Online Status

Por gpf13 |

I am trying to sort out an interesting question about Juan de Santiago or de Santiago Escobar.

There is a Juan de Santiago, husband of Gertrudis Navarro, was buried on 1 Sep 1729, in Aguascalientes. If I read the burial record correctly, he was married three times (only Gertrudis Navarro is mentioned), and had 45 legitimate children, of who 24 were living at the time of his death!!

There is a Juan de Santiago (also known Juan de Santiago Escobar) who married Antonia Ruis de Esparza on 6 Jul 1665, in Aguascalients. They had at least these children:
-Juan, chr 8 Mar 1666
-Marcos, chr 8 Mar 1666 (married Beatriz de Aguirre)
-Joan (Juan), chr 30 Sep 1667
-Antonio de Santiago y Escobar, chr 5 Sep 1670 (married Juana Maria Delgado)
-Juan, chr 30 Mar 1673 (apparently married Rosa Romo de Vivar [I can't confirm this])
-Francisco, chr 30 Mar 1673
-Joseph, chr 4 Sep 1676
-Maria, chr 14 Apr 1680
-Juan de Santiago Escobar, chr 30 Aug 1682 (married 1. Josepha Flores and 2. Gertrudis Rosalia de la Paz)
-Miguel Antonio de Escobar y Santiago, chr 23 Apr 1685 (married Maria Sotelo de Villalpando)

Juan de Santiago married again, Gertrudis de Esparza y Rangel Castilla (or Ruis de Esparza) on 7 Oct 1698 (the marriage record says he is the widower or Antonia). They had at least these children:
-Josepha chr. 11 Oct 1699
-Salbador de Santiago de Escobar, chr. 9 Sep 1701 (married Elena Lorensa de Villalpando)
-Francisca, chr. 16 Mar 1703
-Maria, chr 14 Aug 1705. The baptismal record does not say that her mother is deceased.

There is a Gertrudis (no last name) wife of Juan Santiago who was buried in June 1705.

Juan de Santiago (or de Santiago Escobar) married Maria Gertrudis Navarro on 26 May 1706. There is no mention that he is a widower. They had at least these children:
-Joseph Manuel, chr. 8 May 1707
-Maria Juliana, chr. 11 May 1711
-Catha. Cecilia, chr. 8 Dec 1716
-Augustina, chr. 7 Sep 1723
-Maria de Siberia, chr 26 Apr 1725
-Mathiana, chr 30 Mar 1727
-Maria Isidra, no baptismal record, born bef 1729/30 (married Manuel Jaimes)
-Brijida, no baptismal record, born bef 1729/30 (married Joseph Theodoro Martin Ruis de Esparza)
-Juana Josepha, no baptismal record, born bef 1729/30 (married Miguel Antonio de Medina)

If these two Juan de Santiago's are the same, I am missing numerous children, but do account for most of the 24. If some of the children were stillborn, they would not have been baptised, which would explain the lack of baptismal records. Would they have been in the burial registers?

My question: Are these two Juan de Santiago's the same?

Has anyone come across these (this?) families. I would be interested to hear.

George Fulton
Pleasanton

Hi George, you make a good point, well I think the other 20 children are missing, you could fit in many kids, there are huge gaps especially with Gertrudis Navarro she could have easily had another 8 or 9. As well as the other Gertrudis another 4 or 5. Same thing with Antonia another 4 or so. Don Juan sounds like the guy who had a child every year, I mean 45 he would have to have one every year, unless he had twins several times. another possibility. You could try looking at other "hot spots" where the Spanish of Aguas could go, a popular one, I have stumbled upon is PINOS, ZACATECAS. For some reason you find several of the early settlers going up there. Others include the rest of Aguas, sometimes northern Los Altos usually Lagos or Teocaltiche seem the common places. Also try Nochistlán. But to save time, I guess looking at the "Defunciones" would be helpful too in Aguas, since Id imagine they burried their stillborn (prob had some) where they lived (Aguas) . -Daniel

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/

You do not have to have a child every year or twins to have a large number of children if you are male. When people hear that there were 8 kids in my family they are surprised that it is so large. I do not tell them that My biological father has 35 children from different women. He was from Jalisco.He had many of these children out of wedlock when he was still married to my mother. I know of one half sister that was a few months older than me so we were in the belly at the same time for many months. I have had strangers walk up to me and tell me that they were my sibling or niece.

