I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico, especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.

I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.

I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties agreed would be the actual care giving parents.

I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija natural in our ancestry.
So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico, especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.

I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.

I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties agreed would be the actual care giving parents.

I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija natural in our ancestry.
So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

Dear Ernie:

Cases of hijos naturales were/are quite common, including the spanish/new
spanish nobility.
The first viceroy of México, don Antonio de Mendoza had an illegitimate
child, María de Mendoza.
A case well known lately is of don Leandro de Borbón y Ruiz Moragas who is
an illegitimate son of the King Alfonso XIII.
I know of cases when the mother leaves the father and her child. I know of
one case that occurred about 80 years ago within the new spanish nobility
involving strong noble families of political influence. There were a child,
una hija natural, the family of the mother sent her to spain and left the
father with the child. These days, no one cares about the “escandalo”.

I doubt there is still people that think there is anything wrong with it.
And you’re right, in our ancestry, there will always be cases like this.

Kind regards,

Erik

—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

>I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I thought
>there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico, especially a
>hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.

> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija natural
> in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

Dear Ernie:

Cases of hijos naturales were/are quite common, including the spanish/new
spanish nobility.
The first viceroy of México, don Antonio de Mendoza had an illegitimate
child, María de Mendoza.
A case well known lately is of don Leandro de Borbón y Ruiz Moragas who is
an illegitimate son of the King Alfonso XIII.
I know of cases when the mother leaves the father and her child. I know of
one case that occurred about 80 years ago within the new spanish nobility
involving strong noble families of political influence. There were a child,
una hija natural, the family of the mother sent her to spain and left the
father with the child. These days, no one cares about the “escandalo”.

I doubt there is still people that think there is anything wrong with it.
And you’re right, in our ancestry, there will always be cases like this.

Kind regards,

Erik

—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

>I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I thought
>there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico, especially a
>hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.

> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija natural
> in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I
> thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico,
> especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.
>
> I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both
> the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties
> agreed would be the actual care giving parents.
>
> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija
> natural in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I
> thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico,
> especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.
>
> I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both
> the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties
> agreed would be the actual care giving parents.
>
> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija
> natural in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

Marge,

You are so funny. Loose knickers–you must have gotten that expression from your Scot mum. I guess my husband’s ggg-grandmother Dorotea may have had them too; she was the second wife, perhaps she had children from the man she married (who was a “viudo”) after having three sons “natural” while he was still married (but who in the margin of their birth records someone wrote “h. lego”), if that man really fathered her children. Could be, no, since there was rarely any divorce in Mexico in the 1700s? How frustrating this all is. I wonder if we will ever be able to sort it out.

Emilie Garcia
Port Orchard, WA —
—– Original Message —–
From: M. Vallazza
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I
> thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico,
> especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.
>
> I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both
> the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties
> agreed would be the actual care giving parents.
>
> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija
> natural in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

Marge,

You are so funny. Loose knickers–you must have gotten that expression from your Scot mum. I guess my husband’s ggg-grandmother Dorotea may have had them too; she was the second wife, perhaps she had children from the man she married (who was a “viudo”) after having three sons “natural” while he was still married (but who in the margin of their birth records someone wrote “h. lego”), if that man really fathered her children. Could be, no, since there was rarely any divorce in Mexico in the 1700s? How frustrating this all is. I wonder if we will ever be able to sort it out.

Emilie Garcia
Port Orchard, WA —
—– Original Message —–
From: M. Vallazza
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> I have been surprised by the high percentage of unwed mothers. I
> thought there would be far fewer in such a Catholic country as Mexico,
> especially a hundred, or two hundred years ago.
>
> I like the term hijo natural. Its not in the least bit insulting, like
> that awful word that starts with a B. It pains me to see that term, I
> think its disrespectful of the mother and the child.
>
> I’ve also seen the term adoptado in many birth records. Some list both
> the bioligical parents and the adoptive parents who both parties
> agreed would be the actual care giving parents.
>
> I’ll give you any odds that we ALL have at least one hijo, or hija
> natural in our ancestry.
> So don’t cast any stones when you live in a glass house!

Another category of birth could be the product of rape.

My great grandfather, Jesus Porras, was such a product.
His mother, 14 year-old Maria de las Nieves Porras, was raped by the owner of the ranch where her family lived. His name was Jose Ysac Gallardo Chaves.

Now you would think such a child would be an hijo natural. But the rapist was so impressed with my great grandfather that he legitized his birth, recognized him legally as his son, entitled to inherit his estate. My grandpa went on to be mayor, and found Pastas Porras.

Just the same, no one in my family has ever borne the name Gallardo!

For 148 years the name Porras has refused to be eradicated.

Maria de las Nieves Porras is still honored in our family, as is Petronilla Moctezuma.
Two wonderful women that I respect.

Another category of birth could be the product of rape.

My great grandfather, Jesus Porras, was such a product.
His mother, 14 year-old Maria de las Nieves Porras, was raped by the owner of the ranch where her family lived. His name was Jose Ysac Gallardo Chaves.

Now you would think such a child would be an hijo natural. But the rapist was so impressed with my great grandfather that he legitized his birth, recognized him legally as his son, entitled to inherit his estate. My grandpa went on to be mayor, and found Pastas Porras.

Just the same, no one in my family has ever borne the name Gallardo!

For 148 years the name Porras has refused to be eradicated.

Maria de las Nieves Porras is still honored in our family, as is Petronilla Moctezuma.
Two wonderful women that I respect.

In my family, I think rape might have been the case with a second
ancestress (Maria del Refugio Gomez) whose daughter, Petra Gomez, was
my grandmother’s grandmother. Petra had “padre no conocido” on her
side. But in Agustina de Llamas’ case, I think it was just a matter of
(as my husband puts it) “calzon flojo.” Of course, all of the above is
pure speculation on my part and we’ll probably never know the truth
about these events. I still have two or three other earlier ancestors
who were h.n.s and two of my own grandkids were born “au naturel,” and
it’s not their fault. All the best, Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 9:51 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> Another category of birth could be the product of rape.
>
> My great grandfather, Jesus Porras, was such a product.
> His mother, 14 year-old Maria de las Nieves Porras, was raped by the
> owner of the ranch where her family lived. His name was Jose Ysac
> Gallardo Chaves.
>
> Now you would think such a child would be an hijo natural. But the
> rapist was so impressed with my great grandfather that he legitized
> his birth, recognized him legally as his son, entitled to inherit his
> estate. My grandpa went on to be mayor, and found Pastas Porras.
>
> Just the same, no one in my family has ever borne the name Gallardo!
>
> For 148 years the name Porras has refused to be eradicated.
>
> Maria de las Nieves Porras is still honored in our family, as is
> Petronilla Moctezuma.
> Two wonderful women that I respect.

In my family, I think rape might have been the case with a second
ancestress (Maria del Refugio Gomez) whose daughter, Petra Gomez, was
my grandmother’s grandmother. Petra had “padre no conocido” on her
side. But in Agustina de Llamas’ case, I think it was just a matter of
(as my husband puts it) “calzon flojo.” Of course, all of the above is
pure speculation on my part and we’ll probably never know the truth
about these events. I still have two or three other earlier ancestors
who were h.n.s and two of my own grandkids were born “au naturel,” and
it’s not their fault. All the best, Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 9:51 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

> Another category of birth could be the product of rape.
>
> My great grandfather, Jesus Porras, was such a product.
> His mother, 14 year-old Maria de las Nieves Porras, was raped by the
> owner of the ranch where her family lived. His name was Jose Ysac
> Gallardo Chaves.
>
> Now you would think such a child would be an hijo natural. But the
> rapist was so impressed with my great grandfather that he legitized
> his birth, recognized him legally as his son, entitled to inherit his
> estate. My grandpa went on to be mayor, and found Pastas Porras.
>
> Just the same, no one in my family has ever borne the name Gallardo!
>
> For 148 years the name Porras has refused to be eradicated.
>
> Maria de las Nieves Porras is still honored in our family, as is
> Petronilla Moctezuma.
> Two wonderful women that I respect.

Hello Marge:

In my research of women from the Victorian Era, “loose knickers” was not a major factor of women bearing children.
In Catholic dominated countries there were “hijos de la Iglesia”, children fathered by clergy.

As late as the mid 1900’s, there were “secrets” being told of clergy taking a young “bride to be”, and physically demonstrating the union she would experience with her husband. Also, in many communities, the clergy were held in high esteem, and some mothers thought it was an honor to offer their young daughters to clergy for their personal pleasure.

Women from Africa, in the US, and throughout the world, were slaves to the landowners, endured many hardships, and bore children as did their counterparts in religious domains.

Helyn

“M. Vallazza” wrote:
I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

>

———————————
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You’re invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

I always thought “hijo de la iglesia” meant they were orphaned and left at a church run orphanage or convent. I’ve seen many of them listed and the idea that thier fathers were priests is awful! This is something I never contemplated. Guess I’ve been naive.
Linda in B.C.

Santos Luna wrote:
Hello Marge:

In my research of women from the Victorian Era, “loose knickers” was not a major factor of women bearing children.
In Catholic dominated countries there were “hijos de la Iglesia”, children fathered by clergy.

As late as the mid 1900’s, there were “secrets” being told of clergy taking a young “bride to be”, and physically demonstrating the union she would experience with her husband. Also, in many communities, the clergy were held in high esteem, and some mothers thought it was an honor to offer their young daughters to clergy for their personal pleasure.

Women from Africa, in the US, and throughout the world, were slaves to the landowners, endured many hardships, and bore children as did their counterparts in religious domains.

Helyn

“M. Vallazza” wrote:
I have a couple of ancestresses who were listed as h.n. in their
children’s birth record and had “padre no conocido” for the paternal
grandfather. For example: my ancestor Juan Josef Zezario Saldivar and
his wife Antonia Rossalia de Llamas are the parents of Narcisco
Saldivar and various sisters. The birth records list the child (hijo
legitimo de JJZS and ARdLl). Paternal grandparents: Josef Saldivar
and Maria de la Luz Ortis; maternal grandparents: Augustina de Llamas
and padre no conocido.

What a lost opportunity to find MORE ancestors. Augustina had several
children with pnc after that. I wonder why? I hate to think that a
woman in 18th century Mexico had loose knickers.:( Marge:)
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:40 PM, erniealderete@charter.net wrote:

>

———————————
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You’re invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.