Discussion:
Royal descent for Sebastián de Saavedra
Add Reply
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 00:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I recently found a possible royal descent for Sebastián de Saavedra, Spanish immigrant to Puebla, in colonial Mexico. Some of his descendants moved to colonial New Mexico, now part of the US, from Sancho IV of Castile. Comments are welcome.
1. Sancho IV of Castile
2. Teresa Sanchez (married Rui Gil de Villalobos)
3. Maria de Villalobos (married Lope Fernandez Pacheco)
4. Maria de Pacheco y Villalobos (married Juan Saavedra) (Back in 2017, I and another poster expressed doubs about this but https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fernández_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Matrimonios_y_descendencia shows it to be correct)
5. Fernan Yanez de Saavedra
6. Fernan Arias de Saavedra (Those three Saavedra generations are shown in https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Arias_de_Saavedra-3)
7. Juan Arias de Saavedra
8. Hernán Arias de Saavedra y Avellaneda (The immigrant being his grandson is shown in https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Saavedra-13, citing an old magazine article)
9. Sebastián Arias de Saavedra
10. Sebastián de Saavedra
taf
2020-04-25 00:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I recently found a possible royal descent for Sebastián de Saavedra,
Spanish immigrant to Puebla, in colonial Mexico. Some of his descendants
moved to colonial New Mexico, now part of the US, from Sancho IV of
Castile. Comments are welcome.
I am not familiar with any of this, but I do have a passing comment.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
4. Maria de Pacheco y Villalobos (married Juan Saavedra) (Back in 2017,
I and another poster expressed doubs about this but https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fernández_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Matrimonios_y_descendencia shows it to be correct)
I note that the Wikipedia page relies exclusively on a single self-published family genealogy for the pertinent material. Some such books are compiled in a scholarly manner, others are not. I wouldn't be too confident of this until/unless you can determine if there is any documentary basis for the relationship, or if it was just someone collecting names from any source they could find, irrespective of reliability.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 00:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
4. Maria de Pacheco y Villalobos (married Juan Saavedra) (Back in 2017,
I and another poster expressed doubs about this but https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fernández_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Matrimonios_y_descendencia shows it to be correct)
I note that the Wikipedia page relies exclusively on a single self-published family genealogy for the pertinent material. Some such books are compiled in a scholarly manner, others are not. I wouldn't be too confident of this until/unless you can determine if there is any documentary basis for the relationship, or if it was just someone collecting names from any source they could find, irrespective of reliability.
taf
If you are referring to Historial genealogico del Doctor Cristobal Mendoza : homenaje en el bicentenario de su nacimiento, I think we can judge it for ourselves - it can be viewed at ancestry.com at https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/21081/
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 01:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
4. Maria de Pacheco y Villalobos (married Juan Saavedra) (Back in 2017,
I and another poster expressed doubs about this but https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fernández_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Matrimonios_y_descendencia shows it to be correct)
I note that the Wikipedia page relies exclusively on a single self-published family genealogy for the pertinent material. Some such books are compiled in a scholarly manner, others are not. I wouldn't be too confident of this until/unless you can determine if there is any documentary basis for the relationship, or if it was just someone collecting names from any source they could find, irrespective of reliability.
taf
If you are referring to Historial genealogico del Doctor Cristobal Mendoza : homenaje en el bicentenario de su nacimiento, I think we can judge it for ourselves - it can be viewed at ancestry.com at https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/21081/
Yeah, so not very encouraging. No footnotes in the text. There is one page of Fuentes ("sources"), but that just consists of titles (books? articles?) and names (authors?), with no specifics. Perhaps someone familiar with genealogy of the Spanish nobility can judge this better.
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 01:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
4. Maria de Pacheco y Villalobos (married Juan Saavedra) (Back in 2017,
I and another poster expressed doubs about this but https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fernández_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Matrimonios_y_descendencia shows it to be correct)
I note that the Wikipedia page relies exclusively on a single self-published family genealogy for the pertinent material. Some such books are compiled in a scholarly manner, others are not. I wouldn't be too confident of this until/unless you can determine if there is any documentary basis for the relationship, or if it was just someone collecting names from any source they could find, irrespective of reliability.
taf
If you are referring to Historial genealogico del Doctor Cristobal Mendoza : homenaje en el bicentenario de su nacimiento, I think we can judge it for ourselves - it can be viewed at ancestry.com at https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/21081/
Yeah, so not very encouraging. No footnotes in the text. There is one page of Fuentes ("sources"), but that just consists of titles (books? articles?) and names (authors?), with no specifics. Perhaps someone familiar with genealogy of the Spanish nobility can judge this better.
The only one of the Fuentes that mentions Saavedra (which is the family of interest here) is "Datos para la historia de las casas de Herrera y Saavedra" by Cnel. Jose Maria Pinto de la Rosa (please forgive the absence of proper diacritics). This is available online at https://mdc.ulpgc.es/utils/getfile/collection/MDC/id/44121/filename/80604.pdf and is a compilation from 1948. The portion of interest is on pp. 106-107 of the PDF (pp. 104-105 of the text). No footnotes or indication of sources as far as I can tell.
taf
2020-04-25 02:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Yeah, so not very encouraging. No footnotes in the text. There is one page
of Fuentes ("sources"), but that just consists of titles (books? articles?)
and names (authors?), with no specifics. Perhaps someone familiar with
genealogy of the Spanish nobility can judge this better.
Iberian genealogy is really hard to evaluate, because the peninsula basically went through a 500 year period when romanticism and the necessity of proving ancient noble ancestry overwhelmed any sense of incredulity. It wasn't until the mid 1900s that critical scholarly genealogy started to revise the old family accounts. What you see written before that time is an inextricable amalgam of authentic genealogy, inauthentic tradition, and generations and generations of antiquarians making things up as they went along and copying each other. Even when one of the best of them, such as Salazar y Castro, came along (he did his best work at the turn of the 17th/18th centuries), they produced what at first glance would appear to be well documented accounts, but a close examination of the claims, in conjunction with his personal papers, unmask many of his lineages as nothing but tradition descents and guesswork decorated with sources rather than being constructed from them, and subsequent authors like the brothers Garcia Caraffa, cited here, gave up all pretense of basing their family accounts on contemporary historical records. In many cases, these accounts are immediately unmasked as inventions by the failure of the authors to understand the changes in patronymic and surname usage over time, but often you are just stuck with not knowing what to make of the completely unsupported pedigrees.

It is from this era that the author is drawing his sources, so any claim he makes requires not just a grain of salt but an entire salt mine.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 12:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
By googling "Pacheco y Villalobos Saavedra" (without the quotes), I found several 17th century Spanish genealogy books accepting this connection.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 12:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Salazar y Castro's advertencias historicas has a discussion about this in pages 119-120. I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly but I think he rejects the idea of Lope Fernández de Pacheco having married Brafilia Sánchez, supposed daughter of Sancho IV, but accepts the idea that he had a daughter Maria who married Juan de Saavedra.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 14:12:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is the link to Salazar y Castro's discussion: https://books.google.com/books?id=vCW68rBY160C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Pacheco+y+Villalobos+Saavedra&source=bl&ots=3y_2Cn5JLg&sig=ACfU3U1nVIqTsf31fFWSk3mdkke1z61Xjw&hl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iozp4IPpAhWJ4IUKHf6iDiAQ6AEwCHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Pacheco%20y%20Villalobos%20Saavedra&f=false. I hope it works.
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 15:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Salazar y Castro's advertencias historicas has a discussion about this in pages 119-120. I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly but I think he rejects the idea of Lope Fernández de Pacheco having married Brafilia Sánchez, supposed daughter of Sancho IV, but accepts the idea that he had a daughter Maria who married Juan de Saavedra.
Thank you for the link. I'm not quite sure I read it the same way (though admittedly my Spanish is not fluent). As I read it, Salazar y Castro is criticizing Don Joseph's Memorial del Marques de Riba. But I am not sure that his critique is supposed to be exhaustive. I agree that he is not challenging Don Joseph's assertion that Juan Garcia de Saavedra was married to a Dona Maria Lopez de Villalobos - but I'm not sure that this lack of challenge means that he actually agrees this is correct; it might merely be a point not sufficiently important for him to challenge.

I agree that this passage documents that the idea of a connection did exist as early as the 1680s - and at least Don Joseph, author of that memorial (whoever he was), did believe it. But on what basis did Don Joseph believe it? Salazar y Castro's discussion makes reference to an epitaph published by Alvaro Ferreyra de Vera - did this epitaph refer to Juan Garcia de Saavedra and his wife, or did it only deal with her parents? And (here is where my Spanish fails me) did Salazar y Castro believe this epitaph was authentic?
taf
2020-04-25 16:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
I agree that this passage documents that the idea of a connection did exist
as early as the 1680s - and at least Don Joseph, author of that memorial
(whoever he was), did believe it.
This is Joseph Pellicer, many of whose genealogical manuscripts found their way into Salazar y Castro's personal collection. The actual title of the work is work is Memorial del Marques de Ribas - Ribas, not Riba.
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Salazar y Castro's discussion makes reference to an epitaph published
by Alvaro Ferreyra de Vera
This appears to refer to a manuscript set of notes on the Nobilario of the count of Barcellos by Ferreyra de Vera that appeared as an appendix to the 1647 edition of the the Nobilario (but the pagination does not match what is given by Salazar y Castro, so he may have been looking at the original manuscript):

https://archive.org/details/nobiliariodelcon00pedr/page/508/mode/2up/
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
did this epitaph refer to Juan Garcia de Saavedra and his wife, or did
it only deal with her parents?
It looks like the mention of the epitaph is found here (Plana 108, no. 9):

https://archive.org/details/nobiliariodelcon00pedr/page/521/mode/1up/search/epitafio

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 16:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
I agree that this passage documents that the idea of a connection did exist
as early as the 1680s - and at least Don Joseph, author of that memorial
(whoever he was), did believe it.
This is Joseph Pellicer, many of whose genealogical manuscripts found their way into Salazar y Castro's personal collection. The actual title of the work is work is Memorial del Marques de Ribas - Ribas, not Riba.
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Salazar y Castro's discussion makes reference to an epitaph published
by Alvaro Ferreyra de Vera
https://archive.org/details/nobiliariodelcon00pedr/page/508/mode/2up/
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
did this epitaph refer to Juan Garcia de Saavedra and his wife, or did
it only deal with her parents?
https://archive.org/details/nobiliariodelcon00pedr/page/521/mode/1up/search/epitafio
taf
Thank you - very helpful!

