The original record, as every other in that book, is written in good quality sepia ink. The forgeries were made using a rather vulgar ink, which blurred (I guess that good quality sepia ink was not that easy to find any more 200 years ago). I also found weird that "Gonçalves de Leão" addition since the first moment I saw it. I don't know what was the idea, and sincerely I'll refrain to follow that unicorn. That would be like completing the forger work for him. I believe, however, that it is related to the Stº António family Leão, which is the same as those Rodrigues de Oliveira, and the forger planned to add a clue there that would at once fortify his descent from the Rodrigues de Gouveia, and explain the Leão. Two rabbits at one strike. I'm getting increasingly curious about the Rodrigues de Oliveira genealogy, which was handwrited and is now at the ARM (though no one I speak about knows where it is now, argh). I suspect I'll find many answers to this forgery case there. Anyway, believe in those clues the forger left here and there at your own risk. I have seen the original records, I have seen the incomplete forgeries in the christening records of the corregedor sons, and I'm pretty much sick of all the destruction that person has caused in the parish books for his own selfish, pathetic delusions of grandeur. God knows what some person that went to such great extent to falsify parish records would have done that we don't know. Ripped pages, strategic holes in the problematic parts of the records, whatever. Now, would I believe, for even a second, the clues that he strategically left behind? Never. Paulo Miguel de Castro Henriques <[email protected]> wrote in Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:03:15 +0000: > Adding "Gonçalves de Leam" . who is by no means a splendid example of > Portuguese nobility - the Leam possiblbly were Leone, italians and just good > bourgeois merchants, seems strange. If forging why not put something else, > another name more ringing? This Gonçalves de Leam would add nothing. > > That's why I still consider it a probable simple addition, done in good > faith by the priest with another ink. The black ink was over so he recurred > to sepia. Or vice-versa. But that is intewresting the addition was in > sepia? > > Mig. > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Miguel de Castro Henriques < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hello Paulo, >> >> >> Nice to see you back, iI just arrived from my Pilates hour. Lots of mails, >> you send. I'll start by this last. And will comment, perhaps not today, the >> others, as well. >> >> I don't have here my notes but it seems that Isabel Leal had another Isabel >> married to António Gonçalves. >> >> About the Isabel Leal Rui Chamorro registo. You say it's a forgery, the >> Gonçalves de Leam addition. Of course I read it in a copy, not the original, >> which you say was written in two inks, one the document per se, the other >> the addition or supposed forgery.. >> >> But that two-inks situation precisely IMO adds credibility to the fact that >> it was the priest himself (same handwriting) who added it. A forger would >> have chosen the same ink. The fact that it's a totally different ink, >> immediately recognizable may evidence not a forgery but an addition, or a >> precision. by the priest himself. >> If the forger, on other hand was so smart that he imitated so well the >> priest handwriting, why would he drop the easiest part to imitate: the ink? >> It seems too careless. Too infantile. >> >> And that is precisely the embarrassing detail : On one hand a forger with a >> super-capacity to imitate the handrwiritng, on other hand as stupid as to >> do it with another ink? Thus denouncing himself and destroying the >> credibility of the document. "Cousa mui estranha". >> >> I did'nt konw about that Alferes RO, But Madeira seems to be fertile in >> forgeries. Just recently I became aware of the HHN's forgery (that you >> certainly know) about his ancestor João Afonso soi disant or rather >> descendant Correia. Not a noblemasn from the Correias of Fralães, and friend >> and companion of Zarco, but just a wealthy and smart merchant. HHN erased >> one or two documents and added "Correa", and thus started the legend of >> Joa~ço Afonsoi Corrêa which infected Felgueiras and others as well. >> >> On other hand it seems that the real Corrêa, possibly from Farlães, was the >> wife of Jioão Afonso... >> >> Anyway these forgeries are a social case study. It seems there are quite >> many. And they reveal loads not only about the families who once resorted to >> them but also abiout the acceptability they eventually had. The forgeries >> becoming truths, of course. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Miguel >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Miguel, >>> >>> There is a good reason why nobody will ever ask for a certificate of >>> the marriage of Rui Chamorro with Isabel Leal to prove his genealogy: >>> They have not left any descendants. >>> >>> In any case, that one is perhaps the least forget of the set. The >>> others are a disgrace: The marriage of Francisco and Beatriz is >>> totally faked, and the marriage of Gaspar with Ana de Castro has been >>> thoroughly adulterated. I also found two christening records >>> purporting to be from Francisco Rodrigues and Beatriz, which are in >>> fact from Licº Francisco Rodrigues and his wife Ana de Guimarães. >>> Fortunately in that case we can still read from behind the forgery. >>> >>> Now, I don't know who did this or with what intention, and frankly I'm >>> not that interested. I suspect who the forgers are, as I've followed >>> the trail of forged documents to an Alferes in Santo António well into >>> the 18th century. I seem to recall that it is the Rodrigues de >>> Oliveira family. There was a clear intention of changing the varonia >>> to the Rodrigues de Gouveia, and then all other forgeries follow upside. >>> >>> Though I'm not an expert on those things, I would throw a wild guess >>> that it could have been forged sometime at the end of the 18th >>> century, early 19th at most, trying to give a good lineage and some >>> nobility to an otherwise absolutely vulgar farmer family of Santo >>> António. The forgeries appear in the Sé and Santo António parish >>> books, though most of the time they simply append "Alferes" or >>> "Capitão" to the men and "D." to the woman. It's very pathetic indeed. >>> :S >>> >>> Paulo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Miguel de Castro Henriques <[email protected]> wrote >>> in Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:36:16 +0000: >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Fernandes, Jose < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Miguel, >>> >> I agree with you. Do you think all of this might have to do with the >>> Cunha >>> >> case? >>> > >>> > >>> > José, >>> > >>> > I really don't see very well the Rodrigues de Gouveia faking all these >>> > documents (or asking someone to do it) to win the case against the all >>> > powerful Pedro Álvares da Cunha. The documents had to be checked and >>> > re~checked. Pedro Álvares da Cunha was too big a fish to get swallowed >>> by >>> > any amount of fake documents. He had the best lawyers and court people >>> and >>> > experts working for him. They would detect the slightest irregularities >>> in >>> > the papers and documents. Even better than any of us and perhaps any >>> > contemporary expert. It was their world, their language, their style of >>> > writing. They would be able to detect fakers and forgeries quite easily. >>> > People from these days were subtle..\ Just have a look at their >>> handwriting >>> > many times elegant, precise, elaborate.and each one seemed to have its >>> > personal style. Just compare to today's handwriting- generally >>> amorphous, >>> > poor, without style. >>> > >>> > >>> > On other hand the document from which I started all my considerations is >>> > from the ARM database. Now, let me tell this. The ARM is a provider of >>> > legal documents. The documents we ask to ARM has in its database have >>> legal >>> > force to prove something like : our being candidates to a heritage, >>> asking >>> > for a title of nobility, asking for a coat of arms, wanting to change >>> our >>> > name and surname and proving an ancestor had that name, etc. I mean >>> every >>> > register in the ARM is not there per chance. It had to be demonstrated >>> that >>> > it was accurate, before they included it in their database. So every >>> > marriage doc. every baptismal goes through the hands of experts. >>> Forgeries >>> > are no admissible, since they are legal documents guaranteed by the >>> State.. >>> > Otherwise no one would take seriously that ARM and its database. Of >>> course, >>> > even so, an extremely clever and old forgery could pass the eyes of >>> experts. >>> > Though the filters are more and more accurate. I believe we are now in >>> the >>> > 2nd and third generation of experts in the ARM after its foundation. >>> Second, >>> > at least, though João Cabral could be my ggfather. Moreover they have a >>> > tradition of very good professionalism. So if they admit a document in >>> their >>> > database it is only after close scrutiny by experts on the field.. And >>> for >>> > scientific and legal reasons it can not be otherwise. >>> > >>> > >>> > So we have here an interesting case. If the doc. I have mentioned is a >>> > forgery, then the experts of the ARM were not able to identify it. But I >>> > doubt it very strongly. What interests more a genealogist are precisely >>> the >>> > two first centuries of Madeiran documents. It's there that their >>> attention >>> > is more focused. So, i think that the document I have (the photocopy of >>> it) >>> > is sound and clear and moreover authenticated by ARM experts. I can use >>> it >>> > legally to prove that for instance for having a claim for using the >>> > Chamorros coat of arms,. since I descend from them with only three >>> breaks on >>> > the male lineage. I won't, of course. But that's an open possibility for >>> > somebody else who requires the services of the ARM and finds the very >>> same >>> > document and wants to do that precislçey that. And the ARM documents >>> have >>> > that legal force, they are decisive and final proof. That's why they are >>> > authenticated, with the seal of the Government. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> One could pick sides in all of this! >>> >> It is too bad that Paulo is m.i.a., for he had a strong feeling about >>> this. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Yes. He had a strong stand on all this - But I don't have his particular >>> > opinion on this document. He contested others. Not this one. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> It is possible that he just chose to believe Bernardo. >>> > >>> > >>> > Yes. He is a bit fast IMO dismissing the document. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Howver, you make a good case. So what do we do now? Throw out the >>> Carvalho >>> >> Pais? >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Not yet, though I am not clinging to them specially. Half of Portugal >>> > descends from the Carvalhos de Basto, from which the Carvalhos pais are >>> > minor madeiran branch. >>> > >>> > I think we have to study where this Leam link leads. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Hope you are feeling a bit warmer. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Yeah. Just came from my Pilates class, and am feeling OK. >>> > >>> > >>> > Miguel >>> > >>> >> >>> >> José >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>> >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Miguel de Castro >>> Henriques >>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:48 PM >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Subject: Re: [PT-MADEIRA] Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Fernandes, Jose < >>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Miguel, >>> >> > I am just reading the Rodrigues de Gouveia genealogy, and on note #8 >>> >> > Bernado Gomes Ferreira (?) writes that there is acertificate of >>> marriage >>> >> > for out two, but " existe-mas é como não existisse. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Ah good find José. I missed it. >>> >> >>> >> Obscure words, he said. Anyway he ought to refer to it with more >>> precision, >>> >> IMO. And I think that the document is valid, and was all written by the >>> >> hand >>> >> of Vicente Afonso, cura. >>> >> >>> >> Now there is no doubt for me that it was written by the Cura Vicente >>> >> Afonso. >>> >> And signed, among others by João Rodrigues Escórcio, who later acted as >>> >> testamenteiro of the will of F.co Rodrigues de Gouveia, thus confirming >>> >> their relationship. >>> >> >>> >> However I don't know if Menses Vaz is referring the same document. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > ..E uma cousa inautêntica" and that's why in Bernardo's opinion Vaz >>> did >>> >> not >>> >> > pay attention to it. What do you think of that? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> I think that Menses Vaz had a misfired shot. The document seems to me >>> >> "cousa >>> >> autêntica". It would perhaps alter Menses Vaz genealogy of the Carvalho >>> >> Pais >>> >> (as far as beatriz Chamorra is regarded), so the horrified magister >>> send >>> >> the document to hell, without having the trouble to explain why. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > I guess I am having problems with an Italian connection!!! >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> mmmm. Italian connections are always problematic ; -))) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Miguel >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > José >>> >> > >>> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > From: [email protected] [mailto: >>> >> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Miguel de Castro >>> >> Henriques >>> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:43 AM >>> >> > To: [email protected] >>> >> > Subject: Re: [PT-MADEIRA] Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Fernandes, Jose < >>> >> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Miguel, >>> >> > > Interesting that the family, as you know, uses Pacheco >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Yes, for two generations they use Gouveia Pacheco. And with that name >>> >> they >>> >> > administer the "Capela" from the morgadio established by Rodrigo Anes >>> and >>> >> > Isabel Pires.. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > and only much later goes back to the Rodrigues de Gouveia. That is >>> >> > somewhat >>> >> > > unusual, unless the other names were more powerful. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > To add to Beatriz's parents' confusion, please remember that later >>> a >>> >> > Brites >>> >> > > Chamorra wins that famous name trial re: Cunha because her >>> ancestors >>> >> were >>> >> > Da >>> >> > > Cunha from the Carvalho Pais. So at some time we have to deal with >>> that >>> >> > > side. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > That famous trial is a powerful piece. As you know they won against >>> D. >>> >> > Pedro >>> >> > Álvares da Cunha, a grandee of the the Kingdom, Trinchante-Mor da >>> Casa >>> >> > Real, >>> >> > (he was also Governor of Madeira), from the archi-noble Cunhas da >>> Tábua. >>> >> So >>> >> > they probably had access to some documentation that meanwhile was >>> lost. >>> >> > Anyway, nice to watch, the obscure Rodrigues de Gouveia defeating >>> that >>> >> Big >>> >> > Fish. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > Miguel, I real believe that Vaz was not aware of the marriage in >>> Sé. In >>> >> > the >>> >> > > genealogy, he says that Francisco married around 1540 or later. So >>> he >>> >> > wasn't >>> >> > > aware of this certificate or if he was he dismissed it. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I was surprised to see on RTPi that Setubal today was going colder >>> than >>> >> > the >>> >> > > interior! >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > Well, I didn't know about that. For the moment it is a sunny sunny >>> day, >>> >> > cold >>> >> > as ice. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I am on my 3d cup of steaming tea. One has to drink it fast otherwise >>> it >>> >> > gets cold in no time at all. >>> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > José >>> >> > > >>> >> > > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > > From: [email protected] [mailto: >>> >> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Miguel de Castro >>> >> > Henriques >>> >> > > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:56 AM >>> >> > > To: [email protected] >>> >> > > Subject: Re: [PT-MADEIRA] Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia >>> >> > > >>> >> > > José, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Miguel, >>> >> > > > Congratulations on this find! I believe you and I (among others) >>> >> share >>> >> > > this >>> >> > > > family. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Thanks. I'm just amazed how this escaped the genealogists. Were >>> they >>> >> > > kindly >>> >> > > leaving something for us to discover? ; -) >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Yes, I have at least two or three lines to our Gaspar Rodrigues. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia is my great (12) grandfather and is >>> >> though >>> >> > > > his son Gaspar that the line continues until our marriage with >>> >> > > Escolástica >>> >> > > > de Bettencourt. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Yes, the "Morgadinha" ; -) Fortunately I downloaded all the >>> Rodrigues >>> >> de >>> >> > > Gouveia >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > I suspect you don't have the original marriage certificate >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I have a photocopy of the original. (The priest had a magnificent >>> >> > > handwriting, clear, elegant, incisive). The addition of beatriz glz >>> de >>> >> > leam >>> >> > > (no capital letters) >>> >> > > is his, no doubt. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > and that if you did, would you be able to scan it and send it to >>> my >>> >> > > > personal account. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > For the moment I am planning to buy a scanner. The old one is >>> kaput. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > Otherwise, I will be ordering the certificate. >>> >> > > > I also have the Vaz geneology, where I got most of my >>> information, >>> >> and >>> >> > I >>> >> > > > share your amazement that they did not seem to be aware of the >>> Leão >>> >> > > > connection. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > It escaped them. I can't see another explanation. It has the clues >>> to >>> >> > find >>> >> > > out who were Beatriz Gonçalves de Leam de Chamorro's parents. She >>> must >>> >> > be >>> >> > > one of the persons from that era with the longest name. Trivial as >>> it >>> >> is >>> >> > > today for a Portuguese to have 4 names, it wasn't in those times. >>> >> > > It would have been signaled. >>> >> > > Also there is the fact that she's called "de Chamorra". Unusual >>> among >>> >> the >>> >> > > Chamorras who never used that "de" >>> >> > > >>> >> > > But what do we have here? First the son of Francisco Rodrigues de >>> >> Gouveia >>> >> > > and Beatriz Chamorra, is Rui Chamorro, Almost as a rule the sons >>> used >>> >> > their >>> >> > > father's name. Not in this case. What can it mean? It means that >>> the >>> >> > > Chamorro name was more important than the Rodrigues de Gouveia. So >>> this >>> >> > > allows us to conjecture that their Chamorro was linked with the top >>> >> > > Chamorros, descendants of the "Porteiro dos cativos", Pedro >>> Chamorro, >>> >> > FCR. >>> >> > > Otherwise he would have used, as Gapsar did, the Rodrigues de >>> Gouveia >>> >> > name. >>> >> > > Though there are no strict rules. And everything is possible as >>> regards >>> >> > use >>> >> > > of names of the parents. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > You don't have Brites parents? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > No. In the Carvalho Pais title our Brites Chamorra is presented as >>> dau. >>> >> > of >>> >> > > Brites Chamorra married to a Carvalho Pais. It was the respectable >>> >> > Meneses >>> >> > > Vaz who wrote that title. However due to new data it's, to say the >>> >> least, >>> >> > > questionable. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > But now with the Gonçalves de Leam clue we're forced to admit that >>> she >>> >> > was >>> >> > > the dau, of a Gonçalves de Leam and a Chamorra. Remember in that >>> time >>> >> the >>> >> > > first name was the father's, the second the mother's name. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > All we can say it that we added more Italian blood, the Leam >>> (Leone?) >>> >> to >>> >> > > our >>> >> > > tree. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > They were not available on the Vaz list. So, Vaz may not have >>> known. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > That's what surprises me. If he knew he did not show it. If he did >>> not >>> >> > show >>> >> > > it but he knew it, well....But, genealogically speaking, he had >>> too. >>> >> It's >>> >> > > too fundamental a clue to be discarded. Anyway for Vaz a bastard >>> line >>> >> was >>> >> > > not a matter of shame, or something to hide (like HHN did >>> sometimes). >>> >> > > Furthermore the Leam were "good" families, top bourgeoisie. perhaps >>> >> even >>> >> > > descendants of Italian nobility, They were linked to the Spínolas. >>> And >>> >> > the >>> >> > > Spínolas were one of the top Madeiran families. So this Leam link >>> that >>> >> > > Beatriz undoubtedly carries "had" perforce to be explored. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > Bastard line? >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I don't think so.Furthermore with such a big name. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > The Alentejo cold does help your research! >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Thanks Siberian cold on the way, "Vaga de frio monumental" >>> >> Scandianavian >>> >> > > countries 41 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit scale). Temperatures >>> below >>> >> > zero >>> >> > > in Portugal interior. handle me that rum, or vodka or whatever, >>> please! >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Miguel >>> >> > > >>> >> > > José >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: >>> >> > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Miguel de Castro >>> >> > > Henriques >>> >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM >>> >> > > > To: [email protected] >>> >> > > > Subject: [PT-MADEIRA] Licenciado Francisco Rodrigues de Gouveia >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > 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 >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > ------------------------------- >>> >> > > > 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 >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > ------------------------------- >>> >> > > 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 >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > ------------------------------- >>> >> > > 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 >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > ------------------------------- >>> >> > 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 >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > ------------------------------- >>> >> > 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 >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------- >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------- >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> > >>> > ------------------------------- >>> > 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 >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >