Juana Navarro de Gabay y Arias de Sotelo y Valderrama-Moctezuma Y Petronila Arias Sotelo y Valderrama de Moctezuma

Hola Sergio,

First, the surname “Gabai” was written by some scribes as “Gabbadi.” The surname “Vaulus” was all over the place, too, sometimes written “Valdus.”

1. That Maria Ruiz de Esparza was the daughter of Lope Ruiz: on 25 Dec 1621 baptized was “Maria, hija de Pedro Tarasco y de Isabel su muger Tarasca, fue su madrina Ma Ruiz de Esparca hija de Lope Ruiz de Esparca su padre.”

She is also established as the daughter of Francisca Gabai in the dispensa of Joseph de Torres and Elvira de Ulloa, which names Francisca Gabai as the sister of Cristobal Navarro.

2. As per her testamento, dated 14 Jun 1677 in Aguascalientes, Juana de Siordia was the daughter of Pedro Fernandez de Vaulus and Maria de Gabai. This document can supposedly downloaded at the Aguascalientes Acervo Colonial Digital del Archivo Historico, but you have to have MS Internet Explorer to open any document.

3. Lope Ruiz de Esparza, who was married to Francisca Gabai, was the son of another Lope Ruiz de Esparza cc Ana Maria Diez de Equinoa, but he was the first of this name to live in Aguascalientes. The younger Lope Ruiz’s were his grandsons, as he had no known son named Lope.

4. Lope Ruiz de Esparza, who was buried 23 Aug 1651, is generally accepted as the same who was married to Francisca Gabai.

5. This question is the same as #3.

6. That Pedro Fernandez de Vaulus was the husband of Maria Gabai is established by the above mentioned testamento of Juana de Siordia. When I get the chance, I’ll try to upload this testamento to the files>reference materials section of this website.

I hope that helps!
Manny Díez Hermosillo

Amelie, perdóname, voy a escribir en inglés; si me entiendes pues nada, si no o si tienes alguna duda, pregúntame.

Thank you for responding, Danny, and I hope you’re doing well! We had a discussion about these same families about 7 years ago, and nothing was ever determined. I even asked this very question 2 years ago, and I was referred to that same burial record - which really offers very little information. Here’s what it says:

“Juana Navarro, wife of Benito de Isla, was buried in Teocaltiche on 28 Dec 1651. The albaceas of her will were Antonio de Ruvalcaba and Miguel Martínez de Alarcón, vecinos de Teocaltiche. This information was extracted from an unmicrofilmed death record in Teocaltiche.”

In “Letters,” Holcombe made no comment about this entry, he didn’t even offer an opinion; he didn’t say that Juana Navarro was the mother of Magdalena de Lavezaris and the Maria de Isla’s, nor did he attempt to link her to Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma. Unless he said these things in another of his writings, they are hypotheses formed by other researchers who have likely read the above passage. And as far as I know, no one has yet produced any of his writings nor any documentation that would confirm these relationships, so it’s all still hypothetical. For all we know, this Juana Navarro was from the Navarro Gaitan family and was only 18 years-old and died giving birth to her first child! This seems just as plausible to me, seeing how no one named “Juana Navarro” appeared as a madrina for any confirmations in 1627, 1634 nor in 1648, as one would expect, if she lived in Teocaltiche (especially since several of her supposed grandchildren were confirmed there. Note: nor was anyone named “Juana Navarro” madrina for any baptisms or confirmations in Nochistlan/Mexticacan prior to 1651).

So, at this point, the Juana Navarro burial record is a dead end (figuratively and literally jeje). It answers nothing and instead presents only questions.

But what I think has happened is, people put these supposed relationships - these hypotheses that were probably inspired by that burial record - into their online trees, perhaps hoping that some day, a document will appear that would confirm them. But the problem with this is - as these things tend to occur on the internet - other people see these online trees and they copy them, without bothering to verify them. And apparently, many people have done this, because now there’s a gajillion online trees with these same supposed relationships - none which offer sources - leading me to believe that they’re all based on each other (!!!). The internet is funny that way - it’s like an echo chamber: unsourced trees using each other to verify each other; everyone assuming that “if everyone says it’s so, then it must be so.” And voila! A hypothesis becomes fact. Totally eliminating the need to prove and verify. That is very shoddy work - what if the relationship turns out to be untrue?

That’s my opinion, anyways. That Juana Navarro is the mother of Magdalena de Lavezaris and the Maria de Isla’s, and that she is a daughter of Martin Navarro and Petronila de Moctezuma, are hypotheses that have taken on lives of their own, and that have evolved into what are essentially urban myths. But without anything that would substantiate it, a hypothesis is still only a hypothesis, and people need to recognize this, or else they could be climbing up the wrong family tree.

Saludos,
Manny Díez Hermosillo