It appears the epitaph itself is described a bit further on, under plana 297 at https://archive.org/details/nobiliariodelcon00pedr/page/529/mode/1up

As I read it, this mentions only Lope (or Lopo) Fernandez Pacheco and D. Brasila Sanchez de Villalobos, not the daughter of Lope who supposedly married a Saavedra.
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 16:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
This is Joseph Pellicer, many of whose genealogical manuscripts found their way into Salazar y Castro's personal collection. The actual title of the work is work is Memorial del Marques de Ribas - Ribas, not Riba.
And it appears Pellicer's Memorial was published - see https://books.google.com/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ, then scroll down to p. 47, and you will see the discussion of Iuan Garcia de Saavedra's marriage with Maria Lopez de Villalobos. I'm not sure I'm capable of wading through that much Spanish.
taf
2020-04-25 17:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
And it appears Pellicer's Memorial was published - see
https://books.google.com/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ, then scroll down to p. 47,
and you will see the discussion of Iuan Garcia de Saavedra's marriage with
Maria Lopez de Villalobos. I'm not sure I'm capable of wading through that
much Spanish.
Not much to it. As I read it, in 1340 Saavedra was serving as an ambassador along with Vasco Suarez de Toledo on behalf of Maria, Queen of Castile, to Portugal. Their negotiations ensured the relief, by land and sea, from the king of Portugal that allowed his Castilian counterpart to win the Battle of [Rio] Salado. The Chronicle of Mano says that at this time it was agreed for Juan Garcia de Saavedra to marry Maria Lopez de Villalobos, daughter of Lope Fernandez Pacheco who had been an ambassador in Castile, arranged by the same Queen Maria, and they went to Portugal and wed at Evora.

It would seem the primary source is this so-called 'Cronica de Mano'. This is the kind of statement, citing (if unclearly) a primary source, that tends to be given the benefit of the doubt even if the primary source is lost or can't be identified from the description.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-25 18:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
And it appears Pellicer's Memorial was published - see
https://books.google.com/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ, then scroll down to p. 47,
and you will see the discussion of Iuan Garcia de Saavedra's marriage with
Maria Lopez de Villalobos. I'm not sure I'm capable of wading through that
much Spanish.
Not much to it. As I read it, in 1340 Saavedra was serving as an ambassador along with Vasco Suarez de Toledo on behalf of Maria, Queen of Castile, to Portugal. Their negotiations ensured the relief, by land and sea, from the king of Portugal that allowed his Castilian counterpart to win the Battle of [Rio] Salado. The Chronicle of Mano says that at this time it was agreed for Juan Garcia de Saavedra to marry Maria Lopez de Villalobos, daughter of Lope Fernandez Pacheco who had been an ambassador in Castile, arranged by the same Queen Maria, and they went to Portugal and wed at Evora.
It would seem the primary source is this so-called 'Cronica de Mano'. This is the kind of statement, citing (if unclearly) a primary source, that tends to be given the benefit of the doubt even if the primary source is lost or can't be identified from the description.
taf
Thank you for getting to the essentials here. If my Spanish is not too far off, "Cronica de Mano" might translate as "manuscript" or "hand-written chronicle". Further up in the paragraph is a reference to the Cronica original del Senor Rey Don Alfonso el Onceno written by Juan Nunez de Villasan (which is a real source; a printed version from 1551 is available online at http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=7768 - but this is slow to load and not very reader-friendly). I get the impression that Pellicer is saying there is information in the manuscript chronicle that didn't make it into this printed version (the "Cronica Impressa"). If my reading here is correct (which is a big if), I think the follow-up would be to see whether either a modern edition or the manuscript original of this chronicle contains a reference to a marriage being arranged for Juan Garcia de Saavedra.
taf
2020-04-25 20:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Thank you for getting to the essentials here. If my Spanish is not too
far off, "Cronica de Mano" might translate as "manuscript" or "hand-written
chronicle". Further up in the paragraph is a reference to the Cronica
original del Senor Rey Don Alfonso el Onceno written by Juan Nunez de
Villasan (which is a real source; a printed version from 1551 is available
online at http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=7768
- but this is slow to load and not very reader-friendly).
Google Books version:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JZZIHCUPVHwC






I get the
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
impression that Pellicer is saying there is information in the manuscript
chronicle that didn't make it into this printed version (the "Cronica
Impressa"). If my reading here is correct (which is a big if), I think the
follow-up would be to see whether either a modern edition or the manuscript
original of this chronicle contains a reference to a marriage being arranged
for Juan Garcia de Saavedra.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 20:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What makes me suspicious of Pellicer's claims is that he apparently made up Brafilia's existence, read https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/whlJXf1NDhY/2Vw5VIZqBgAJ. What do you think of this?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 22:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As that thread showed, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Sepultura has a different epitaph. There's something strange here, don't you think?
taf
2020-04-25 23:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
As that thread showed,
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Sepultura
has a different epitaph. There's something strange here, don't you think?
Just a warning, the text given on the wikipedia page differs in at least a dozen places from the source it claims to be taking it from, and that source gives both a transcript and a photo of the original, and they differ too. None of the differences are substantive, but if nothing else it highlights how errors can accumulate as a text becomes farther and farther removed from its source.

Let's compare. Below is my transcript from the photograph of the original inscription in Lourenço (L), and that given by Pellicer (P). Note that Pellicer explicitly says that Alvia de Castro translated the text, so it is not meant to be a verbatim reading. (Notes: The (I) indicates a superscript I. The ' represents a mark above the letters at this point, usually indicating a contraction.)

L: AQ(I)⋮IAZ⋮LOPO⋮FERNA'DEZ⋮PACHECO⋮SENHOR⋮DE
P: AQVI YAZE LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO, SEÑOR DE

L: ⋮FER(r)EIRA⋮E⋮MOORDOMO⋮MOOR⋮DO⋮IFAN'T⋮DO
P: FERREYRA, MAYORDOMO MAYOR DEL INFANTE

L: M⋮PEDRO⋮E⋮CHA'CELER⋮DA⋮REINHA⋮DONA⋮BEATR
P: DON PEDRO, CHANCILLER DA LA REYNA DOÑA

L: IZ⋮OQVAL⋮FOI⋮MERCEE⋮E⋮FEITVRA⋮DELREI⋮DOM⋮AFO
P: BEATRIZ. FVE HECHVRA DEL REY DON ALFONSO.

L: NSO⋮O⋮QU'RTO⋮E⋮FOI⋮CO'EL⋮NA⋮LIDE⋮Q'⋮OUUE⋮CO⋮ELREID
P: QVARTO, A QVIEN ACOMPANO EN LA BATALLA QVE

L: E⋮GRAADA⋮HU⋮ESTE⋮REI⋮FOI⋮FAZER⋮AIUDA⋮A⋮ELREI
P: TVVO CON EL REY DE GRANADA. Y ESTE REY FVE

L: DOM⋮AFOSO⋮DE⋮CASTELA⋮Q'NDO⋮ELREI⋮DE⋮BENAMA
P: A AYVDAR AL REY DON ALFONSO DE CASTILLA,

L: RIN⋮IAZIA⋮SOBRE⋮TARIFA⋮NA⋮ERA⋮DE⋮MIL⋮E⋮C'C'C'⋮E⋮
P: QVANDO EL REY BELAMARIN ESTAVA SOBRE

L: L'X'X'⋮E⋮VIII⋮ANOS⋮AO⋮Q'L⋮LOPO⋮FERNA'DEZ⋮FOI⋮EN
P: TARIFA, EN LA ERA M. CCC. LXXVIII. AL QVAL

L: AUINHON⋮DADA⋮CO'⋮GRA'DE⋮HO'RA⋮PL'O⋮PAPA⋮BE
P: LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO EN AVIÑON, CON
P: GRAN HONRA LE FVE DADA POR EL PAPA

L: NEDICO⋮HU'A⋮ROSA⋮DOURO⋮QUE⋮ELE⋮CON⋮GRA'DE⋮
P: BENEDICTO VNA ROSA DE ORO, QVE EL CON GRAN

L: HO'RA⋮POS⋮EN⋮ESTA⋮SEE⋮TANTO⋮Q'⋮DALO⋮CHEGO
P: HONRA PVSO EN ESTA SEE, TANTO QVE LLEGO.

