Little John’s bar on St. Paddy’s Day. My grandparents are on the left.
My 11th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.
The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.
Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.
The theme for week 11 is — Luck of the Irish. Do you have an ancestor who seemed particularly lucky? Do you have a favorite Irish ancestor? This is their week.
This week’s theme was a no-brainer for me. When anyone in my family thinks of St. Paddy’s Day, they always and automatically think of Grandpa.
I have blogged many times about him. Grandpa was orphaned as an infant, and then again as a toddler, never getting a chance to know his parents. He became separated from his siblings while in foster care, and spent his adult life trying to find and learn about his family. He is the reason I became a genealogist. Yet, regrettably, I did not take an interest in family history until after he died. Grandpa never knew the real names of his parents or his grandparents. He wasn’t even sure of his middle name until after he married.
What Grandpa did know, was that he was Irish. And he was very proud of that heritage. Obsessively so. Perhaps because it was the only part of his heritage of which he was confident. Knowing absolutely nothing about his immediate or extended family’s history, Michael clung desperately to his Irish roots.
Grandpa (on the left) cooking up corned beef and cabbage at the bar.
Michael John Flanagan’s proud Irish heritage never shone brighter than on St. Paddy’s Day each year. I can only attest to his behavior the years I was alive, but Mom tells me that the holiday was always a big deal in their home. By the time I was a little girl, Grandpa owned (or co-owned, I am not sure) a bar called Little John’s in Pico Rivera, Los Angeles County, California. On St. Paddy’s Day, he decked the bar out in everything Irish and had corned beef and cabbage cooking all day. Mom didn’t want us little kids visiting the bar, but my brother, cousins, and I thought it was a super fun place — especially on St. Paddy’s Day.
Grandpa didn’t stop at decorating the bar and serving Irish faire all day.
His favorite part of St. Paddy’s Day each year was dressing up as a leprechaun. This 6-f00t-plus tall New York-born tattoo-sporting World War II Navy veteran would proudly don green tights, under an all green homemade outfit, and strut his stuff around town. Not just around the bar. Around town. Grandpa had a huge sense of humor and loved to make people laugh, especially at him. It was a big time kick for him to go out in his leprechaun suit and make people stare and laugh.
Grandpa and an employee, outside of the bar that Grandpa owned.
Grandpa also loved to embarrass people. Especially Grandma. She didn’t mind him wearing the leprechaun suit at the bar, but she put her foot down to wearing it out and about town. I remember going to the grocery store with them once as a little kid, with Grandpa wearing regular clothes. He waited in the car, while Grandma and I headed in to do the shopping. While we were inside, Grandpa changed into his leprechaun suit in the car, and surprised us inside of the store. Grandma didn’t find it all that funny. I of course (along with everyone else in the store), thought it was hysterical.
So, you see, St. Paddy’s Day continues to be a very special day for me and my entire family. Because of Grandpa. We miss him terribly, but this holiday makes us all laugh and cry — mostly laugh. I post the leprechaun photos on Facebook each year, and we all share happy memories about Grandpa. He was definitely one of a kind. Every kid needs a grandfather like my grandpa.
What I wouldn’t give to have just one more St. Paddy’s Day with my grandfather, in his leprechaun suit.
Because of these brick walls, particularly his main Robledo paternal line, I had Dad take an AncestryDNA autosomal test (DNA from both sets of parents, all ancestors) back in January 2014, in hopes of identifying others researching his same lines. The results were processed in March 2014, and I have occasionally checked back to review new matches, but never really did anything with these results because I didn’t really know much about genetic genealogy. So at last month’s combo RootsTech and FGS conferences, I attended as many DNA sessions as possible, and felt equipped to now start doing something with Dad’s results. I say something, because I am still a total newbie at this.
The first thing I did — literally, the morning after I flew back home — was download Dad’s raw AncestryDNA data and transfer it to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) to get a second analysis run against the data, and a second database of genetic matches. Unfortunately for me, FTDNA was in the midst of big time computer glitches, and it took them 3 weeks to process Dad’s results, then almost another 3 days for them to unlock those matches after I paid for that service. This process likely would have taken longer had I not repeatedly called FTDNA, retrying after many busy signals, and sitting on hold for long periods of time. All his FTDNA data finally became accessible to me this past week!
I will delve deeper into this journey, but the first step was a comparison of how each company analyzed Dad’s ethnic origins.
Ethnicity Comparison
What Dad Thought
Dad and I always knew about his Mexican origins; his paternal grandparents immigrated from there in the 1910s. He had always heard that his mother was born in Arizona, but we assumed Mexican origins for her as well. Consequently, we assumed Spanish ancestry for both of these lines. Don’t all Hispanic surnames trace back to Spain at some point? Maybe not, I don’t know. We are both highly confident that his ancestors did not all have pure Spanish blood. Like most Spanish New World families, those who might have had pure Spanish or even European blood had to have ultimately married into the indigenous populations, producing Mestizos.
The other thing Dad always heard is that the Robledo surname had some Sephardic Jewish blood, which seems possible due to the Sephardim presence on the Iberian Peninsula.
What DNA Tells Us
The analyses from AncestryDNA and Family Tree DNA are pretty similar, which is reassuring. They just label and break down ethnic origins a bit differently. Ancestry also provides estimates for much smaller sub-regions. Although from what I learned at RootsTech and FGS, estimates at these smaller regional levels are not considered very accurate.
AncestryDNA
Family Tree DNA
Europe 59%
European 65%
Iberian Peninsula 26%
Southern Europe 60%
Italy/Greece 23%
Scandinavia 5%
America 33%
New World 21%
Native American 33%
Native American 21%
Africa 4%
African 1%
Africa North 3%
West Africa 1%
Senegal 1%
West Asia < 1%
Middle Eastern 3%
Middle East < 1%
North Africa 3%
Asia 3%
East Asian 9%
Asia Central 2%
Northeast Asian 9%
Asia East 1%
Both identify European origins as Dad’s primary ethnicity. Ancestry breaks this into two sub-regions: the largest being the Iberian Peninsula (Figure 1), but Italy/Greece (Figure 2) comes in close behind. Iberian Peninsula is no surprise. We expected this, based on Spanish assumptions. The high estimate for Italy/Greece came as a surprise though, since we have never heard of Dad having ancestors from this region. However the close proximity of these two regions as well as the Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula could account for this. FTDNA’s Southern European region includes both the Iberian Peninsula and Italy/Greece (Figure 5).
The Scandinavian part of those European origins is a big surprise. Although each company only estimates Dad’s DNA to have a possible trace amount: FTDNA at a 5% estimate (Figure 6) and Ancestry at less than 1% (Figure 4).
Not surprisingly, both companies rate Native American (indigenous peoples) ancestry as Dad’s second largest ethnic region of origin, in the New World (the Americas). What is surprising, is their discrepency in numbers. Ancestry estimates 33% (Figure 3) while FTDNA only estimates 21% (Figure 7). But this discrepancy might be due to what geographic areas each company counts as Native American. FTDNA (Figure 7) only classifies western Canada, the western U.S., Mexico, Central America, some of the Caribbean, and the small northwestern portion of South America as Native American. Ancestry classifies Native American as most of Canada and the U.S.; all of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean; and all but the southern tip of South America (Figure 3). FTDNA classifies less than half of New Mexico as Native American in origin (?!). Maybe I am interpreting these maps wrong? Perhaps our New Mexico ancestors just had more European ancestry than our California or Mexico ones.
The African, Asian, and Middle Eastern estimates get harder to interpret because the estimates are much smaller, and because each company classifies these differently. Ancestry puts North Africa as a sub-region under Africa, while FTDNA puts it as a sub-region under Middle Eastern. Yet Ancestry identifies the Middle East as a sub-region of West Africa.
What about Dad’s hunch that he has Sephardic Jewish ancestry? FTDNA either does not provide estimates at this level, or Dad didn’t even rate at less than 1% with them. Ancestry estimates that Dad has 3% European Jewish ethnicity in his DNA. No clue at this point if this is from his father’s side, or his mother’s side. No idea if this is Sephardic, Ashkenazi, or a mix of both since Ancestry does not make such a distinction. However, since his main regions of European ethnicity were historically home to Sephardim, I will assume Sephardi ancestry.
AncestryDNA
Following are the visual representations for how AncestryDNA interprets Dad’s ethnicity. See this blog post from Ancestry.com to learn how they estimate ethnicity.
Figure 1: Iberian Peninsula ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.Figure 2: Italy/Greece ethnicity estimate. Click image for larger view.Figure 3: Native American ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.Figure 4: Ethnicity estimate overview. Click image for larger view.
Family Tree DNA
Following are visual representations of how FTDNA interprets Dad’s ethnicity.
Note that FTDNA shows you Family Finder Matches, genetic cousins in their database, who share your ethnic origins for your top three ethnic groups.These get displayed on the maps as Shared Origins (I have blocked out the names and faces of my matches, to respect their privacy). FTDNA members must opt-in to allow matches to see their ethnicity as Shared Origins. AncestryDNA does not provide this type of visual aid for genetic cousins and ethnic origins; you have to open up each individual cousin match to see their ethnicities.
Figure 5: FTDNA ethnic makeup overview. Click image for a larger view.Figure 6: European ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.Figure 7: New World ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.Figure 8: East Asian ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.Figure 9: Middle Eastern ethnic makeup. Click image for larger view.Figure 10: West African ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.
What Next?
Now comes the hard part with the autosomal results, reviewing all the matches in both AncestryDNA and FTDNA to try to find common ancestor(s). I have already uploaded the raw autosomal data to GEDmatch, but need to learn how to actually use that tool.
I have also ordered a Y-DNA test from FTNA for Dad to further trace his patrilineal line. And although it won’t help me trace his maternal line, I have an mtDNA kit to test one of his paternal female first cousins, which will help me trace Dad’s paternal grandmother’s matrilineal line. I still need to identify someone who could do matrilineal testing on Dad’s mother.
And I need to start on Mom’s DNA testing, of course!
Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge. Painting by John Ward Dunsmore, 1907. Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.
My 10th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.
The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.
Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.
The theme for week 10 is — Stormy Weather. This is the time of year that the northern hemisphere starts to see severe storms. (As if the blizzards in New England this winter haven’t been bad enough!) What ancestor endured a particularly severe storm? It could be something like a tornado or blizzard or it could be a “storm” of bad things.
My 10th ancestor is Revolutionary War hero William Pace (1747-1815)whom my husband’s extended Pace family thinks is his 5th great grandfather. The stormy reference? A stormy winter and a storm of genealogist controversy.
I have previously written about Pace being a member of the elite Commander-in-Chief’s Guard for General George Washington. William Pace served in the Continental Army from 23 January 1777, mustering out as a Sergeant on 3 November 1783.
Valley Forge
Valley Forge, located in Pennsylvania (about 20 miles north of Philadelphia), served as the 1777 – 1778 winter encampment for General George Washington’s Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Every American grade-schooler learns about the brutal winter conditions at Valley Forge, right up there with the famous crossing of the Delaware.
Images of bloody footprints in the snow, soldiers huddled around lonely campfires, and Washington on his knees, praying that his army might survive often come to mind when people hear the words “Valley Forge.” But truer images of the place would show General Washington using the time between December 1777 and June 1778 to train his men and to fight to maintain his position as the head of the Continental Army. – Source: Mount Vernon’s Ladies’ Association
The Valley Forge encampment lasted from December 19, 1777 to June 19, 1778.
Undernourished and poorly clothed, living in crowded, damp quarters, the army was ravaged by sickness and disease. Typhoid, typhus, smallpox, dysentery, and pneumonia were among the numerous diseases that thrived in the camp during that winter. These diseases, along with malnutrition and exposure to the freezing temperatures and snow, contributed to the 2,500 soldiers that died by the end of the winter. – Source: Wikipedia
William Pace at Valley Forge
William Pace (then still a Private) is recorded on the March 1778 muster roll at Valley Forge. “According to March 1778 payroll, Pace was paid 2 pounds in English currency and 6 and 2/3 dollars in American.”
Per Wikipedia, Pace (if he didn’t arrive until March of 1978) would have served at Valley Forge after the encampment started receiving adequate supplies in February, due to Congress finally funding the Army’s supply lines. He would have also been there during the tenure of Major General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. Since Godfrey places Private Pace with the Guard at the Battle of Germantown in Pennsylvania on 4 October 1977, I am not sure why Pace wouldn’t have been at Valley Forge for the entire encampment period, showing up on all muster rolls. I will have to review military records more thoroughly.
Seriously? Another Valley Forge Ancestor?
At least one other ancestor of my husband served at Valley Forge — his 3rd cousin 7 times removed, Major General Nathanael Greene (then a Quartermaster General).
Storm of Controversy
There are a lot of family historians out there who claim that William Pace is descended from Richard Pace of Jamestown (1583-1627). Including a lot of public Ancestry Family Trees showing (apparently incorrect or not fully vetted) source documentation linking the two together.
No DNA Joint-Descent
Human Y Chromosome DNA. Creative Commons licensed image from the ISOGG Wiki.
A couple of days ago, I stumbled across references in the Pace Society of America Facebook Group to a document by William and Martha Bellomy, discussing the military history of William Pace.
Although Bellomy’s website and .doc version of the family history publication are no longer live, I was able to retrieve them both via the Internet Archive. In this document, the Bellomies state on page 19:
We now know, there is NO evidence that supports the claim that William Pace, Sr., is a descendent of Richard Pace who saved Jamestown, Virginia, from the Indian massacre in the early 1620’s.
DNA studies indicate that our first Pace ancestor in America was John Pace of Middlesex County, VA. Bill Pace, my cousin, of Scottsboro, AL (see photo, p.123) was our proxy in the DNA study. My great-great grandmother, Susannah Pace, was a sister to his ancestor, William Pace, Jr. It was necessary to have a surname of Pace for this particular DNA study. The DNA indicated that Bill Pace was related to John Pace of Middlesex. Although we are not directly related to Richard Pace, George Pace of Canada, relates that there must be some relationship between Richard Pace and John Pace of Middlesex because in England their families lived near each other and their families have common names.
Since I am still a newbie on my husband’s Pace line, and have done no original Pace research of my own (other than visiting several Pace ancestor sites on vacation last fall), I immediately raised this question on the Pace Family Genealogy Facebook Group in hopes that some of the members who are involved in Pace DNA research could shed some light on this issue.
William Pace, of Washington’s Guard, is a John Pace of Middlesex Co., VA Pace. DNA does prove that John Pace of Middlesex and Richard Pace of Jamestown, VA are from two distinct families – two separate DNA haplogroups.
For many years, Paces tried to massage the records and explain away the reasons they thought John Pace of Middlesex could be a descendant of Richard Pace of Jamestown. When Family Tree DNA was created, the Pace family was one of the earliest projects on board with the goal of finding out whether the two men were related. It was pretty obvious when the results came back that they weren’t – and it has been confirmed time and time again. DNA testing was the best thing to happen for the Pace families – except for maybe those that want to claim both lines as their ancestry. Hope you can get the Pace cousin to test. It should tell you which Pace line your husband’s Pace family belongs to.
In my husband’s family, there is disagreement over this among the Pace cousins who have researched their genealogy. Two claim direct descent through both William Pace and Richard Pace of Jamestown: I talked to one about this at a Pace party last summer, and I have reviewed the public Ancestry Member Tree of the second Pace who shares this theory. The dissenting Pace, with whom I just chatted on Facebook, says they are only descended from Richard Pace.
I have no horse in this race. I’m still in the gathering-every-possible-lead-and-theory I find phase, and slowly trying to evaluate sources myself.
Our Next Steps
So…what now? Are we related to Revolutionary War hero William Pace? Or to Jamestown hero Richard Pace? Or possibly neither?!
Will my husband get to continue demanding gratitude from his friends every Presidents’ Day, for an ancestor who helped protect our future first president and ensure our liberty?
Time to get some Paces to spit!
I have ordered an autosomal DNA kit from AncestryDNA, to ask my husband’s Pace aunt to let me test her (his Pace mother is deceased), as well as a Y-DNA kit from Family Tree DNA to beg one of my husband’s male-line Pace cousins (since Hubby is a Pace through his mother) to let me test them. Then contribute both to the Pace DNA project. The Y-DNA test from a male Pace cousin should help us, via the Pace project, identify to which (really, if either) of these notable Paces we are related.
And I really need to start going after those primary source documents too.
I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I was toying with starting a one-name study for my Robledo surname. Primarily because I am hoping it might help me finally make some progress on this total brick wall surname, but also because I don’t find a lot of other people researching this surname.
In the one-name study session she taught at RootsTech last month, Tessa Keough(@TessaKeough), showed us examples of tracing a surname through the U.S. Censuses to identify when a particular surname first makes an appearance in those records, and to identify patterns of migration. She recommended it as a good place to start such a study, and to use both Ancestry.com and FamlySearch.org for comparison and better accuracy.
My study focuses solely on the Robledo surname; not any of it variances.
U.S. Census Analysis
I decided to initially analyze the federal censuses spanning 1790 to 1850. The 1790 U.S. Census was the first federal census, and the 1850 one was the first federal census following the acquisition of much of the southwest through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 as a result of the Mexican-American War. Since Robledo is a Mexican and Spanish surname, I did not expect to it appear in federal census records until after the treaty, when what are now the southwest states were ceded by Mexico to the United States.
Contextual Timeline
1846-1848: Mexican-American War.
1848, February 2: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; Mexican Cession.
1850, September 9: California Statehood; New Mexico Territory formed.
1912, January 6: New Mexico Statehood.
My hunch was correct. I do not find anyone with the Robledo surname until 1850.
Counting individuals enumerated on each U.S. Census. This spreadsheet is from my Ancestry.com analysis, but the FamilySearch analysis had the same exact results.Counting households enumerated on each U.S. Census. This spreadsheet is from my Ancestry.com analysis, but the FamilySearch analysis had the same exact results.Counting males enumerated on each U.S. Census. This spreadsheet is from my Ancestry.com analysis, but the FamilySearch analysis had the same exact results.
The 1850 U.S. Census
The regular 1850 U.S. Census is the first federal census on which I find the surname Robledo. I did not find any Robledo listed on the Slave or Mortality Schedules.
Transcription of Robledo entries in the 1850 U.S. Census. Source: Ancestry.com.Transcription of Robledo entries in the 1850 U.S. Census. Source: FamilySearch.org.
Stats & Facts
By 1850, there are 11 individuals recorded with the surname Robledo: 6 males and 5 females. These 11 individuals lived in pre-statehood California (enumerated 11 February; 7 months prior to statehood), the newly formed New Mexico Territory (enumerated 17, 27, and 31 December), and of all places…Connecticut. These individuals make up 5 different households: 3 in New Mexico Territory, 1 in California, and 1 in Connecticut.
The spreadsheets above identify the different spellings of the Robledo surname for each household, which are likely due to the census enumerator mis-hearing how the surname was pronounced, or just misspelling it on the written record. Or the transcriber and indexer mis-reading and misspellilng the surname. It is interesting to see how the surnames are transcribed on Ancestry vs. Family Search:
The Jose listed by himself (a servant) in New Mexico Territory is spelled Robledo on both Ancestry and FamilySearch.
The Prudencia household in New Mexico Territory is also spelled Robledo on both Ancestry and FamilySearch.
The Teodoro household in New Mexico Territory is spelled Robledo on Ancestry, yet Robleco on FamilySearch.
The California household is spelled Roblero on both Ancestry and FamilySearch.
The Connecticut individual is spelled Robloda on Ancestry and Roblada on FamilySearch.
Looking for these individuals on future censues will hopefully help me determine if these variations are indeed due to enumerator or transcriber error, or if they are distinct and separate surnames…not Robledo.
The Connecticut Robledo is definitely an oddity that I may have to investigate further just for curiosity’s sake. I do not think this is the beginning of a Robledo migration trend into Connecticut. This unnamed Robloda or Roblada male does not have a profession identified, but is listed in a large household with a bunch of other people and different surnames. Sadly he is the only person in the household for whom a first name is not provided, which would give me a clue if he had Hispanic origins. I will have to look for him on future censuses.
The California household also catches my eye, because California is where my Robledo line settled when they immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in the 1910s. I have always heard from Dad’s family that our Nieto-Robledo family followed Nieto relations who already lived in California, but I wonder if we also had Robledo relations here as well? I may have to trace this 1850 California Robledo household back to Mexico.
Comparing Transcriptions & Indexing
I had to play around with the search filter settings on both Ancestry and FamilySearch, casting both broad and more exact nets on the Robledo spelling. For the most part, the results from 1790 to 1850 were pretty consistent on both services.
I quickly learned (although I already knew this from my regular research) that one cannot rely upon just the surname search results to generate an accurate count of individuals listed on each census. Other surnames, some totally off, get thrown into the search results as well. FamilySearch generated far more accurate surname results than Ancestry.
Searching for Robledo in the 1850 Census on Ancestry generated 1,585 individuals. As you can see, some of the surnames were WAY off.The same search on FamilySearch generated only 18 individuals in the results. Still more than the 11 people I narrowed down as a likely Robledo, but far more accurate.
I had to look at the individual records, and especially the individual census images, to identify real surname candidates and narrow my list down to those most likely to be Robledos.
All Hispanic Names Sound Alike?
I find it interesting and humorous that Ancestry identifies 3 Robledo results on the 1810 U.S. Census. These Robledo hits are actually Luceros. Hmm… is Ancestry’s indexing and search feature a bit prejudiced…thinking all Hispanic surnames are the same? I am joking of course, but Ancestry does apparently consider another three-syllable Hispanic surname ending in a hard-O sound to be a likely match to my surname.
FamilySearch did not make the same mistake.
Ancestry.com search results for Robledo on the 1810 U.S. Census brought up the surname Lucero.
A Possible 1820 Robledo?
FamilySearch turned up a Bartholomew Ribled in Belfast, Bedford County, Pennsylvania when I searched for surname Robledo on the 1820 U.S. Census. Ancestry did not; I had to search for that specific Ribled name to retrieve the record in Ancestry. It sounds like it could be similar to Robledo, so I did a bit more searching for this person on other censuses. He does not pan out as a Robledo. His surname is instead spelled as Riblet, Riblett, or Ribler on other censuses.
So 1850 is still indeed the first year in which any Robledo appears on the U.S. Census.
Searching for Robledo on the 1820 U.S. Census in FamilySearch resulted in this similar sounding surname.Census record for Bartholomew Ribled on the 1820 U.S. Census, in Ancestry.com.
Next Steps
Moving on to the next half of 19th century U.S. Censuses is definitely my next move. But this “quick” census analysis took much more time than I anticipated, so that next step may have to wait a month or two since it does take time away from my actual ancestor-focused family history research.
The biggest challenge for me is that I want to further research all of these individuals, but I just don’t have that much extra time.
Rosie Salas, Newly Married, Early 1940s. The caption reads “To my husband. With Love, Rosie.”
My 9th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.
The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.
Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.
The theme for week 9 is — Close to Home. Which ancestor is the closest to where you live? Who has a story that hits “close to home”?
As I have mentioned in prior posts, I did not grow up with Rosie as an active grandmother in my life, because she did not raise my father. Dad was raised by his grandmother and uncle. I barely knew Rosie, and think I only met her a few times; the last time was at her ex-husband’s (my grandfather’s) funeral in 1990. All Dad ever knew about his mother’s family history is that she was born in Arizona (he always heard Nogales). He never knew the names or origins of her parents, and was surprised when I discovered she had half-brothers with whom she grew up.
Rosie’s Upbringing
We think Rosie was born in Arizona around 1923, after her parents Estevan Salas (1888-1930) and Victoria Jimenez (1890-1990) and older half-brothers Richard Coleman (b. 1911) and David Coleman (b. 1914) moved from New Mexico. I have yet to come across a birth or baptism record for Rosie. Her father Estevan was already deceased by the time the rest of the family was enumerated on the 1930 U.S. Census in the Orme Election Precinct of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. In 1935 (according to the 1940 Census), the family still lived in Phoenix. And by the 1940 U.S. Census, they had moved to Coachella, Riverside County, California. Rosie’s mother died just a few months after that Census, in Los Angeles County, California. I think that by 1942, when Rosie married, her half brothers had already moved up to the Fresno, California area. Rosie’s father and brothers were migrant farm laborers.
Los Angeles County Family
Although I grew up in Orange County, California (we moved here from Norwalk, Los Angeles County, California when I was 3 or 4 years old), none of our other family lived here. Both sets of grandparents and their children lived in Los Angeles County, where my own parents grew up. We were the odd ones, moving south to Orange County, away from the heavy L.A. smog and closer to Dad’s job. None of my cousins ever moved to Orange County. Other than my childhood, I have no ancestral ties to Orange County. My parents and siblings don’t even live here anymore…I am the lone survivor.
As far as I know, Rosie had no family in Orange County, and her husband only had distant cousins here.
Orange County Wedding
So imagine my surprise when in May 2013 I came across that marriage record for my paternal grandparents Rosie Salas and Benjamin Robledo (1919-1990), which stated they had been married on 24 October 1942 in Orange County. Orange County?! The record indicates Anaheim as the exact city, next to the very city where I grew up…Santa Ana. I was floored. Dad was floored when I told him. Why on earth did they choose to get married in Orange County, when both of them had residences in the city of Los Angeles?
My husband and I married in adjacent Riverside County, even though we both lived in Orange County. However, that was because my parents lived there and my family church was located there. Rosie and Benjamin had no substantial ties to the county in which they married.
October 24, 1942 marriage license for Ben Robledo and Rosie Salas. Courtesy of FamilySearch.com.
Unanswered Questions
This record opens up a bunch of questions that I most likely will never be able to answer.
Where in Anaheim? A church? A residence? There is and was no courthouse in Anaheim (Santa Ana and Fullerton house the nearest courthouses).
Were any family present? Since I don’t think Rosie really had any close family by this time, Benjamin’s family all lived in Los Angeles County, and they chose to marry one county away from their homes, I am guessing this was perhaps an elopement, not a big traditional family wedding. Rosie was already two months pregnant with their first child; my hunch is that Benjamin and Rosie married shortly after confirming the pregnancy.
But why run off and marry alone? I know my Dad’s family…they wouldn’t have held the pregnancy against the couple. Especially since they were now doing the right thing.
And why Anaheim, one county over? Neither had close family in the area. I have recently learned of distant cousins in the area, but no one whom I think was a close connection.
What I wouldn’t give to find out where in Anaheim they married, and visit it today.
The Nieto land grant and 1834 divisions, in parts of present day Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Courtesy of the National Park Service. Click image to view a larger copy.
My 8th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.
The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.
Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.
The theme for week 8 is — Good Deeds. Does this mean a generous ancestor or one you found through land records?
My 8th ancestor is a group of people, rather than a single person. I’m not even sure they are ancestors…. or even relatives. My father’s extended Nieto family is just hoping so very much. This ancestor group is the four heirs of Don Jose Manuel Perez-Nieto (1734-1804), whom I am researching as part of myManuel Nieto Project.
This week, the focus has been on the history of the Spanish and Mexican land grants.
The Original Nieto Land Grant
If you recall from a post I did last month (see:King’s Soldier and Alta California Ranchero Manuel Nieto), in November of 1784 retired Spanish Army soldier and 1769 Portolà expedition member Manuel Nieto was awarded the largest, and one of very few, Spanish land grants in Alta California — what would become Rancho Los Nietos, located in present day Los Angeles and Orange Counties. According to Baker, Los Nietos is the second oldest land grant in California, with San Rafael (often called La Zanja) being the oldest.
Milestones in California History claims the original Spanish grant was for 300,000 acres, but was later reduced to 158,000 acres (Wikipedia states 167,000 acres) after the Mission San Gabriel contested the proximity of the rancho boundaries to its own property. According to the Orange County Archives, “It took in all the land between the San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers, from the foothills to the sea.” Baker says that a total of 158,363 acres was patented when the Mexican regime took over Alta California.
The rancho included all or parts or present-day Anaheim, Artesia, Buena Park, Bolsa Chica, Cerritos, Cypress, Downey, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Naples, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, and Whittier.
Manuel Nieto in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 15). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
According to Milestones in California History and Engstrand, Manuel Nieto’s heirs inherited the rancho upon his death in 1804. In 1833, these heirs requested that the Mexican Governor divide up the land among them, which was done in 1834 when the land was regranted by the Mexican government.
Baker states that when the U.S. acquired California following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, “Seven patents were issued to the Nieto heirs or their assigns for potions of the old rancho, known as Los Cerritos, Los Coyotes, Las Bolsas, Los Alamitos and Santa Gertrudis.”
Children and Heirs
Don Manuel married Maria Teresa Morillo (1756-1816) about 1778 in Loreto, Baja California, Mexico. Northrup’s authoritative work identifies six children together, and provides these life event details from the mission records.
The land heirs are noted in italics. The two youngest children died at too young of an age.
The “Alta California” designation is my own. I use that place name in my research notes to refer to present-day California during the eras it was still under Spanish and Mexican rule. I begin using the place name of California to refer to the United States era.
1) Juan Jose Maria Nieto (male):
Born: 03 February 1781.
Baptized: 26 February 1781 at Mission San Diego, Alta California.
Married: 28 November 1806 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Buried: 03 August 1850at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Spouse: Maria Tomasa Tapia.
1834 Disposition:Los Alamitos (“Little Cottonwoods”, 28,612 acres), and Los Coyotes (48,806 acres). The Spanish Archive Records indicate that Juan Jose was also awarded two other pieces of the original land grant (Nieto and Romulo), and Wikipedia claims he also received what was called Rancho Palo Alto. I have no information on these three mystery spots yet.
Juan Jose Maria Nieto awarded Las Alamitos, Los Nietos, Los Romulo, and Los Coyotes. Juan Jose Nieto in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 15). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
2) Jose Antonio Maria Nieto (male):
Born: 1785.
Baptized: 14 August 1785 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Married: 12 August 1804 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Buried: 02 December 1832 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Spouse:Maria Catarina Ruiz.
1834 Disposition:Las Bolsas (33,460 acres) to widow Maria Catarina Ruiz.
Maria Catarina Ruiz, awarded Las Bolsas. Catarina Ruiz in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 38). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
3) Antonio Maria de los Santos Nieto (male):
Baptized: 02 November 1788 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Married: 25 January 1815 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Buried: 07 December 1832 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Spouse:Maria Josefa Alvina Cota.
1834 Disposition:Santa Gertrudes (21,298 acres) to widow Maria Josefa Alvina Cota.
Maria Josefa Alvina Cota, awarded Santa Gertrudes. Josefa Coto De Nieto in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 15). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
4) Maria Manuela Antonia Nieto (female):
Born: 04 August 1791.
Baptized: 05 August 1791 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Married: 14 July 1805 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Spouse:Guillermo Cota.
1834 Disposition:Los Cerritos (“Little Hills”, 27,054 acres) to Maria Manuela and husband Guillero Cota.
Maria Manuela Antonia Nieto in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 15). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.Guillermo Cota, awarded Los Cerritos. Guillermo Cota in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 31). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
5) Maria de los Santos Nieto (female):
Born: About 1795 at San Gabriel, Alta California.
Buried: 28 May 1796 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
6) Antonio Maria Nieto (male):
Born: 13 July 1796.
Baptized: 14 July 1796 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Buried: 13 December 1804 at Mission San Gabriel, Alta California.
Mystery Heir (Maria Chefas Nieto)
The Spanish Archives Records index lists an additional heir — Maria Chefas Nieto, identified with Bolsa Chiquita. This name does not yet show up in my research database, so she is now on my research radar.
Mystery heir Maria Chefas Nieto, awarded mystery disposition piece Bolsa Chiquita. Maria Chefas Nieto in the California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868. (Index page 15). Ancestry.com. Click image for a larger view.
California Ranchos Timeline
Key dates in the history of Alta California and California Ranchos.
1769-1821: Spanish rule of Mexico and Alta California.
1769-1770: Portolá expedition.
1781: Founding of the peublo of Los Angeles.
1784: Three earliest Spanish land grants awarded.
1821-1848: Mexican rule of Alta California.
1821: Mexican Independence.
1824: General Colonization Law (allowed foreigners to petition for land).
1828: Mexican Reglamento (codified rules for establishing land grants).
1835: Secularization of the missions.
1846-1848: Mexican-American War.
U.S. Possession of California (1848- ).
1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2).
1850: Statehood (September 9).
1851: California Land Act of 1851: (ranchos had to reestablish their claims).
Sources
Ancestry.com. California, Spanish Archive Records, 1784-1868 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. This collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors.