________________________________

From: research-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.org on behalf of Daniel M?ndez del Camino
Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 10:46 PM
To: Patty Hoyos
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Juan de Santiago or de Santiago Escobar

Hi George, you make a good point, well I think the other 20 children are missing, you could fit in many kids, there are huge gaps especially with Gertrudis Navarro she could have easily had another 8 or 9. As well as the other Gertrudis another 4 or 5. Same thing with Antonia another 4 or so. Don Juan sounds like the guy who had a child every year, I mean 45 he would have to have one every year, unless he had twins several times. another possibility. You could try looking at other "hot spots" where the Spanish of Aguas could go, a popular one, I have stumbled upon is PINOS, ZACATECAS. For some reason you find several of the early settlers going up there. Others include the rest of Aguas, sometimes northern Los Altos usually Lagos or Teocaltiche seem the common places. Also try Nochistlán. But to save time, I guess looking at the "Defunciones" would be helpful too in Aguas, since Id imagine they burried their stillborn (prob had some) where they lived (Aguas) . -Daniel

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/

Richard,

The case of Juan de Santiago Escobar is unusual because he had fortyfive
(45) LEGITIMATE children. None of these were out of wedlock. He married
three times and lived a long life, probably well into his eighties.

Bill Figueroa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricci, Richard"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Juan de Santiago or de Santiago Escobar

You do not have to have a child every year or twins to have a large number
of children if you are male. When people hear that there were 8 kids in my
family they are surprised that it is so large. I do not tell them that My
biological father has 35 children from different women. He was from
Jalisco.He had many of these children out of wedlock when he was still
married to my mother. I know of one half sister that was a few months older
than me so we were in the belly at the same time for many months. I have had
strangers walk up to me and tell me that they were my sibling or niece.

Funny, I've been trying to find the link back to the Santiago's on my paternal line forever... it's probably him... :-)

________________________________
From: Bill Figueroa
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:07:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Juan de Santiago or de Santiago Escobar

Richard,

The case of Juan de Santiago Escobar is unusual because he had fortyfive (45) LEGITIMATE children. None of these were out of wedlock. He married three times and lived a long life, probably well into his eighties.

Bill Figueroa

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricci, Richard"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Juan de Santiago or de Santiago Escobar

You do not have to have a child every year or twins to have a large number of children if you are male. When people hear that there were 8 kids in my family they are surprised that it is so large. I do not tell them that My biological father has 35 children from different women. He was from Jalisco.He had many of these children out of wedlock when he was still married to my mother. I know of one half sister that was a few months older than me so we were in the belly at the same time for many months. I have had strangers walk up to me and tell me that they were my sibling or niece.

What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
(but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?

Second question:

If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.

-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com

While we are on the subject of marriages, has anyone ever seen how much was paid for a marriage dispensation?  I know  my grandfathers' sister told her children that when she and her husband got married they had to pay for a dispensation. Her words were 
"as if money would wipe out bloodlines," they were third cousins.  She never said what they had to pay though.
 
Linda in Everett
 

--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Stuart Armstrong wrote:

From: Stuart Armstrong
Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:48 AM

What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
(but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?

I think you answered your own first question with your second question. It seems that many marriages were done in capillas and later recorded in the bigger town that had jurisdiction with sometimes jurisdiction is in doubt, like what i find in the valle, and they are listed in two bigger towns.
I have had some information recorded supposedly on the same date at jalos and tepa. Sometimes the recorded date is the date that it actually happened but sometimes it seems to be the date that it was recorded.
sometimes there is a remarriage because sometimes they made them remarry because they did not get a dispensation the first time and were later found to be closely related.

Ricci

________________________________

From: research-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.org on behalf of Stuart Armstrong
Sent: Sun 4/5/2009 7:48 AM
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios

What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
(but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?