L: U⋮OQVAL⋮FOI⋮CASADO⋮CON⋮DONA⋮MARIA⋮FILHA
P: Y FVE CASADO CON DOÑA BRASILA SANCHEZ

L: DE⋮DOM⋮RUI⋮GIL⋮DE⋮UILA⋮LOBOS⋮E⋮DE⋮DON
L: A⋮TAREIIA⋮SANCHEZ⋮Q'⋮FOI⋮FILHA⋮DELREI⋮
P: DE VILLALOBOS, HIJA DEL REY DON SANCHO

L: DOM⋮SANCHO⋮DE⋮CASTELA⋮EFOI⋮EN⋮TERRA
P: DE CASTILLA. Y ESTA ENTERRADA EN ESTE

L: DO⋮EN⋮ESTE⋮MOIIMENTO⋮XX⋮E⋮NOUE⋮DIAS⋮
L: DE⋮DEZENBRO⋮DA⋮ERA⋮DE⋮MIL C'C'C'⋮E⋮LXXX⋮
P: SEPVLCRO A XXII. DE DIZIEMBRE, DE LA

L: E⋮SETE⋮ANOS⋮
P: ERA M. CCC. LXXXVI.

I thought perhaps it might have been a case of accidentally jumping a line in the transcript and thereby accidentally skipping a line of text, but that is not the case or 'de Villalobos' would be among the skipped text. There is definitely some reworking of the text here. Note that it also says nothing about the daughter of Sancho, whatever you call her, was _legitimate_ daughter of the king.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-25 23:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
As that thread showed,
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(f._1349)#Sepultura
has a different epitaph. There's something strange here, don't you think?
Just a warning, the text given on the wikipedia page differs in at least a dozen places from the source it claims to be taking it from, and that source gives both a transcript and a photo of the original, and they differ too. None of the differences are substantive, but if nothing else it highlights how errors can accumulate as a text becomes farther and farther removed from its source.
Let's compare. Below is my transcript from the photograph of the original inscription in Lourenço (L), and that given by Pellicer (P). Note that Pellicer explicitly says that Alvia de Castro translated the text, so it is not meant to be a verbatim reading. (Notes: The (I) indicates a superscript I. The ' represents a mark above the letters at this point, usually indicating a contraction.)
L: AQ(I)⋮IAZ⋮LOPO⋮FERNA'DEZ⋮PACHECO⋮SENHOR⋮DE
P: AQVI YAZE LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO, SEÑOR DE
L: ⋮FER(r)EIRA⋮E⋮MOORDOMO⋮MOOR⋮DO⋮IFAN'T⋮DO
P: FERREYRA, MAYORDOMO MAYOR DEL INFANTE
L: M⋮PEDRO⋮E⋮CHA'CELER⋮DA⋮REINHA⋮DONA⋮BEATR
P: DON PEDRO, CHANCILLER DA LA REYNA DOÑA
L: IZ⋮OQVAL⋮FOI⋮MERCEE⋮E⋮FEITVRA⋮DELREI⋮DOM⋮AFO
P: BEATRIZ. FVE HECHVRA DEL REY DON ALFONSO.
L: NSO⋮O⋮QU'RTO⋮E⋮FOI⋮CO'EL⋮NA⋮LIDE⋮Q'⋮OUUE⋮CO⋮ELREID
P: QVARTO, A QVIEN ACOMPANO EN LA BATALLA QVE
L: E⋮GRAADA⋮HU⋮ESTE⋮REI⋮FOI⋮FAZER⋮AIUDA⋮A⋮ELREI
P: TVVO CON EL REY DE GRANADA. Y ESTE REY FVE
L: DOM⋮AFOSO⋮DE⋮CASTELA⋮Q'NDO⋮ELREI⋮DE⋮BENAMA
P: A AYVDAR AL REY DON ALFONSO DE CASTILLA,
L: RIN⋮IAZIA⋮SOBRE⋮TARIFA⋮NA⋮ERA⋮DE⋮MIL⋮E⋮C'C'C'⋮E⋮
P: QVANDO EL REY BELAMARIN ESTAVA SOBRE
L: L'X'X'⋮E⋮VIII⋮ANOS⋮AO⋮Q'L⋮LOPO⋮FERNA'DEZ⋮FOI⋮EN
P: TARIFA, EN LA ERA M. CCC. LXXVIII. AL QVAL
L: AUINHON⋮DADA⋮CO'⋮GRA'DE⋮HO'RA⋮PL'O⋮PAPA⋮BE
P: LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO EN AVIÑON, CON
P: GRAN HONRA LE FVE DADA POR EL PAPA
L: NEDICO⋮HU'A⋮ROSA⋮DOURO⋮QUE⋮ELE⋮CON⋮GRA'DE⋮
P: BENEDICTO VNA ROSA DE ORO, QVE EL CON GRAN
L: HO'RA⋮POS⋮EN⋮ESTA⋮SEE⋮TANTO⋮Q'⋮DALO⋮CHEGO
P: HONRA PVSO EN ESTA SEE, TANTO QVE LLEGO.
L: U⋮OQVAL⋮FOI⋮CASADO⋮CON⋮DONA⋮MARIA⋮FILHA
P: Y FVE CASADO CON DOÑA BRASILA SANCHEZ
L: DE⋮DOM⋮RUI⋮GIL⋮DE⋮UILA⋮LOBOS⋮E⋮DE⋮DON
L: A⋮TAREIIA⋮SANCHEZ⋮Q'⋮FOI⋮FILHA⋮DELREI⋮
P: DE VILLALOBOS, HIJA DEL REY DON SANCHO
L: DOM⋮SANCHO⋮DE⋮CASTELA⋮EFOI⋮EN⋮TERRA
P: DE CASTILLA. Y ESTA ENTERRADA EN ESTE
L: DO⋮EN⋮ESTE⋮MOIIMENTO⋮XX⋮E⋮NOUE⋮DIAS⋮
L: DE⋮DEZENBRO⋮DA⋮ERA⋮DE⋮MIL C'C'C'⋮E⋮LXXX⋮
P: SEPVLCRO A XXII. DE DIZIEMBRE, DE LA
L: E⋮SETE⋮ANOS⋮
P: ERA M. CCC. LXXXVI.
I thought perhaps it might have been a case of accidentally jumping a line in the transcript and thereby accidentally skipping a line of text, but that is not the case or 'de Villalobos' would be among the skipped text. There is definitely some reworking of the text here. Note that it also says nothing about the daughter of Sancho, whatever you call her, was _legitimate_ daughter of the king.
taf
Thanks for this. I think that Brafilia may not have been a forgery but one of the many errors made over time. Maybe Alvia de Castro misunderstood what he was translating and inserted that name from somewhere else. Do you agree?
taf
2020-04-26 01:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thanks for this. I think that Brafilia may not have been a forgery but one
of the many errors made over time. Maybe Alvia de Castro misunderstood what
he was translating and inserted that name from somewhere else. Do you agree?
It would have to involve several steps, but it did occur to me that the name might have come from a highly-corrupted rendering of the inscription.

Pellicer gives it as Brasila in the inscription, but given the use of the 'long s' in the writing of the time, it easily could have been BraFila and it didn't escape my notice that the word filia/filha is right there in the inscription, but there had to be more than this simple corruption to give her the patronymic Sanchez and then have the Villalobos surname, which in the inscription only appears as surname of Pacheco's father-in-law, before we see the patronymic in the form of Teresa Sanchez.

The rest, though is so different that while one might see a possible route whereby filha became corrupted as Brasila, there is no such logical route of sequential corruption from the remainder of the inscription in this part to evolve from the inscription to Pellicer's version. At some point it got both shuffled and chopped. About the only thing I can think might have happened other than intentional fraud is if Alvia de Castro couldn't read his own notes at this point, so he just tried to reconstruct what he thought he remembered and got it very wrong.

I don't think misunderstanding the translation is a viable explanation - I think you could show a transcript of that part of the inscription to a modern Spanish (wo)man-on-the-street with no familiarity with Portuguese or historical usage and they would still be able to figure it out.

FOI CASADO CON DONA MARIA FILHA DE DOM RUI GIL DE UILA LOBOS E DE DONA TAREIIA SANCHEZ Q' FOI FILHA DELREI DOM SANCHO DE CASTELA

fue casado con Doña María, hija de Don Ruy Gil de Villalobos y de Doña Teresa Sánchez que fue hija del rey Don Sancho de Castilla.

It was all obvious to me and it should have been a lot easier for Alvia de Castro for a number of reasons, so I just don't see translation as being the root of the problem.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-26 12:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thanks for this. I think that Brafilia may not have been a forgery but one
of the many errors made over time. Maybe Alvia de Castro misunderstood what
he was translating and inserted that name from somewhere else. Do you agree?
It would have to involve several steps, but it did occur to me that the name might have come from a highly-corrupted rendering of the inscription.
Pellicer gives it as Brasila in the inscription, but given the use of the 'long s' in the writing of the time, it easily could have been BraFila and it didn't escape my notice that the word filia/filha is right there in the inscription, but there had to be more than this simple corruption to give her the patronymic Sanchez and then have the Villalobos surname, which in the inscription only appears as surname of Pacheco's father-in-law, before we see the patronymic in the form of Teresa Sanchez.
The rest, though is so different that while one might see a possible route whereby filha became corrupted as Brasila, there is no such logical route of sequential corruption from the remainder of the inscription in this part to evolve from the inscription to Pellicer's version. At some point it got both shuffled and chopped. About the only thing I can think might have happened other than intentional fraud is if Alvia de Castro couldn't read his own notes at this point, so he just tried to reconstruct what he thought he remembered and got it very wrong.
I don't think misunderstanding the translation is a viable explanation - I think you could show a transcript of that part of the inscription to a modern Spanish (wo)man-on-the-street with no familiarity with Portuguese or historical usage and they would still be able to figure it out.
FOI CASADO CON DONA MARIA FILHA DE DOM RUI GIL DE UILA LOBOS E DE DONA TAREIIA SANCHEZ Q' FOI FILHA DELREI DOM SANCHO DE CASTELA
fue casado con Doña María, hija de Don Ruy Gil de Villalobos y de Doña Teresa Sánchez que fue hija del rey Don Sancho de Castilla.
It was all obvious to me and it should have been a lot easier for Alvia de Castro for a number of reasons, so I just don't see translation as being the root of the problem.
taf
Thanks for sorting out this. I agree that either Alvia de Castro misremembered what he had read or made up this. Regardless, the Villalobos-Saavedra link doesn't depend on this Brafilia question, rendering the question mute, don't you think?
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-26 15:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thanks for sorting out this. I agree that either Alvia de Castro misremembered what he had read or made up this. Regardless, the Villalobos-Saavedra link doesn't depend on this Brafilia question, rendering the question mute, don't you think?
Yes. Instead, we should focus on Pellicer's discussion of Juan Garcia de Saavedra and determine and evaluate his sources.

Pellicer makes repeated references to the Cronica del Senor Rey Don Alfonso el Onceno [again, please forgive my lack of proper diacritics - I'm typing on an old machine here]. Pellicer attributed this to Iuan Nunez de Villasan, and both taf and I have provided above a couple of links to printed 16th-century editions of this chronicle. It turns out that, in the 1780s, it was determined that Juan Nunez de Villasan/Villazan was just the transcriber, and the author was actually Fernan Sanchez de Valladolid (or Tovar). In other words, the chronicle Pellicer is referring to is the standard Crónica de Alfonso Onceno (see https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%B3nica_de_Alfonso_Onceno), part of the Cronicas Reales. The 1787 edition of this chronicle (which is much more user-friendly, because it actually gives dates in the margin) is at https://books.google.es/books?id=AiEQAAAAYAAJ; this edition was supposedly derived from scratch from the manuscript, and thus might include material that was omitted in the printed editions of the 16th century to which Pellicer referred.

On p. 45 of his Memorial, Pellicer notes that Juan Garcia de Saavedra is mentioned in the Chronicle as one of Alfonso XI's caballeros in 1330. The reference Pellicer gives is to chapter 105; the actual reference is in chapter 104 of the 1787 edition (p. 190, lines 28-29). This demonstrates that we are looking here at the same source as Pellicer.

On p. 47 Pellicer again refers to the Chronicle, saying it contains much about Juan Garcia, but "no de la Impressa a quien faltan muchos Capitulos enteros, i de los que se estam paron tiene menos muchas Clausulas, i esta Cronica cumplida saldra muy presto a luz." In other words (if I understand this correctly), he is saying that the printed versions of the chronicle from the 16th century are woefully incomplete, and much more information will be revealed when the full chronicle is soon published.

Pellicer then goes on to describe the embassy of Juan Garcia de Saavedra and Vasco Suarez Dean de Toledo (who, according to Pellicer, is called Vasco Fernadez in the printed version of the chronicle) to the King of Portugal in 1340. And then, "En esta ocasion dize la Cronica de Mano, que se concerto de casar Iuan Garcia de Saavedra con Dona Maria Lopez de Villalobos . . . " In other words, if I understand this correctly Pellicer is saying that the marriage of Juan Garcia de Saavedra with Maria Lopez de Villalobos is recorded in an entry contained in the manuscript but not the 16th-century printed editions of the Chronicle of King Alfonso XI.

In the 1787 edition of the Chronicle, I find the reference to the embassy to the King of Portugal (in late 1339 rather than 1340) in Chapter 214, on p. 395. The ambassador listed here is Velasco Ferrandez Dean de Toledo (lines 4-5); both Pellicer and the chronicle state that he was chancellor and later bishop of Palencia (so again, we are looking at the same source as Pellicer). However, there is absolutely no mention of Saavedra accompanying the Dean de Toledo. And I find no other mention of Juan Garcia anywhere in the 1787 printed edition (which, as stated above, was supposedly a de-novo edition based on the manuscript), by searching either for "Joan Garcia" (which is how the name is spelled in this edition) or "Saavedra".

Thus, it would appear that Pellicer took a person (Juan Garcia de Saavedra) who indeed appeared in one place (1330) in this royal chronicle and then invented a marriage for him by referring to supposedly unpublished portions of that chronicle.
taf
2020-04-25 22:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What makes me suspicious of Pellicer's claims is that he apparently made up
Brafilia's existence,
Well, someone appears to have invented Brasila, but Pellicer seems to have relied on Alvia de Castro, who might just as well be the culprit.

taf
taf
2020-04-25 19:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
And it appears Pellicer's Memorial was published - see
https://books.google.com/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ, then scroll down to p. 47,
and you will see the discussion of Iuan Garcia de Saavedra's marriage with
Maria Lopez de Villalobos. I'm not sure I'm capable of wading through that
much Spanish.
Not much to it. As I read it, in 1340 Saavedra was serving as an ambassador along with Vasco Suarez de Toledo on behalf of Maria, Queen of Castile, to Portugal. Their negotiations ensured the relief, by land and sea, from the king of Portugal that allowed his Castilian counterpart to win the Battle of [Rio] Salado. The Chronicle of Mano says that at this time it was agreed for Juan Garcia de Saavedra to marry Maria Lopez de Villalobos, daughter of Lope Fernandez Pacheco who had been an ambassador in Castile, arranged by the same Queen Maria, and they went to Portugal and wed at Evora.
It would seem the primary source is this so-called 'Cronica de Mano'. This is the kind of statement, citing (if unclearly) a primary source, that tends to be given the benefit of the doubt even if the primary source is lost or can't be identified from the description.
I see there is an earlier part in Pellicer on the marriage:
Iuan Garcia de Saavedra married Doña Maria Lopez de Villalobos. The marriage was performed by Fr. Malachias de la Vega and Fr. Rodrigo de Piñuela. She was daughter of Lope Fernandez Pacheco Lord of Ferriera, Portuguese nobleman, and of his second wife, of whom Conde [de Barcellos] Don Pedro says was Dona Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos, daughter of Ruy Gil de Villalobos and of Doña Teresa Sanchez, who was legitimate daughter of King Sancho IV. But contrary to Conde Pedro and all those who follow him, I have heard the epigraph of Lope Fernandez Pacheco says his second wife was Brasila Sanchez de VIllalobos, legitimate daughter of Sancho IV, who is, it seems, the same Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos that Conde Pedro and his followers say was second marriage of Lope Fernandez. This epitaph is in the Iglesia Mayor of Lisbon, in the chapel of San Cosme and San Damian, and was transcribed and published by Fernando Alvia de Castro in the Genealogia de los Duques de Bragança, published in Portugal, . . . .

And then there follows the text of the epitaph:

AQVI YAZE LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO, SEÑOR DE
FERREYRA, MAYORDOMO MAYOR DEL INFANTE
DON PEDRO, CHANCILLER DE LA REYNA DOÑA
BEATRIZ. FVE HECHVRA DEL REY DON ALFONSO.
QVARTO, A QVIEN ACOMPANO EN LA BATALLA QVE
TVVO CON EL REY DE GRANADA. Y ESTE REY FVE
A AYVDAR AL REY DON ALFONSO DE CASTILLA,
QVANDO EL REY BELAMARIN ESTAVA SOBRE
TARIFA, EN LA ERA M. CCC. LXXVIII. AL QVAL
LOPE FERNANDEZ PACHECO EN AVIÑON, CON
GRAN HONRA LE FVE DADA POR EL PAPA
BENEDICTO VNA ROSA DE ORO, QVE EL CON GRAN
HONRA PVSO EN ESTA SEE, TANTO QVE LLEGO.
Y FVE CASADO CON DOÑA BRASILA SANCHEZ
DE VILLALOBOS, HIJA DEL REY DON SANCHO
DE CASTILLA. Y ESTA ENTERRADA EN ESTE
SEPVLCRO A XXII. DE DIZIEMBRE, DE LA
ERA M. CCC. LXXXVI.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-26 16:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:24:46 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
She was daughter of Lope Fernandez Pacheco Lord of Ferriera, Portuguese nobleman, and of his second wife, of whom Conde [de Barcellos] Don Pedro says was Dona Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos, daughter of Ruy Gil de Villalobos and of Doña Teresa Sanchez, who was legitimate daughter of King Sancho IV.

I have now chased down the reference to Lope Fernandez Pacheco in Pedro de Barcelos's Livro das Linhagens. See https://books.google.com/books?id=XZNIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA352. This source (written around 1344) does mention the second marriage of Lope Fernandez Pacheco with Maria Rodriguez, daughter of Ruy Gill de Villalobos and Tareyia Sanchez, daughter of king Sanchez. But for this second marriage Barcelos names only one child, dona Guiomar who married conde dom Joham Affomsso (i.e., Juan Alfonso Tello, IV conde de Barcelos).

