Hi Miguel, I've already dealt with that document in a former post, I seem to recall. Though I concede that in this case the forgery was better than in others, it's adulterated, nonetheless. Let's see. For it's most part, that document is intact. Isabel Leal was indeed daughter of Francisco da Costa de Sequeira and Leonor Roiz, from Calheta. I don't know if the Costa Sequeira family was noble, but it certainly was the most prominent one in Calheta in their heydays, and probably it was them who founded the primitive church of Calheta, with rights to be buried in the main chapel and so. Their vast domains extended from Jardim do Mar to Achadas da Cruz, with the main house established in Calheta. I don't know if they are well known, to me they were not, and I discovered all this reading the parish books, not something already published. Now, for the Rodrigues de Gouveia. That record says: "Ruy Chamorro fº d[o Ldº Frcº] Roiz de Gouveia já defunto e de sua mulher [Beatriz] Chamorra da freguesia de S. Antº" The parts between [] have been adulterated and overwritten. Apart from it, someone, possibly the same person who did the adulteration, wrote between the lines: "X - Glz de Leão de", supposedly the complete name of "Beatriz". This part between lines is an obvious forgery (or 3rd part note, as you wish), as any correction made to a parish record should be noted and signed by the priest who did it, be it at the end or at the side of the record, precisely to avoid this kind of forgeries. In this case, no information on any correction is made either at the end or at the side of the record, thus the logical conclusion is that it's a later adulteration. No case should be made of that "Gonçalves de Leão" intercalation. Besides all that, it is obvious to anyone looking at the original record that, even if the forger's letter is similar to the priest who wrote the record, the ink is not the same. The original ink is sepia, the forger's ink is pitch black. This difference in the ink colour, which also led to some blurring around the adulterated parts, is the basis for the [] I've put in the excerpt reproduced above. What is undoubtedly written over is "Lcº Frcº". The Roiz is also written over, though it seems to have followed the original wording, as opposed to "Lcdº", which wasn't there before, as it was forcefully written between the particle ("de" or "do") and the father's name. The name "Beatriz" also offers some doubts, as it's written over, and shows an unusual "B". It's written "Breatis", which is ok, I suppose, but the unusual "B", as well as the writing over, gives way to suspicion. In conclusion: Yes, that record was also adulterated. There still is not a single document that would offer no doubt on those individuals. It's amazing the degree and extension of the forgery that has been performed in those family records. That document mentions one Chamorra married to one Gouveia, but we don't know if they are the parents of Gonçalo Rodrigues de Gouveia. We only know they are the parents of Rui Chamorro (s.g.). The title "Lcdº" is an obvious forgery, in tandem with 3 other similar forgeries: The marriage record of Licº Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia with Beatriz Chamorra, and the christening record of the children of Licº Francisco Rodrigues (a real person, and a true Licº) with his wife Ana de Guimarães. In case of doubt, look at the original record, in colour (not a xerox), the adulterations should then be obvious. Cheers, Paulo Miguel de Castro Henriques <[email protected]> wrote in Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:46:20 +0000: > I found an old marriage register to which I did not concede much importance > at the time. Now I see that it connects with a discussion about F.co > Rodrigues de Gouveia we had here a year ago or so. Was he Licenciado or not? > Was it a forgery? (his marriage document, as Paulo contended). Well, it > seems that it was not. Let's see why. > > Anyway here we go. It's the marriage certificate of Isabel Leal m. Rui > Chamorro, (1577, Sé do Funchal). > > She is the dau, of F.co da Costa de Siqueira and Leonor Rodrigues. (The > Costa de Siqueira were noble, and are relatively well known). Him, Rui > Chamorro, son of Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia (already dead) > and his wife - and here is the surprise ..*.Beatriz Gonçalves de Leam de > Chamorra !!* > > The document is original, The words "Gonçalves de Leam de" were added with > the very same writing of the priest who wrote the document (I have no doubt > about it. It was the priest. It's not an added and clever forgery, i bet > strongly on that). Anyway It's a name extraodinarily long for that time. And > containing explosive and brand new information. > > The Leão were from Italian origin, merchants. "Mercadores do trauto do > assucar" (They came very early to Madeira, around 1472). They established > themselves in Funchal.They were later and, no surprisingly, connected by > marriage with the Spínolas.. They were upper bourgeoisie, at least. > A Licenciado Diogo de Leão existed around that time. Probably a relative? > > In this document we have evidence that a Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de > Gouveia truly existed. So in face of this document we are forced to say he > is documented and his full name was truly Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia. > Now he was supposed to be married to a just Brites Chamorra by several > leading genealogists (Meneses Vaz included) > > Here from ARM database: Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia, Dr. Beatriz > Chamorra Sé 1539 46 7 v.º > > But how come no one mentioned the "Gonçalves de Leam" of Beatriz Chamorra? > It was mandatory! Because it's an extremely interesting and central detail > which could lead to a connection, still unknown , between the Leão and the > Chamorros. What is said here is that it (that connection) blatantly existed. > This Chamorra had Leam (Leão) blood. That no genealogist said it before. And > that, just amazes me. > > > The witness were João Rodrigues Escórcio - well known character. Joam > Carvalho. Pedro Feo (Feio) and Francisco Jorge. All the witness as is > fitting for the marriage of a Licenciado could read and write. > > I think Joam Carvalho was a judge. > > Anyway all this is really groovy and juicy. > > > I leave here this info.because I think very strange that none of the leading > genealogists (of reference, I know and studied almost them all but I won't > quote all their names) referred it. Especially those who wrote the > Rodrigues de Gouveia title as well as the Lopes Esteves title (patent in the > old and regreted NESOS). Had they seen it they were "condemned" to refer > this Beatriz Gonçalves de Leam de Chamorra. They would have been as > stupefied as I am. Did this document eluded them? I don't believe that > having seen it they would discard it,. They were too knowledgeable to do it. > Besides it has a promising discovery adventure appended to it. So I have to > concede that this document that I got pretty easily escaped their attention, > or was stuck in an old pile behind a desk or something at their time. > > > Of course this interests half Madeira, since half Madeira descends from the > Rodrigues de Gouveia. > > > Cheers, > > > Miguel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >