You are hereForos / Genealogy Research / Moctezuma II descendientes

Moctezuma II descendientes

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/lafamilia/ on line 123.

By AngelicaGarcia - Posted on 12 April 2019

Busco información y contactos con descendientes de Moctuzuma II, en particular con hijos de Leonor Valderrama de Moctezuma, madre de Petronila de Moctezuma.

See, this is a bit dated, but is what I could verify from historical references.

I have never seen a document that connects Petronila de Moctezuma to this family

Hay información sobre esto en geni

Is there still debate about whether or not Petronila de Moctezuma was a direct line descendant of Moctezuma, and who her parents were?

I have read Margo Tamez's Ph.D disseration about Petronila's lineage and the debate about who her parents were. I also read in Retonos de Espana en la Nueva Galicia, volume 7, page 214, author Mauriano Gonzalez- Leal, that Petronila is a child of Leonor de Valderamma y Moctezuma and Diego Arias de Sotelo.

Is there now general consensus about her parents? Have any documents been identified that support the theory about her parents?

Thank you in advance for your help.

I personally read a document written in 1595 that quotes Lope Ruiz De Esparza as stating that he arrived two years earlier, and that since he had arrived, he had married Francisca Gabai. He also stated that his mother in law was a granddaughter of Moctezuma. He misspoke as he should have said great granddaughter

Rick A. Ricci

As a descendant of Moctezuma, Leonor de Valderrama inherited the encomendera of Tarimbaro and Ecatepec. She is thought to have died around 1562. When her husband was exiled to Spain in 1568, managing the encomendera fell to her oldest son, Fernando. In his book "Moctezuma's Children: Aztec Royalty under Spanish Rule, 1520-1700", author Donald E. Chipman writes that Fernando's inheritance was contested by his brother, Cristobal. In 1588, after a twenty year legal battle, the Audiencia of new Spain ruled in favor of Fernando. However, Cristobal appealed the decision. In 1593, Fernando was forced to divided the estates into three equal shares with one share going to Fernando, one share going to Cristobal, and one share going to their sister, Ana. As a young maiden, Ana made the decision to dedicate her life to her faith and became a nun serving in the convent of Santa Clara in Mexico City. She renounced her share in favor of her brothers.

I am assuming that Mr.Chipman thoroughly reviewed available documentation regarding the lawsuit when he researched the subject. Given that there is no mention of a second sister, this should cast doubt regarding the assertion that Petronila is a daughter of Leonor Valderrama. Even so, in her doctorate dissertation Dr. Margo Tamez vigorously defends her theory regarding Petronila's relationship to Moctezuma.

It should be noted that if Petronila was the daughter of Diego Arias and Leonor de Valderrama, she should have been entitled to a portion of the settlement that was awarded as a result of Cristobal's lawsuit. I believe it is unlikely Petronila's husband would have allowed the prospect of receiving a share of the settlement to pass without taking some action. He would have documented her lineage and claimed a share. After all, he had 25 years to pull this together and the settlement would have been substantial.

At least that's my take on the controversy.

Some wills name all the children, while giving the inheritance to only some of the children. On many occasions I have come across wills that don’t identify all the children, naming only those that are chosen to inherit. Not only have I seen this in my research, I have also experienced this personally in my own family. Some times children are not named in wills. Sometimes the parents only left the inheritance only to the eldest of their children. I have a family member that wrote his will that only gave an inheritance to the youngest half of his children. I had a great uncle that excluded a child from his will because he secretly provided that child with a sizable chunk of change before he passed away. He wanted to make sure that there weren’t bad feelings as to who got what after he passed away. Another family member of mine left all of her belongings to two of her children and did not name her other two children in her will. I have at least three ancestors that were not named in their father’s will as they were born after the wills had been written, two of them after their father passed away. Sor Juan Ynes De la Cruz’s paternal uncle is not named in his father’s will as he was born after his father passed away.

Chapman named more than three children, at least two digits, and then stated that there were at least five others that remained unnamed by him. (I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I can check since I do own his book.)

I myself have been told repeatedly that I am not even named in my father’s will, forget about me inheriting anything. I am a legitimate son. So because someone is not named doesn’t mean that they aren’t a child of that person.

Hi rlm99x

I wondered about this too, (I have Chipmans book) but in colonial Mexico, when a daughter gets married her father gives her a dowry (dota). It would then make sense that she would not get a part of the estate upon her fathers death. I am sure I read this somewhere back in my anthropology grad student days. Anyone else ever hear of this? Because it would explain why Petronila is not a part in her brother's lawsuit. I also wondered if it was convenient for Fernando, as his first order of business after his father was exiled, to get Petronila married off.

Best Regards,

The wills "testamentos" that I have seen will state if a daughter or son had previously received their inheritance as a dowry or other type of compensation. An example is the the testamento of Beatriz López de Fuenllana(


It is certainly a possibility that if Petronila received a dowry she may have been excluded from receiving any additional benefits from her parents. It appears no one has seen a testament from Leonor Valderrama or Diego de Arias. What is clear is that Diego named Fernando as his heir.

For those that have not looked at the website, Spain has made many of their documents accessible through the Portal de Archivos Espanoles. It includes a royal decree, sought by Diego, dated May 27, 1573. The abstract reads: Real cédula concediendo a Diego Arias Sotelo, vecino y regidor de México el término de un año para que la ausencia de Nueva España de Hernando Sotelo Moctezuma, su hijo y de Leonor Valderrama Moctezuma, no perjudique su derecho a la sucesión de los indios de dicha tierra si falleciese en dicho plazo.

The reference to Hernando is a transcription error. The document clearly says Fernando. The original document can be viewed as well.

If Fernando is the heir apparent, why did Cristobal feel he had a legitimate claim? If Ana is a nun and did not seek any part of the inheritance, why was she included in the settlement? Obviously Cristobal would have received a larger share if she was excluded. If Petronila was not eligible due to her having received a dowry, why was there no mention of that (or her) in the lawsuit (an assumption based on the fact that Donald Chipman seems to be unaware of her existence). Given Cristobal's lawsuit, it seems to me you would want to make it clear that you had a sister that was not eligible.

I can't begin to count the number of Monterrey protocolos I've viewed. With respect to an inheritance, I've seen several lawsuits brought forward by the husband of a wife that received a dowry.

I'm not saying any of the comments made as part of this post are inaccurate. On the contrary, a lot of valid points have been made. Just saying that I would like to see something more concrete before I claim Moctezuma as an ancestor and I hope someone produces a document in the future that ends the controversy.

Hi rlm99x

I too would like to see a document, a primary source that connects Petronila with Diego Arias de Sotelo and Leonor de Valderrama y Moctezuma. I have the same questions you do. Some years back I spent time searching PARES for documents involving Diego Arias Sotelo and his sons. That was when I found a letter dated 1582 - Carlos Peredo was able to compare a signature on this document with a known signature of Diego Arias de Sotelo and we now can be reasonably sure the one from 1582 is also Diego. Carlos was also able to transcribe parts of it. (So at least we knew he didn't die on a ship of the coast of Oran. He was sentenced to that fate for his role in the conspiracy of the the mid 1560's involving, among others, Hernan Cortez's sons.) Regarding PARES, there are lots of documents with his name, and I only saw the tip of the iceberg. I hope some has the time to do further research there, and can read colonial Spanish. At any rate, his testamento would have to be after the date of that letter - that much we can conclude.
To see this letter from 1582, go to PARES and do a buscar sencillo for "Cristobal Valderrama Sotelo" limited to 1582 and it will pop up. There are 18 images for this application to return to Mexico, and the letter from Diego is one of them.


Opciones de visualización de comentarios

Seleccione la forma que prefiera para mostrar los comentarios y haga clic en «Guardar las opciones» para activar los cambios.


En línea

En este momento hay 1 usuario y 3 invitados en línea.

Usuarios en línea

  • arturoramos