Second question:

If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.

-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com

Stuart,
Informaciones Matrimoniales are marriage licences. The processs would start with the couple filing a petition to marry where they express their intention by free will (without being forced in any way). Since the marriage was being sanctioned by the Catholic Church, it had to follow the laws of the Chruch (Holy Council - e.g. Trent). Accordingly, there were specific requirements: being single (or widow or widower), never had expressed a vote of chastity (nuns and priests), not related, publicly express their intention in three festive dates (banns- inter missarum solemnia), and finally, show proof of their condition. To fulfil this last requirement, the couple gave their testimony after making the sign of the cross, and had to present witnesses that would would confirm their statements. Any objection (e.g., being related) would have to be reviewed by Archobishop, who may grant or deny the petion. Often as you mention, the entire process would be completed after the marriage da
te. One of these reasons included that the couple would be 'casados' but 'no velados'. I am not sure what being 'velados' implies. Maybe someone in the group knows.

Jaime

Hello Richard and Jaime,

Thanks for the info.
I heard that sometimes the priest actually carried the register book
from town to town.

Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:23:11 PM, you wrote:

> I think you answered your own first question with your second
> question. It seems that many marriages were done in capillas and
> later recorded in the bigger town that had jurisdiction

> Sometimes the recorded date is the date that it
> actually happened but sometimes it seems to be the date that it was recorded.
> sometimes there is a remarriage because sometimes they made them
> remarry because they did not get a dispensation the first time and
> were later found to be closely related.

> Second question:

> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
> the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
> Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.

--
Best regards,
Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com

> Second question:

> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco

"Stuart, I have seen in some entries the name of the rancho in the margin to indicate where the pretenso or the pretensa were from."

________________________________
From: Stuart Armstrong
To: "Ricci, Richard"
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 3:46:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios

Hello Richard and Jaime,

Thanks for the info.
I heard that sometimes the priest actually carried the register book
from town to town.

Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:23:11 PM, you wrote:

> I think you answered your own first question with your second
> question. It seems that many marriages were done in capillas and
> later recorded in the bigger town that had jurisdiction

> Sometimes the recorded date is the date that it
> actually happened but sometimes it seems to be the date that it was recorded.
> sometimes there is a remarriage because sometimes they made them
> remarry because they did not get a dispensation the first time and
> were later found to be closely related.

> Second question:

> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
> the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
> Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.

--
Best regards,
Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com

In regards to your second question, it is my experience that the margin entry is the town where the couple is from, not where the marriage is performed. Many names in the margin are simply small places served by church where the ceremony is performed. You will find that the majority of these places did not have a local church or for some reason the couple decided not to marry in their local church.

> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:48:21 -0600
> From: stuartarms@gmail.com
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios
>
> What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
> understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
> or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
> occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
> were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
> (but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
> wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?
>
>
>
>
> Second question:
>
> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
> the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
> Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.
>
> -- Best regards, Stuart
> mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
>

I have found the opposite. the margin entry is where the marriage takes place and where the individual is from is in the body of the record since the individuals getting married were often from different ranches or towns. At least that is how I read it. many times what is in the body of the record is different from what is in the margin.
Ricci

________________________________

From: research-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.org on behalf of Lona Rivera
Sent: Mon 4/6/2009 9:47 PM
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios

In regards to your second question, it is my experience that the margin entry is the town where the couple is from, not where the marriage is performed. Many names in the margin are simply small places served by church where the ceremony is performed. You will find that the majority of these places did not have a local church or for some reason the couple decided not to marry in their local church.

> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:48:21 -0600
> From: stuartarms@gmail.com
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios
>
> What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
> understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
> or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
> occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
> were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
> (but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
> wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?
>
>
>
>
> Second question:
>
> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
> the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
> Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.
>
> -- Best regards, Stuart
> mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
>

This is one of several reasons I have so much trouble with placenames
in Mexico.

> In regards to your second question, it is my experience that the
> margin entry is the town where the couple is from, not where the
> marriage is performed. Many names in the margin are simply small
> places served by church where the ceremony is performed. You will
> find that the majority of these places did not have a local church
> or for some reason the couple decided not to marry in their local church.