Baker, C. C. (1914). Mexican Land Grants in California. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California, 9(3), 236–243. doi:10.2307/41168710
A one-name (or surname) study is a project researching all occurrences of a surname, as opposed to a particular pedigree (ancestors of one person) or descendency (descendants of one person or couple). Some ‘one-namers’ restrict their research geographically, perhaps to one country, but true one-namers collect all occurrences worldwide. (Guild of One-Name Studies)
I first heard of one-name studies last year at RootsTech, from my then-new British genea-friend Amelia Bennett (@MiaB2012). When she explained it, I immediately dismissed it thinking that I would rather spend what little research time I have focusing on my ancestors. But when I saw an introductory class offered at this year’s RootsTech, taught byTessa Keough (@TessaKeough), my curiosity got the better of me. The session was definitely worth my time!
Robledo Brick Wall
I have written before about the enormous brick wall I face with my Robledo line.
My oldest known Robledo ancestor is my paternal great grandfather Jose “Joe” Robledo (1875-1937). Jose (also known as Joe and Joseph) is the furthest back I have been able to go on this line for over 15 years. Dad’s family simply knows nothing about this patriarch who brought his wife and first two children to the United States in the 1910s, after the family lost everything during the Mexican Revolution. Joe has one child left alive, but none of his living grandchildren were born before Joe died in 1937. None of them know the names of Joe’s parents, where he was born (we assume in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico, like his wife), or the names of any possible siblings. His wife died in 1974. The family has only one known photo of this patriarch. And what very little documentation I have found doesn’t shed light on these questions either.
In short, I have made no progress at all on my Robledo line. Nada. Ever.
What I find to be particularly frustrating is the total absence of anyone else researching Joe or his family history. For well over a decade, I have regularly trolled other public Ancestry Member Trees trying to identify another family historian who might offer forth any clues. While I find plenty of AMTs that connect to Joe’s wife’s family history (that prolific Nieto line of mine), I have not found a single other AMT that identifies Joe, except as a collateral relation to his wife’s family line. The launch in recent years of Family Search’s shared Family Tree held initial hope for me, but has not yet revealed any other genealogists contributing to Joe’s Family Tree.
In March 2014, I had Dad do an AncestryDNA autosomal test for me. I thought for sure this would connect me with other Robledo researchers to provide some new leads. Nope. Just more Nieto researchers (and some good leads on Dad’s mother’s line). There are quite a few suggested connections who either don’t have a tree posted at all, or who make their tree private (and haven’t responded to my requests to let me view their trees), so it is possible I might end up with some fellow Robledo researchers there. I find it incredibly frustrating that AncestryDNA doesn’t at least display a surnames list for DNA Matches who choose to keep their trees private. Just being able to view the surnames would help me dismiss a possible Match, or keep begging them for access. Immediately after RootsTech and FGS earlier this month, I transferred my raw AncestryDNA to Family Tree DNA, so I am hoping for some matches there (a computer glitch on their end has delayed processing my results).
The recent announcement at RootsTech that FamilySearch is finally going to index all of their Mexico records does hold some good promise for me.
Robledo Origins
Robledo is not an unusual surname, but neither is it the most common of Hispanic surnames (like Garcia, Sanches, Rodriguez, etc.). Other than my own siblings, I can only recall one other Robledo in my K-12 schools, despite growing up in heavily-Hispanic Santa Ana, Orange County, California. I have lived here in Orange County for all but a handful of years, and have never actually run into another Robledo.
Ancestry confirms what Dad always told me about the Robledo surname.
House of Names of course claims a distinguished and rich history (don’t they always!).
The distinguished surname Robledo is a proud sign of a rich and ancient history. The original bearer of the name Robledo, which is a loal surname, once lived, held land, or was born in the beautiful region of Spain… The Robledo family originally lived in the village named Robles, which was located in the judicial district of Murias in the province of Leon. This place-name was originally derived from the Spanish word robles, which means oak, and it indicates that the originally [sic] bearer of this name resided near oak trees.
Spelling variations of this family name include: Robles, de Robles, Roble, Robleda, Robledo, de Robledo, Robledano, Robledillo, de Robledillo, Robreno [with a ~], Robreno, Robreda, de Robreda, Robredo, de Robredo, Robredillo and many more.
First found in Castile, in north central Spain.
Sadly, my Robledo surname doesn’t even warrant a Wikipedia page.
Leon Province, Spain. Creative Commons licensed image from Wikimedia Commons.
Related Robledo Projects
I find no real surname projects mentioned on the web, or even a family association or Facebook Group. All I find are a few DNA projects, which I plan to join when I have the requisite Y-DNA test done on Dad or his uncle.
So, a one-name study can’t hurt, unless it diverts too much of my attention away from my regular research. But there seem to be so few people researching this surname, that at the very least, it will allow me to make a meaningful contribution to the genealogy community and to my Robledo surname group.
I have blogged about the long-time brick walls I faced for almost 15 years with my dad’s family history, both on 
I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I was 
My oldest known Robledo ancestor is my paternal great grandfather 