The absence of any mention of another daughter Maria who married Juan Garcia de Saavedra of course does not prove that such a daughter did not exist - but it means we still have no evidence for her prior to Pellicer's 1647 memorial.
taf
2020-04-26 17:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
I have now chased down the reference to Lope Fernandez Pacheco in Pedro
de Barcelos's Livro das Linhagens.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=XZNIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA352. This source
(written around 1344) does mention the second marriage of Lope Fernandez
Pacheco with Maria Rodriguez, daughter of Ruy Gill de Villalobos and
Tareyia Sanchez, daughter of king Sanchez. But for this second marriage
Barcelos names only one child, dona Guiomar who married conde dom Joham
Affomsso (i.e., Juan Alfonso Tello, IV conde de Barcelos).
Vanda Lourenço's article on Lopo Fernandes Pacheco likewise only gives him one daughter, Guiomar, but only cites Count Pedro for it so perhaps no independent attempt was made to verify this. Sotto Mayor's dissertation on Portuguese nobility repeatedly directs readers to the section on Pacheco, but then has no such section. Perhaps this was just an oversight, or maybe his committee sais, 'enough is enough' before he completed it.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-26 18:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
attempt was made to verify this. Sotto Mayor's dissertation on Portuguese nobility repeatedly directs readers to the section on Pacheco, but then has no such section. Perhaps this was just an oversight, or maybe his committee sais, 'enough is enough' before he completed it.
taf
I believe the discussion by Sotto Mayor is on p. 312 of his dissertation. What strikes me here is that apparently Lopo Fernandez Pacheco was still married to his first wife in 1331 when he, together with her, authorized the bishop of Viseu to reform a colegiada (college of canons?) - the reference for this (footnote 870, on p. 369 of the dissertation), however, is the Elucidario das Palavras of Fr. Joaquim de Santa Rosa de Viterbo (see bibliography on p. 480 of the dissertation), which was compiled in the 1790s (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquim_de_Santa_Rosa_de_Viterbo).

If this is correct, then Dona Guiomar, child of the second marriage (for which Sotto Mayor does refer to the Livro das Linhages, see p. 26 and footnote 12 on p. 138) can have been at most about 12 years old when she married Joao Afonso Telo, as recorded by Conde Pedro de Barcelos in about 1344. And (unless child marriage was practiced in this social class at this time) it would appear to leave no space for another child of the second marriage who married Juan Garcia de Saavedra in 1340, as claimed by Pellicer.
taf
2020-04-26 20:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
attempt was made to verify this. Sotto Mayor's dissertation on Portuguese nobility repeatedly directs readers to the section on Pacheco, but then has no such section. Perhaps this was just an oversight, or maybe his committee sais, 'enough is enough' before he completed it.
I believe the discussion by Sotto Mayor is on p. 312 of his dissertation.
Hmm. Not in the version of it I am looking at, where p. 312 is about Azevedo and doesn't mention Pacheco at all. I do find Lopo Fernandes named in passing elsewhere in the work (notably, pp. 435-438), but his internal cross-referencing suggests there should be a PACHECO section that just isn't there.
Post by taf
What strikes me here is that apparently Lopo Fernandez Pacheco was still
married to his first wife in 1331 when he, together with her, authorized
the bishop of Viseu to reform a colegiada (college of canons?) - the
reference for this (footnote 870, on p. 369 of the dissertation),
OK, we are obviously looking at different things. In the pdf I have, footnotes begin again in each section and never reach numbers higher than 200. The footnotes on p. 369 run from 112 to 118.
Post by taf
If this is correct, then Dona Guiomar, child of the second marriage (for
which Sotto Mayor does refer to the Livro das Linhages, see p. 26 and
footnote 12 on p. 138) can have been at most about 12 years old when she
married Joao Afonso Telo, as recorded by Conde Pedro de Barcelos in about
1344. And (unless child marriage was practiced in this social class at this
time) it would appear to leave no space for another child of the second
marriage who married Juan Garcia de Saavedra in 1340, as claimed by
Pellicer.
Child marriage was practiced, but I have never seen one so young as this would entail (under 9) except among the royals.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-26 21:05:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Hmm. Not in the version of it I am looking at, where p. 312 is about Azevedo and doesn't mention Pacheco at all. I do find Lopo Fernandes named in passing elsewhere in the work (notably, pp. 435-438), but his internal cross-referencing suggests there should be a PACHECO section that just isn't there.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the wikipedia article from post #1 above had two different works by Sotto Mayor - his 1997 dissertation on Linhagens Medievais Portuguesas, and a 1987 work that also looks like a dissertation (perhaps master's thesis?) titled "Os Patronos do Mosteiro de Grijo". It is this 1987 work I was referring to (https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/19422).
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-04-26 21:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Incidentally, it appears that Sotto Mayor is now a professor at the University of Porto and still active in medieval Portuguese history (https://sigarra.up.pt/flup/en/func_geral.formview?p_codigo=215207). Perhaps Paulo can get in touch with him?
taf
2020-04-26 22:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Incidentally, it appears that Sotto Mayor is now a professor at the University of Porto and still active in medieval Portuguese history (https://sigarra.up.pt/flup/en/func_geral.formview?p_codigo=215207). Perhaps Paulo can get in touch with him?
Indeed. For his bibliography see:

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=119447

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-04-26 23:13:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Incidentally, it appears that Sotto Mayor is now a professor at the University of Porto and still active in medieval Portuguese history (https://sigarra.up.pt/flup/en/func_geral.formview?p_codigo=215207). Perhaps Paulo can get in touch with him?
Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have an email address and I'm reluctant to give him a call. That being said, I plan to study in said University. Thus, I may ask him personally. You'll have to wait until late September for that, though.
Peter Stewart
2020-04-26 23:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Incidentally, it appears that Sotto Mayor is now a professor at the University of Porto and still active in medieval Portuguese history (https://sigarra.up.pt/flup/en/func_geral.formview?p_codigo=215207). Perhaps Paulo can get in touch with him?
Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have an email address and I'm reluctant to give him a call. That being said, I plan to study in said University. Thus, I may ask him personally. You'll have to wait until late September for that, though.
Good luck with your attendance at the university this year, Paulo - I'm
not sure how things are going in Portugal now, but you may have to shout
at him from afar if social distancing is still in force.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-04-26 22:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the wikipedia article from post #1 above
had two different works by Sotto Mayor - his 1997 dissertation on Linhagens
Medievais Portuguesas, and a 1987 work that also looks like a dissertation
(perhaps master's thesis?) titled "Os Patronos do Mosteiro de Grijo". It is
this 1987 work I was referring to
(https://repositorioaberto.up.pt/handle/10216/19422).
Ah, that would explain it.

taf
Nathan Murphy
2020-04-26 06:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
9. Sebastián Arias de Saavedra
10. Sebastián de Saavedra
The immigrant's pasajeros a Indias record (1512), documents his origin and parentage: (with image, 3rd paragraph)
http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/5438193?nm

Nathan
Nathan Murphy
2020-04-26 22:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I recently found a possible royal descent for Sebastián de Saavedra, Spanish immigrant to Puebla, in colonial Mexico. Some of his descendants moved to colonial New Mexico, now part of the US, from Sancho IV of Castile. Comments are welcome.
The connection between 1512 immigrant Sebastián de Saavedra and early New Mexico settlers hinges on whether or not Pedro de Zamora of Oaxaca was de Saavedra's grandson.

Sometime before 2007, genealogist José Antonio Esquibel stated:

"Was Pedro de Zamora (identified as Alcalde Mayor de Oaxaca and father of María de Zamora) related to the Pérez de Zamora clan? Was this Pedro de Zamora the same person as Pedro Pérez de Zamora? Further research into the genealogy of the Pérez de Zamora family, and into the records from sixteenth century Oaxaca may help to answer this question one way or the other."
Source: José Antonio Esquibel, "Zamora (Montoya) - Promising Lead," Beyond Origins, http://web.archive.org/web/20080406040524/http://pages.prodigy.net/bluemountain1/bonmf2.htm

I didn't find any progress updates at the current Beyond Origins of NM Families website https://sites.google.com/site/beyondoriginsofnmfamilies/home

Nathan
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 15:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is another possible royal descent without that problem.
1. Alfonso X of Castile
2. Fernando of Castile
3. Alfonso de la Cerda
4. Juan Alfonso de la Cerda
5. Maria de la Cerda (This appears to be the weakest link. Her parentage is not completely certain but it looks very likely, read https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SPANISH%20NOBILITY%20LATER%20MEDIEVAL%202.htm#_Toc277571934.)
6. Alvaro Perez de Guzman
7. Pedro Nunez de Guzman
8. Urraca de Guzman
9. Ines de Cisneros (Read https://books.google.pt/books?id=fUfQi2zbPkAC&pg=RA2-PA508&lpg=RA2-PA508&dq=Ines+de+Cisneros+Avellaneda&source=bl&ots=Og_gmzl6o_&sig=ACfU3U1rAMHnu8rhiE6wE26gI7ybcQLRTQ&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc_MnC173pAhUvyoUKHd7ADUIQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ines%20de%20Cisneros%20Avellaneda&f=false)
10. Juan Alvarez Delgadillo
11. Juana de Avellaneda
12. Hernán Arias de Saavedra
13. Sebastián Arias de Saavedra
14. Sebastián de Saavedra

What do you think?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-30 00:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is another royal descent that seems correct:
1. Alfonso IX
2. Urraca Alfonso
3. Lope Ruiz de Haro
4. Marquesa Rodrigues de Villalobos (until this generation, this lineage can be traced in MedLands, see http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SPANISH%20NOBILITY%20LATER%20MEDIEVAL.htm#RodrigoGilVillalobosdied1289B)
5. Aldonza Diez de Fuente Almejir
6. Diego Lopez de Avellaneda y Diez de Fuente Almejir
7. Ochoa Martinez de Avellaneda
8. Lopo Ochoa de Avellaneda
9. Diego Gonzalez de Avellaneda
10. Juan Alvarez Delgadillo
11. Juana de Avellaneda
12. Hernán Arias de Saavedra y Avellaneda
13. Sebastián Arias de Saavedra
14. Sebastián de Saavedra
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-02 03:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hola, my name is José Antonio Esquibel and I’ve been working on confirming one or more lineages from doña Juana de Avellaneda, wife of Juan Arias de Saavedra to a royal line.