> I have found the opposite. the margin entry is where the marriage
> takes place and where the individual is from is in the body of the
> record since the individuals getting married were often from
> different ranches or towns. At least that is how I read it. many
> times what is in the body of the record is different from what is in the margin.
> Ricci

--
Best regards,
Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com

Here is a great website that can help you with name places. It has helped me a great deal in figuring out where towns and villages are in regards to the past and present churches. http://mexico.pueblosamerica.com/

I have lived in and traveled extensively in Mexico in search of history, places and churches if you ever need help with a specific place, let me know I would be glad to help.

> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:03:27 -0600
> From: stuartarms@gmail.com
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios
>
> This is one of several reasons I have so much trouble with placenames
> in Mexico.
>
> > In regards to your second question, it is my experience that the
> > margin entry is the town where the couple is from, not where the
> > marriage is performed. Many names in the margin are simply small
> > places served by church where the ceremony is performed. You will
> > find that the majority of these places did not have a local church
> > or for some reason the couple decided not to marry in their local church.
>
> > I have found the opposite. the margin entry is where the marriage
> > takes place and where the individual is from is in the body of the
> > record since the individuals getting married were often from
> > different ranches or towns. At least that is how I read it. many
> > times what is in the body of the record is different from what is in the margin.
> > Ricci
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
>

Yes, that is the way I have seen notes in the margins: The village where the wedding took place is in the margin, and in the body of the record it might say something like "vecino de ------" and gives the place in which the groom or bride was living.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricci, Richard
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios

I have found the opposite. the margin entry is where the marriage takes place and where the individual is from is in the body of the record since the individuals getting married were often from different ranches or towns. At least that is how I read it. many times what is in the body of the record is different from what is in the margin.
Ricci

________________________________

From: research-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.org on behalf of Lona Rivera
Sent: Mon 4/6/2009 9:47 PM
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios

In regards to your second question, it is my experience that the margin entry is the town where the couple is from, not where the marriage is performed. Many names in the margin are simply small places served by church where the ceremony is performed. You will find that the majority of these places did not have a local church or for some reason the couple decided not to marry in their local church.

> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:48:21 -0600
> From: stuartarms@gmail.com
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Informaciones matrimonios
>
> What exactly are marriage information records? I have always
> understood them to be a record of the publication of marriage banns,
> or statements of intent to marry or marriage petitions. But
> occasionally I find some that are dated after the fact, as if they
> were announcements or were late in being entered into the register
> (but these latter were transcribed by someone else so the dates may be
> wrong). Can anyone shed light on this?
>
>
>
>
> Second question:
>
> If a marriage record states that the marriage was performed "en la
> iglesia parroquial del Pueblo de San José de Gracia", but in the
> margin the entry is prefaced by "Río Blanco" ... does that mean the
> marriage was performed in a parish church in Río Blanco, which was of
> the parrochial jurisdiction of the parish of the Pueblo of San José de
> Gracia ... ? or does Río Blanco have some other significance.
>
> -- Best regards, Stuart
> mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
>

George,

The Juan de Santiago who married Gertrudis Navarro in 1706 is probably the same Juan de Santiago Escobar who married Antonia Ruiz de Esparza in 1665 and Gertrudis Ruiz de Esparza Rangel in 1698. I came across his burial record a couple of years ago, and was surprised to find out that he had a total of 45 children, 24 of them still living in 1729. His burial record reads as follows (verbatim):

Al margen: "Juan de Sntiago casado con Gertrudis Navarro"

"En la villa de Aguas Calientes en primero dia de septiembre de mil setecientos veinte y nuebe años en esta Sa. Iglesia Parrochial enterre a Juan de Sntiago, español y vecino de esta dicha villa quien murio cuasi de sien años y fue casado tres veces y en los tres Matrimonios tubo cuarenta y sinco hijos lexitimos y tiempo de su fayecimiento dejo hijos beinte y cuatro de ellos y la ultima (?) mujer que fue Gertrudis Navarro. Se dispuso para Morir Recibiendo los Sanctos Sacramentos de Penitencia, Eucaristía y Extrema Uncion. No hiso testamento porque no tubo de que haserlo y para que conste lo firme. [f] Nicolas Fernandez de Palos."

