be too old to be an inquisitor or not even alive in most cases.

The limpieza de sangre from 1629 has Diego Pérez de Vivar as being married to Catalina Ponce de León and it has her genealogical information also. It says that she was daughter of Juan Ponce de León and Clara de Castañeda and it provide the towns in Mexico they were born in. Her paternal grandparents were Diego de Ordaz Ponce de León from Mexico and Beatriz Ramírez de Acevedo from the Reino de León (I assume Spain). Her maternal grandparents were Alonso Fernández de Castañeda from the Arzobispado de Burgos (definitely Spain) and María de Quiroz from Merida.

It was from this family that they got Catalina Ponce de León Fernández de Castañeda as being the grandmother of our Diego Romo de Vivar but the dates totally refute that possibility.

You should try to get a hold of a copy of this section of the book Retoños de España en la Nueva Galicia edition 2011 by Mariano González Leal so you can read all of the information that is in the book.

The baptismal record for Joseph Romo de Vivar, in San Felipe (GTO), 30 Jun 1625, is at this address: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-20567-22048-90?cc=1860831…

The record is difficult to read, and it is in the volume Family Search labeled as "Bautismos de castas 1600-1672," at image 120, in the church of San Felipe Apostol, San Felipe, Guanajuato. I believe the record reads as follows:

In the margin: Joseph - Espanol

"en veinta del mes de Junio de mil seis cientos y veinte y sinco bautise a Joseph hijo de diego romo de vibar y maria Rengel vecinos de s miguel fue [or fue su?] pedrino pedro Garcia de [illegible]"

There are two other baptisms as part of the same record (the signature follows the third baptism).

The second baptism is "Franco hijo de Franco [surname illegible] y de Juene" in which Diego Romo de Vivar is named as the padrino. The third baptism, Ysabel, seems to have the same parents as Franco (Francisco?), and is perhaps a twin. I cannot read the name of the madrina (I am pretty sure she is not Maria Rangel). Perhaps someone can read it better than I.

George Fulton

For the baptism of Joseph Romo de Vivar after San Miguel it should be gr for Grande but for some reason the tail is inverted. San Miguel Allende was called San Miguel El Grande prior to the independence of Mexico.

On the line after San Miguel gr it does say "fue su pedrino Pedro Garcia de" and it looks like Herrera after that.

For the third baptism this is what I think it says:

"el mesmo dia mes y año bauticé a Ysabel hija de
Francisco otomí y Juana, fue su madrina
Mencia naturales de el Miguel Grande"

Since pedrino should be padrino and madrine should be madrina then we can tell the priest uses the letter e where a should be or writes e likes a at times. So Juene is actually Juana.

Armando

Thank you for help with reading this record.

Since I did the above post, I noted that this film has been extracted, but the folks that did it had trouble with the handwriting as well. "Romo de Vibar" is extracted as "Romo de Ibar" and they also missed Francisco's surname.

George Fulton

George,

You're welcome. In their defense it does not say "Vibar" it does look more like "Ibar" and if they weren't familiar with this family they had no way to understand what the priest meant to write. He had horrible handwriting and sometimes skipped letters such as one letter for Vibar and San for San Miguel. The other priest has legible handwriting, dots the i, the a and e are easily distinguishable, and he doesn't use mesmo for mismo.

Mesmo was a more ancient way of saying mismo which comes from medipsĭmus from vulgar latin. It's still used in some rural places of Mexico.

Dear George,

In a previous post you identified another Diego Romo de Vivar in addition to the one we all identify as the progenitor of the Romo de Vivars. You wrote.:

"Diego Romo, natural de Rielves (en la información pone Illán de Vacas), soltero, hijo de Juan Romo y Ana Diaz (de Aguero), al Perú como criado del licenciado Luis Romo. Información y licencia en CONTRATACION, 5234B, N.1, R.30. The reocrd is also dated Dec. 17, 1591."
In http://www.nuestrosranchos.org/node/17268?page=1

When you add the Diego Romo de Vivar that I found as an official of the inquisition then we have three men named "Diego Romo de Vivar" who are contemporaries.

Diego Romo de Vivar, official de the inquisition in what is now known as Mexico, born in the late 1500's contemporary of the Diego Romo de Vivar born in Rielves (just outside Toledo) in 1589

This Diego Romo de Vivar ( aka Diego Perez de Vivar (III)
Son of. Diego Perez de Vivar (II) and Maria Romo

Diego Perez de Vivar (II) of Diego Perez de Vivar (I) born in Fuensalida ( close to Rielves, just outside Toledo) and Maria Diaz

Maria Romo is the daughter of Pedro Romo born in Rielves and Maria Diaz

Genealogy Research