There are published sources that indicated that Juan Álvarez Delgadillo, husband of Constanza Fajardo, was a son of Lope Ochoa de Avellandea and doña Juana de Formicero y Delgadillo, and thus he was a brother of Diego González de Avellaneda (husband of Inés de Cisneros), not Diego’s son. See Antonio de León Pinelo, “Velos antiguos y modernos en los rostros de las mujeres: Sus conveniencias y daños,” en Lemir 13 (2009), 235-388; and Anales de la real Academia Metritense de Heráldica y Genealogía (Madrid: 1998-1999), Vol. V:50, PDF available online.

The name of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo also appears in records as Juan Delgadillo.

There is a document dated in the year 1418, that records a sale of property in Aguilar to “Juan Delgadillo, hijo de Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda,” which is catalogued on the Portal de Archivos Españoles as Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Fernán Núñez, C. 2061, D. 10.
Published sources indicate that Diego González de Avellaneda (d.1407 and left a will) and Ines de Cisneros (d.1417 and left a will) had only one child, a daughter named Beatriz de Avellaneda (d.1436), who was identified as his only legitimate heir. See Alfonso Franco Silva, “El Linaje Sandoval y El Señorio de Lerma en el siglo xv, en Anales de la Universidad de Cádiz, 1984, Num.1, p. 51 n.22 citing Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Osuna, leg. 1946, no. 5; and Augosto de Burgos, Blasón de España: libro de oro de su nobleza, resña genealogica y descriptiva, (Mardid, 1858), Vol. 3, p. 263

According to Figueroa y Melgar, Diego González de Avellaneda also has a natural son named Lope de Avellaneda. See Alfonso de Figueroa y Melgar, “Ascendencia extrema de Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda,” in Revista Hidalguía, Num. 96, Año 1969, pp. 593-594: “Lope de Avellaneda, Señores de Valverde e hijo natural de Diego González de Avellaneda, Ricohombre fallecido en 1407. Lope De Avellaneda casó con María Fajardo.”

I'll post citations of archival documents and some excerpts from those documents related to the Avellaneda-Delgadillo family.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-02 23:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by José Antonio Esquibel
Hola, my name is José Antonio Esquibel and I’ve been working on confirming one or more lineages from doña Juana de Avellaneda, wife of Juan Arias de Saavedra to a royal line.
There are published sources that indicated that Juan Álvarez Delgadillo, husband of Constanza Fajardo, was a son of Lope Ochoa de Avellandea and doña Juana de Formicero y Delgadillo, and thus he was a brother of Diego González de Avellaneda (husband of Inés de Cisneros), not Diego’s son. See Antonio de León Pinelo, “Velos antiguos y modernos en los rostros de las mujeres: Sus conveniencias y daños,” en Lemir 13 (2009), 235-388; and Anales de la real Academia Metritense de Heráldica y Genealogía (Madrid: 1998-1999), Vol. V:50, PDF available online.
The name of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo also appears in records as Juan Delgadillo.
There is a document dated in the year 1418, that records a sale of property in Aguilar to “Juan Delgadillo, hijo de Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda,” which is catalogued on the Portal de Archivos Españoles as Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Fernán Núñez, C. 2061, D. 10.
Published sources indicate that Diego González de Avellaneda (d.1407 and left a will) and Ines de Cisneros (d.1417 and left a will) had only one child, a daughter named Beatriz de Avellaneda (d.1436), who was identified as his only legitimate heir. See Alfonso Franco Silva, “El Linaje Sandoval y El Señorio de Lerma en el siglo xv, en Anales de la Universidad de Cádiz, 1984, Num.1, p. 51 n.22 citing Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Osuna, leg. 1946, no. 5;
Thanks for showing us that, José. We lose the Alfonso X descent but we still have the Alfonso IX descent. Also, what do you now think of the identification of Pedro de Zamora?
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-02 04:01:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The documentation cited below identifies Ochoa Martínez de Avellaneda as the husband of Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir (Almexir) and names two of their sons as Lope Ochoa de Avellenada, husband of Juana Gutierres Delgadillo, and Juan González de Avellneda.

In addition, Marquesa Díaz and her sister, doña Estebania de Fuente Almejir (a nun at the Monasterio de Santa María de las Huelgas), were bothidentified as daughters of Gonzalo Díaz de Fuente Almejir and doña Mari [María] Fernández de Amaya.

A document dated 26 de Noviembre de 1371 identifies Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda as the husband of Juana Gutiérrez Delgadillo and she is identified as a daughter of Gutierre Fernández Delgadillo. Also mentioned in the record is a sister of Juana named Ysabel Rodríguez and together they sold their vasallos at Val de San Vicente to Pedro Fernández de Velasco, camarero mayor del Rey.

The record begins: “Sepan quantos esta carta vieren como yo Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda Vas//allo del Rey, fijo de Ochoa Mrz [Martínez] de Avellaneda, y yo Johana Gutierrez, fija de// Guteir Frz [Fernández] Delgadillo y muger queso del dho [dicho] Lope Ochoa…..//y yo Ysabel Rodriguez fija otro si del dho Gutier Frz…”. See Biblioteca Digital Real Acamedia de la Historia, Colección Salazar y Castro, 9/285, f. 160r-160v (Indice de la Colección Salazar y Castro, 20195), Escritura de venta de varios vasallos en Valde San Vicente, otorgado por Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda y Juana Gutiérrez, 1371.11.26 (1409).

That record provides the names of the father of Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda and the parents of Juana Gutiérrez Degadillo.

There is also a record dated 24 de Junio de 1370, documenting that Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda and his brother, Juan González de Avellanda, made a sale of their vasallos in Hacinas, Casteil de Salas, in Arroyo, and in Carrazo, to Pedro Fernández de Velasco, camarero mayor del Rey. This appears to be the same Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda married with Juana Gutiérrez Delgadillo, since this sale is also to Pedro Fernández de Avellaneda.

The record begins: ‘Sepan quantos esta carta vieren como yo Lope Ochoa, e yo Johan Gonzalez su her//mano e fijos de Ochoa Martinez de Avellaneda y de Marquesa Diaz de Fuent// Almexir.”

In this record, “Marquesa Diez” is identified as a daughter of “Gonzalo Diez de Fuent almexir, and a sister of Marquesa Díaz is identified as “D.a Estavania Mrz de Fuente almejir fija de Gonzalo Diez de Fuente almexir y de D.a Mari Frz de Amaya,” and doña Estevania was at the Monasterio de Santa María la Real de las Huelgas near the city of Burgos. Lope Ochoa indicates his mother, Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir acquired the vasallos at Hacinas and Castriel de Salas at the time of his marriage with Ochoa Martínez de Avellanda from Juan de Amaya, son of Ferrant Roiz de Amaya y doña Sendina [no surname recored].

See Biblioteca Digital Real Acamedia de la Historia, Colección Salazar y Castro 9/285, f. 163ff (Indice de la Callección Salazar y Castro, 20196, Escritura de venta de la villa de Hacinas, otorgada por Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda y Juan González de Avellanea, su hermano, a favor de Pero Fernández de Velaso, camarero mayor del Rey, 1370 (1407).11.18

There is another document regarding “ochoa mz de abellaneda y doña marquesa díaz su mujer,” in Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Frias, C.476, D.2: Juan de Amaya vende a Ochoa Martínez de Avellaneda todas sus posesiones en Hacinas por 6.000 maravedíes de la moneda que diez dineros novenes hacen un maravedí, Villa de Aranda, ante Nuño Gitiérrez, escribano público, 06 de junio de 1332.
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-03 03:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding Pedro de Zamora, there is not yet any documentation to confirm his parentage and there is evidence that he was a Mexica Indian of high social standing and thus not related to the well-know Pérez de Zamora clan.

Regearding the Arias de Saavedra-Avelllenda lineages, if we can find the archival records that confirm that Constanza Fajardo (wife of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo) was indeed a daughter of Alsonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia, and doña María de Quesada and that doñ María de Quesada was the daughter of Pedro Díaz de Quesada and doña Leonor de Acuña, then there are two possible royal lineages, one from Rey Don Alonso de León (through the Ponce de León family) and one from Rey Don Fernando II de León.

My interest stems from a lineage that traces to doña Juana de Avellaneda, wife of Diego de Cervantes and daughter of Juan Arias de Saavedra and doña Juana de Avellaneda.

There are the following two records that confirm that Diego de Cervantes was married with doña Juana de Avellaneda, including:

• A record dated January 1, 1492, that refers “doña Juana de Avellaneda mug[e]r q[ue] fue de Di[eg]o de Cervantes ya difuntos…”. Source: Archivo of General de Simancas, Registro del Sello de Corte. Leg. 149201, 165, folio 1r, Orden al conseojo de Lora del Río de no exigir impuestos a Juana de Avellaneda, January 1, 1492.

• An earlier record dated September 11, 1473, specifically identifies doña Juan de Avellaneda, wife of Diego de Cervantes as a daughter of Juan de Arias Saavedra and doña Juana de Avellaneda: “Escritura de donación de ciertos bienes, otorgada por Aldonza de Toledo, vuida de Juan de Cervantes, veintecuator de Sevillo, a favor de su hijo Diego de Cervantes, para su matrimonio con Juana de Avellandea, hija del alcaide Juan de Saavedra y de Juana de Avellaneda, 11 de septiembre de 1473, Sevilla.” Real Academia de História, collección Salazar y Castro, 9/870 (ant.M-64), fols. 236v-237v, obtenido del archivo de los condes de Castroponce. See also Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada y Césa Olivera Serrano, Documentos sobre Enrique IV de Castillo y su tiempo, Vol I: Doc. #3312, p. 1169.