According to this information, he was "nearly one hundred years old" in 1729, which puts his birthdate close to 1629. I believe his age was exaggerated and that he was closer to 85 years of age. His first wife Antonia Ruiz de Esparza was born in 1643. Had she lived she would have been 86 years old in 1729. I believe Juan de Santiago was probably closer to her age than to 100.

One discrepancy I found in your inquiry is the surname you gave his second wife. Her name was Gertrudis de Esparza Rangel (Gertrudis Rangel in some records). According to their marriage record, she was "castiza", i.e. a person of mixed blood. You may have read "Castilla" where it says "Castisa". Here is the "dispensa" from "Sagrada Mitra de Guadalajara" by Luz Montejano Hilton:

"Aguascalientes, Ags. Agosto 25 de 1698.- Dispensa de segundo grado de afinidad por cópula lícita.- Juan de Santiago, español de 54 años de edad, vecino de esta villa, viudo de Antonia Ruiz de Esparza, difunta; con Gertrudis Rangel, tresalva de 30 años de edad, vecina de esta villa, viuda de Blas López. Declaración del pretenso: Que la pretensa era sobrina de la dicha Antonia Ruiz de Esparza mi mujer, por ser hija de hermano de la dicha Antonia, y que su calidad es por ser bisnieta de coyota. 10 fojas."

The words "tresalva" (derived from TRES=3 and ALBA=white) and "castiza" are synonymous, meaning three quarters white (española) and one part indian. So, which is the great-grandmother who was a "coyota"? Could they be referring to Francisca Gabai de Moctezuma? Hmm... who knows, but that reminds me that I need to read the entire dispensa, all "10 fojas" of it. The dispensa can probably be found online under "Informaciones Matrimoniales" but I haven't had time to check.

Another interesting point about this dispensa is that Juan de Santiago was 54 years old in 1698. That makes him 85 in 1729. Although he was not "nearly 100 years old" as stated in his burial record, he did live a long life with a lot of "mileage" by the time he died in 1729, considering his three marriages and forty-five children !!

I found some discrepancies in the children you listed in your inquiry, but will have to discuss that later.

To be continued...

Bill Figueroa

Bill

Thank you very much for the detailed reply! I appreciate the time you took to do this.

I took another look at both Juan de Santiago's death/burial record. My wife and I missed some of the details. We totally missed the estimate of his age.

I also took another look at the marriage record for Juan and Getrudis de Esparza i Rangel. You are quite right, what I read as "Castilla" is just as you said, ""Castissa." With your additional information about the dispensa, I also note that it is mentioned in the marriage record also.

I now need to go and look at all records for the children of all the wives. I've looked at some of them (and in some cases took the IGI index at face value ... I've learned, again, you've got to look at the original records). Some of the IGI records are not the routine extractions, and some of these I could not verify (in my original posting, I used the term "apparently" when I couldn't verify the data).

Another thing I have not yet done, is to do a systematic review of the documents for all the Santiago records in this time period. That is now on my to-do list. I have since down-loaded all the Santiago references from the IGI for what I think is the right time period (from the beginning to the first half of the 1700's), and can now start to do this.

I have started to look in the information matrimonial; but this is difficult, and slow, with my limited Spanish ability.

George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA

Hi Bill all this stuff, is very ascintating! About Francisca Gabay, I dont think she was much indian anymore, because her father was a spaniard, I mean she could be mestiza, but depending on who line you follow, or if you follow all, Valderrama, Cortes, etc. and al the Leonor Moceztuma, Lope's kids were all "espanol" meaning full white, if they werent they would be castizo, mestizo. etc. What outstands is Juan Santiago having 43 kids, wow, I thought m ancestor who had around 25 kids had a lot! Never mind. -Daniel

_________________________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_sa…

Genealogy Research