The birth record of Francesca Pastore has proven elusive. We suggest that the birth record for "Francesco Pastore" may be that record incorrectly recorded for a "male baby".

The argument consists of two components. We must first argue that we have identified the correct parents and then argue for the birth.

The Argument for the Parents
  1. On her marriage license to Antonio Parente, Francesca's parents are recorded as Antonio Pastore and Raffaela Rocco.
  2. On the ship registration of her voyage to America, Francesca reported:
    • Place of birth: Pellezano
    • Last residence: San Bartolomeo in Galdo
    • Host in US: her brother, Tommaso, in Bridgeport, CT.
  3. If you trust her age claims on the two above documents, Francesca must have been born between JUN 26th and JUL 29th of 1886.
  4. In Pellezano we found, in 1883, a marriage of Antonio Pastore and Raffaela Rocco.
  5. In Pellezano birth records were found for 4 children born to this couple:
    • 1885: Tommaso Pastore
    • 1887: Francesco Pastore
    • 1890: Pietro Pastore
    • 1896: Raffaela Pastore
  6. We have established that Tommaso Pastore immigrated to America in an appropriate timeframe. His initial destination was Bridgeport, and he settled and married in Greenwich.
  7. The record dated 1896 for Raffaela reports that the family has relocated to San Bartolomeo in Galdo!
  8. When Antonio Parente returned to Italy, he returned to San Bartolomeo in Galdo (not Casalnuovo!) and found his new bride there.

I believe that taken all together the above factors make a strong argument for this being Francesca's family.

The Argument for the Birth
  1. From the time of their marriage to beyond 1890, the family remained in Pellezano. The marriage and the births of 3 children have been located in Pellezano, but NO record has been found for Francesca.
  2. No corroborating data has been found for Francesco after his birth - no infant death record, no immigration record, and no reports from San Bartolomeo regarding marriage or death. (such as the report of Raffaela'a birth.)
  3. A military call was found for Pietro, which was not answered (he had moved). No such record was found for Francesco. (Tommaso had already immigrated.)
  4. In traditional Italian naming, the first son is named for the father's father - Antonio Pastore's father was Tommaso Pastore.
  5. In traditional Italian naming, the first daughter is named for the father's mother - Antonio's mother was Francesca Vitale.
  6. In traditional Italian naming, the second son is named for the mother's father - Raffaela Rocco's father was Alfonso Rocco. However, her father's father was Pietro Rocco!
  7. In traditional Italian naming, the second daughter is named for the mother's mother - Raffaela Rocco's mother was Raffaela Capuano.
  8. We have yet to uncover a significant "Francesco" in this lineage! If we replace Francesco with Francesca in the birth order, we get 3 of 4 children following exactly the traditional naming, and the fourth honoring a grandfather over a father.
I intend to continue research of this question, but I have decided that the evidence is sufficient to declare this Francesca's birth record until it can be proven otherwise.
2016JUN14
Further investigation has led me to remove Francesco from consideration and assume that Francesca's birth was incorrectly recorded. Some contributing factors may be subliminal, but three stand out in supplement to the above reasoning:
  1. Research in San Bartolomeo and Roseto Valfortore failed to produce any subsequent references to Francesco.
  2. Francesco never answered his military service summons (see below).
  3. A listing of the family produced in Roseto Valfortore c1921 includes Francesca, but NOT Francesco.
  4. An oral tradition of family size discovered in the obituaries of Carmine and Raffaela in Pennsylvania supports the family size reported in the c1921 listing and the balance of equal numbers of brothers and sisters. (Oral tradition says 10 brothers and 10 sisters - which seems unlikely. 10 siblings - 5 brothers and 5 sisters matches the c1921 report.)
2016NOV17