There is the following record that further confirms that doña Juana de Avellaneda, the elder, was the wife of Juan Arias de Saavedra:

• Cláusulas del mayorazgo de las villa del Viso y del Castellar,que fundaron Juan Arias de Saavedra, señor de dichas villa, y Juana de Avellaneda, su mujer, a favor de su hijo primogenitor Fernando Arias de Saavedra 23 de marzo de 1453. [This document also names as heirs of the mayorazgo in the case of the death of Fernando Arias de Saavedra their eldest daughter Leonor de Saavedra, and then their second daughter Constanza and then their daughter Francisca]. Real Academia de História, Colleccion Salazar y Castro, 9/652 (ant. K-27), fols. 160-161.

Published sources indicated that doña Juana de Avellaneda, wife of Juan Arias de Saavedra, was a daughter of Juan Álvarez Fajardo, and doña Constanza Fajardo. Although I’ve not located an archival record that substantiates this relationship, there is a record that confirms that Juan Álvarez Delgadillo and doña Constanza Fajardo had a daughter named Juana:

• The following document date June 121, 1438, identifies doña Constanza Fajardo as the wife of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo and the “curadora de Gutierre Delgadillo, su hijo, y tutora legitima de sus hijos don Juan, don Pedro, don Diego, doña Juana, doña Estefanía, doña Violante, y doña María. Source: Archivo del Monasterio dela Vid, Tumbo de la Vid, cód. 2, fol. 126, “Censo perpetuo otorgado por el Consejo de Arauzo de Salce y la aldea de San Miguel a favor de doña Constanza Fajardo, mujer que fue de Juan Alvarez Delgadillo, por si y como curadura de Gutierre Delgadillo, por 20 cargas de pan mediado de la medida de Castilla 12 de junio de 1438, Arauzo de Salce.” See María Teresa Angula Fuertes, “El Monasterio Premonstratense de Santa María de la Vid (Burgos), siglo xii-xv,”Tesis Doctoral, 2015, UNED, p. 716.

I’ll provide some additional information in a separate post.
Nathan Murphy
2020-06-03 04:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by José Antonio Esquibel
Regarding Pedro de Zamora, there is not yet any documentation to confirm his parentage and there is evidence that he was a Mexica Indian of high social standing and thus not related to the well-know Pérez de Zamora clan.
I appreciate the updates José. This is fascinating research.


Nathan
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-03 11:23:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by José Antonio Esquibel
Regarding Pedro de Zamora, there is not yet any documentation to confirm his parentage and there is evidence that he was a Mexica Indian of high social standing and thus not related to the well-know Pérez de Zamora clan.
Regearding the Arias de Saavedra-Avelllenda lineages, if we can find the archival records that confirm that Constanza Fajardo (wife of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo) was indeed a daughter of Alsonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia, and doña María de Quesada and that doñ María de Quesada was the daughter of Pedro Díaz de Quesada and doña Leonor de Acuña, then there are two possible royal lineages, one from Rey Don Alonso de León (through the Ponce de León family) and one from Rey Don Fernando II de León.
My interest stems from a lineage that traces to doña Juana de Avellaneda, wife of Diego de Cervantes and daughter of Juan Arias de Saavedra and doña Juana de Avellaneda.
• A record dated January 1, 1492, that refers “doña Juana de Avellaneda mug[e]r q[ue] fue de Di[eg]o de Cervantes ya difuntos…”. Source: Archivo of General de Simancas, Registro del Sello de Corte. Leg. 149201, 165, folio 1r, Orden al conseojo de Lora del Río de no exigir impuestos a Juana de Avellaneda, January 1, 1492.
• An earlier record dated September 11, 1473, specifically identifies doña Juan de Avellaneda, wife of Diego de Cervantes as a daughter of Juan de Arias Saavedra and doña Juana de Avellaneda: “Escritura de donación de ciertos bienes, otorgada por Aldonza de Toledo, vuida de Juan de Cervantes, veintecuator de Sevillo, a favor de su hijo Diego de Cervantes, para su matrimonio con Juana de Avellandea, hija del alcaide Juan de Saavedra y de Juana de Avellaneda, 11 de septiembre de 1473, Sevilla.” Real Academia de História, collección Salazar y Castro, 9/870 (ant.M-64), fols. 236v-237v, obtenido del archivo de los condes de Castroponce. See also Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada y Césa Olivera Serrano, Documentos sobre Enrique IV de Castillo y su tiempo, Vol I: Doc. #3312, p. 1169.
• Cláusulas del mayorazgo de las villa del Viso y del Castellar,que fundaron Juan Arias de Saavedra, señor de dichas villa, y Juana de Avellaneda, su mujer, a favor de su hijo primogenitor Fernando Arias de Saavedra 23 de marzo de 1453. [This document also names as heirs of the mayorazgo in the case of the death of Fernando Arias de Saavedra their eldest daughter Leonor de Saavedra, and then their second daughter Constanza and then their daughter Francisca]. Real Academia de História, Colleccion Salazar y Castro, 9/652 (ant. K-27), fols. 160-161.
• The following document date June 121, 1438, identifies doña Constanza Fajardo as the wife of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo and the “curadora de Gutierre Delgadillo, su hijo, y tutora legitima de sus hijos don Juan, don Pedro, don Diego, doña Juana, doña Estefanía, doña Violante, y doña María. Source: Archivo del Monasterio dela Vid, Tumbo de la Vid, cód. 2, fol. 126, “Censo perpetuo otorgado por el Consejo de Arauzo de Salce y la aldea de San Miguel a favor de doña Constanza Fajardo, mujer que fue de Juan Alvarez Delgadillo, por si y como curadura de Gutierre Delgadillo, por 20 cargas de pan mediado de la medida de Castilla 12 de junio de 1438, Arauzo de Salce.” See María Teresa Angula Fuertes, “El Monasterio Premonstratense de Santa María de la Vid (Burgos), siglo xii-xv,”Tesis Doctoral, 2015, UNED, p. 716.
I’ll provide some additional information in a separate post.
First, I had already seen some sources state that Maria de Zamora was an Indian. That being said, it's still tempting to identify Pedro de Zamora with Pedro Pérez de Zamora as they both lived in Oaxaca and the latter's uncle was alcalde mayor of several towns. Couldn't the Indian have been his wife?
Second, what do you think of my Alfonso IX descent via the Haros?
Second,
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-03 11:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Also, leaving aside Pedro de Zamora, there might be other colonial New Mexico connections to Sebastián de Saavedra, see, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Baca-339. Cristóbal Baca might have been his great-grandson. Also, there are some New Mexicans with the surname Saavedra. They maybe descended from him.
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-03 17:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding Cristóbal Baca, we know that his father was a man named Juan Vaca (Baca). There is yet no record that identifies the mother of Cristóbal, but there are records for a man named Juan Vaca married with Juana de Zamora, residents of Mexico City. Cirstóbal Baca had a daughter named Juana de Zamora, perhaps a namesake of a grandmother. Information posted online about the ancestry of Cristóbal Baca and his wife, Ana Ortiz, is erroneous.

I'll take a closer look at the Avellaneda connection to the Haro line and see what documentation may be found to further support that lineage. I'll also post the other two possible royal lineages.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-03 21:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by José Antonio Esquibel
Regarding Cristóbal Baca, we know that his father was a man named Juan Vaca (Baca). There is yet no record that identifies the mother of Cristóbal, but there are records for a man named Juan Vaca married with Juana de Zamora, residents of Mexico City. Cirstóbal Baca had a daughter named Juana de Zamora, perhaps a namesake of a grandmother. Information posted online about the ancestry of Cristóbal Baca and his wife, Ana Ortiz, is erroneous.
So, Juana de Zamora wasn't part of the Pérez de Zamora clan?
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-04 02:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding Juana de Zamora, wife of Juan Vaca, there is not yet any documentation uncovered that identifies the names of her parents. Also, there is yet no documentation to confirm that she was indeed the mother of Cristobal baca.
José Antonio Esquibel
2020-06-04 04:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding the Avellaneda-Fuente Almejir lineage we have some work to do in locating additional archival records to confirm the lineage from Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda to Lope Ruiz de Haro.

Based on the information from the documents I cited in my previous post, Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda identified his parents as Ochoa Martínez de Avellaneda and Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir and his maternal grandparents as Gonzalo Diaz (Díez) de Fuente Almejir and doña María Fernández de Amaya. Lope further identified himself as a brother of Juan González de Avellaneda.

Curiously, the name of Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir doesn’t appear in the compilation of the genealogy of the Casa de Avellaneda by José Pellicer de Ossau y Tovar (Genealogía de la casa de Avellaneda procedida de los señores de Vizcaya, Madrid,1667), or in other published genealogies of the Avellandea family.

The given name of Marquesa suggests that Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir was a namesake of Marquesa Rodríguez de Villalobos.

A sister of Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir was doña Estebania (Estefania) de Fuente Almejir, identified as the abbess of the Monasterio de Santa Maria la Real de la Huelgas by Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda. There is a record of privilegio date November 4, 1371, Burgos, issued by Rey don Enrique II, that says,” por facer bien e merced a vos Doña Estefania de Fuente Almejir, que estades presente abadesa del nuestro monestario de Santa Maria la Real de la Huelgas, cerca de la muy noble cidat de Burgos” (see transcription in Juan Agapito y Revilla, El real Monasterio de las Huelga de Burgos: apuntes para un studio histórico-artistico, Valldolid, 1903, p. 15.)

So, the question is: Was Gonzalo Díaz de Fuente Almejir a son of Diego González de Fuente Almejir and Marquesa Rodríguez de Villalobos?
We need to find documentation that clarifies the Fuente Almejir familial relationship. And, it would be helpful to find documentation that confirms the names of the parents of Ochoa Martínez de Avellanda, husband of Marques Díaz de Fuente Almejir and father of Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda.

So here is what we have documented so far:

1. Gonzalo Díaz (Díez) de Fuente Almejir and doña María Fernández de Amaya, parents of Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir and doña Beatriz de Fuente Almejir, abadesa del Monasterio de Santa María la Real de las Huelgas (Burgos).

2. Marquesa Díaz de Fuente Almejir and Ochoa Martínez de Avellaneda, parents of Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda and Juan González de Avellaneda.

3. Lope Ochoa de Avellaneda and Juana Gutierrez, daughter of Gutier (Gutierre) Fernández Delgadillo and Jacometa Díaz, parents of Juan Álvarez Delgadillo and Diego González de Avellaneda.

4. Juan Álvarez Delgadillo and Constanza Fajardo, parents of doña Juana de Avellaneda, Gutiérre Delgadillo and others

5. Doña Juana de Avellaneda and Juan Airas de Saavedra, parents of Hernán Arias de Saavedra, doña Juana de Avellaneda, and other.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-04 13:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
FWIW, Juana de Avellaneda, daughter of Juan Arias de Saavedra and Juana de Avellaneda y Fajardo, was great-grandmother of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, author of Don Quixote.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-04 13:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
FWIW, Juana de Avellaneda, daughter of Juan Arias de Saavedra and Juana de Avellaneda y Fajardo, was greatgreatgrandmother of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, author of Don Quixote.
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-05 03:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, I’m aware that Juan Arias de Saavedra and doña Juana de Avellaneda are ancestors of Miguel de Cervantes.

It’s quite surprising that given the many scholars who have written about the ancestry of Miguel de Cervantes not a single one I know of has published any archival documentation confirming his ancestry (which has made our research challenging). Many have relied mainly on the Cervantes family genealogy written by Protonotariao Alonso Gómez de Cervantes.
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-05 03:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here’s one of two other possible royal lineages that need to be confirmed with documentation. If we can confirm the relationship between Constanza Fajardo and María de Quesada, and the relationship between Marí de Quesada and Pedro Díaz de Quesada, there is some good documentation back to two kings.

Possible lineage from Rey don Alonso IX to doña Juana de Avellaneda:

1. Rey don Alonso IX de León (d. 1230) and doña Aldonza Martínez de Silva
2. Doña Aldonza Alfonso and Conde Pedro Ponce
3. Don Fernán Pérez Ponce de León and doña Urraca Gutiérrez de Meneses
4. Doña Aldonza Ponce de León and doña Rodrigo Iñiguez de Biedma
5. Don Rodrigo Iñiguez de Biedma and doña Juana Díaz de Fines [Funes]
6. Doña Teresa Ruiz de Biedma and don Pedro Díaz d Toledo, I Señor de Garciéz
7. Don Día Sánchez de Quesada, II Señor de Garciéz and doña Leonor de Acuña
8. Don Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, and doña Juana Fernández de Cárcamo
9. Doña María de Quesada* and Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia
10. Constanza Farardo** and Juan Álvarez Delgadillo
11. Doña Juana de Avellaneda and Juan Arias de Saavedra

Notes:

*Some published sources indicating that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, but other source do not include doña María among his chiidren. Among the Salazar y Castro Collection (Academia Real de História, Tabla genealogía de la familia de Gallego después se llamó Fajardo), there is a genealogy chart of the ancestry of the Fajardo family in which “Alonso Yañes Fajardo, 2 Adelentado …caso con Da Ma de Quesada hija de Po dias de Quesada Sr de Garciez y de Da Jua de Carcamo y Cordova.” It is presumed that Salazar y Castro, or one of his assistants, extracted this information from a document, perhaps a document that is still part of the Salazar y Castro Collection. An archival source need to be found that confirms that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedr Díaz de Quesada.

**Some published source identify Constanza Fajardo as a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and doña María de Quesada. The tabla genealogía of the Fajardo family does not have Constanza listed as a child of alons and doña María. However, a genealogy chart in the Salazar y Castro Collection concerning the Avellaneda family has this information: identifies Constanza Fajardo as the wife of Juan Alvarez Delgadillo and a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and “Doña Juana (sic) de Quesada. There are records among the archives of Murcia regard doña Maria de Quesada, widow of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, that the name ‘doña Juana de Quesada’ is an error. An archival source need to be found that confirms the names of the parents of Constanza Fajardo.
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-06 04:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is a second possible royal lineage that needs to be confirmed with documentation. If we can confirm the relationship between Constanza Fajardo and María de Quesada, and the relationship between María de Quesada and Pedro Díaz de Quesada, there is some good documentation back to Rey Don Fernando II de León:

1. Rey Don Fernando II de León
2. Infante don Sancho de León, Señor de aguilar, and doña Teresa de Haro
3. Don Día [Díag] Sáchez de Fines [Funes], Adelantado Mayor de la Fronters, Ricohombre, and doña Teresa Gómez de Roa.
4. Don Día Sánchez de Fines [Funes], Ricohombre and Adelantado Mayor, and doña Juana Ruiz de Haro.
5. Doña Juana Díaz de Fines [Funes] and don Rodrigo Iñiguez de Biedma.
6. Doña Teresa Ruiz de Biedma and don Pedro Díaz d Toledo, I Señor de Garciéz
7. Don Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, and doña Juana Fernández de Cárcamo
8. Doña María de Quesada* and Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia
9. Constanza Farardo** and Juan Álvarez Delgadillo
10. Doña Juana de Avellaneda and Juan Arias de Saavedra

Notes:

*Some published sources indicating that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, but other source do not include doña María among his chiidren. Among the Salazar y Castro Collection (Academia Real de História, Tabla genealogía de la familia de Gallego después se llamó Fajardo), there is a genealogy chart of the ancestry of the Fajardo family in which “Alonso Yañes Fajardo, 2 Adelentado …caso con Da Ma de Quesada hija de Po dias de Quesada Sr de Garciez y de Da Jua de Carcamo y Cordova.” It is presumed that Salazar y Castro, or one of his assistants, extracted this information from a document, perhaps a document that is still part of the Salazar y Castro Collection. An archival source need to be found that confirms that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedr Díaz de Quesada.

**Some published source identify Constanza Fajardo as a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and doña María de Quesada. The tabla genealogía of the Fajardo family does not have Constanza listed as a child of alons and doña María. However, a genealogy chart in the Salazar y Castro Collection concerning the Avellaneda family has this information: identifies Constanza Fajardo as the wife of Juan Alvarez Delgadillo and a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and “Doña Juana (sic) de Quesada. There are records among the archives of Murcia regard doña Maria de Quesada, widow of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, that the name ‘doña Juana de Quesada’ is an error. An archival source need to be found that confirms the names of the parents of Constanza Fajardo.
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-10 03:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here's a corrected possible lineage from Rey Don Fernando II de León. I left out a generation and in both possible lineage the wife of Día S5ncez de Quesda, II, Señor de Garciéz, was not Leonor de Acuña (she was the wofe of the mane of this same name who was a later Señor de Garciéz:

1. Rey Don Fernando II de León
2. Infante don Sancho de León, Señor de aguilar, and doña Teresa de Haro
3. Don Día [Díag] Sáchez de Fines [Funes], Adelantado Mayor de la Fronters, Ricohombre, and doña Teresa Gómez de Roa.
4. Don Día Sánchez de Fines [Funes], Ricohombre and Adelantado Mayor, and doña Juana Ruiz de Haro.
5. Doña Juana Díaz de Fines [Funes] and don Rodrigo Iñiguez de Biedma.
6. Doña Teresa Ruiz de Biedma and don Pedro Díaz d Toledo, I Señor de Garciéz
7. Don Día Sánchez de Quesada, II Señor de Garciéz
8. Don Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, and doña Juana Fernández de Cárcamo
9. Doña María de Quesada* and Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia
10. Constanza Farardo** and Juan Álvarez Delgadillo
11. Doña Juana de Avellaneda and Juan Arias de Saavedra

Notes:
*Some published sources indicating that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedro Díaz de Quesada, III Señor de Garciéz, but other source do not include doña María among his chiidren. Among the Salazar y Castro Collection (Academia Real de História, Tabla genealogía de la familia de Gallego después se llamó Fajardo), there is a genealogy chart of the ancestry of the Fajardo family in which “Alonso Yañes Fajardo, 2 Adelentado …caso con Da Ma de Quesada hija de Po dias de Quesada Sr de Garciez y de Da Jua de Carcamo y Cordova.” It is presumed that Salazar y Castro, or one of his assistants, extracted this information from a document, perhaps a document that is still part of the Salazar y Castro Collection. An archival source need to be found that confirms that doña María de Quesada was a daughter of Pedr Díaz de Quesada.

**Some published source identify Constanza Fajardo as a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and doña María de Quesada. The tabla genealogía of the Fajardo family does not have Constanza listed as a child of alons and doña María. However, a genealogy chart in the Salazar y Castro Collection concerning the Avellaneda family has this information: identifies Constanza Fajardo as the wife of Juan Alvarez Delgadillo and a daughter of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, Adelantado de Murcia and “Doña Juana (sic) de Quesada. There are records among the archives of Murcia regard doña Maria de Quesada, widow of Alonso Ybañez Fajardo, that the name ‘doña Juana de Quesada’ is an error. An archival source need to be found that confirms the names of the parents of Constanza Fajardo.
Loading...