Submitted by R.A.Ricci on 19 July, 2010 - 12:30am.
It was worse in parts of spain and parts of italy. It was a jewish tradition that the first child used the father's surname and the succeeding children used a grandparents and greatgrandparents in a certain order. If a child died sometimes the order was thrown off. Sometimes the child would change the last name when they came of age. Also the last name changes in some families due to a nickname or they moved from one area to another and the person took the original area where they were from as a last name. Sometimes they had to take a certain last name in order to claim an inheritance. The Salcedos took the maternal grandparents name in order to claim the inheritance and they were obligated to continue the salcedo line. The last name sometimes was the father's first name, grandparent's name, in the case of the Enriquez the name was taken to honor their uncle king enrique II of castilla. Sometimes it was the name of the town or region and other times if your were the count of various areas then sometimes they shortened it and used it as your last name. Sometimes the name is often attached to another name. The Martel were often Known as Perez Martel.
Sometimes a big event in your life changed what you used as your last name.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Blake
Sender: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:28:13
To:
Reply-To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
Thanks to all for your input.
What I gather is:
Unlike today, at that point in time in Mexico, the names were interchangeable. I wonder if the same existed at the same time in Spain?
Of course, note both names for my records. And if indeed the names were interchangeable, I should see more of the same. I was just afraid, picking one or the other would lead me on the wrong track.
Thanks again for all your help. Alice
- On Mon, 7/19/10, Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon wrote:
From: Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
To: "Patty Hoyos"
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 3:12 AM
I would just combine the names and put them together, since they were interchangeable.
So put your ancestor as X Garcia Garza or Garza Garcia whatever you feel.
I also have this issues when woman and some men use their maternal name and perfer it,
Ill just put a note on the indivudual and hange their name to the one they used. So in mydatabase
if a Joseph Luna married MAria Gonzalez and their faughter Ana used Garcia after the paternal grandmother
in my database shell be listed as Ana Garcia not Ana Luna. These are always tricky and we have to
be careful with documentation. IThey also help identify ancestry. When men do this it is also very
interesting especially with the Guerra family of Los Altos, a perfect example of Alonso Guerra Valadez
who used his maternal grandfather's name since he had no sons of his own.
Once women have 4 or 5 names they used thats when it gets complicated, cant help you there :)
but I just make quick note of al that
Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon
> To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> From: mygenes2000 [at] yahoo [dot] com
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:01:29 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>
> One of my ancestors with the last name marin comes up with one record with her name listed as Martin. None of her ancestors (all lines) for 200 years are Martin so the priest most likely made a mistake when he should have written Marin.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alice Blake
> Sender: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:03:19
> To:
> Reply-To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>
> Dear Group,
> What is the recommended course of action?
> I'm accustomed to the regular changes in surname spelling, but recently I've come across the Garza/Garcia situation. I've always considered these surnames to be distinctly different, but I'm not sure that in the past that was always the case.
> On one 1715 IGI entry it states the parents as "Juan Garza or Garcia", and Jacinta Minchaca. I've viewed the actual entry and Garcia is clearly entered.
> Two years later 1717, another child, same couple, same place, the father's name on the entry is clearly "Juan Garza".
> Three years later, 1720, the IGI entry lists the baptismal name as "Pedro Garza or Garcia", and the father as "Juan Garza or Garcia". Why did IGI enter Garza or Garcia if the actual document clearly reads Juan Garza? That's why I'm asking if the names are interchangeable.
> How do I handle this? For my records I've entered it both ways, but aren't they two different surnames? And won't that cause problems later? Thanks so much for your expertise and help, Alice
Submitted by Stuart Armstrong on 19 July, 2010 - 1:30pm.
>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
that order is if they were copied from something else.
In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
from evidently were not.
Other common mistakes:
Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
Part of a record has some information copied from another
unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
never intended by the original creator of the record.
In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
as many as seven different surnames.
Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
certifica.
Very rough translation:
Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
Submitted by Jaime Alvarado on 19 July, 2010 - 3:15pm.
Stuart,
Fantastic synopsis of clerical mistakes made in parishes. I particularly enjoyed the document regarding the fine imposed by the bishop in an attempt to force some careless priests get their act together regarding keeping accurate records. Also, the information you provides teaches us a very important lesson: whenever possible back up your research with multiple sources.
Submitted by Jaime Alvarado on 19 July, 2010 - 3:30pm.
Stuart,
Fantastic synopsis of clerical mistakes made in parishes. I particularly enjoyed the document regarding the fine imposed by the bishop in an attempt to force some careless priests get their act together regarding keeping accurate records. Also, the information you provides teaches us a very important lesson: whenever possible back up your research with multiple sources.
Thanks so much, Stuart. Many things to consider. Being a novice at genealogy, I took for granted that the record entries I was reading were the originals. I've run across all sorts of things, like an entry stating a Sept date placed in the middle of Nov. One of my favorites is the ever helpful, "on the same day, of the same month, of the same year" on page after page! Thanks so much, Alice
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Stuart Armstrong wrote:
From: Stuart Armstrong
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 6:25 PM
>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
that order is if they were copied from something else.
In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
from evidently were not.
Other common mistakes:
Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
Part of a record has some information copied from another
unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
never intended by the original creator of the record.
In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
as many as seven different surnames.
Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
certifica.
Very rough translation:
Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
Submitted by Stuart Armstrong on 19 July, 2010 - 5:45pm.
It is helpful when considering any genealogical source to find out, or imagine, how the record was created, and how the information was gathered. Most genealogical records are not court depositions, where the testimony of each informant was rigorously cross-examined for acurracy and validity. Technically, most genealogical evidence is just one step above hear-say.
Consider a christening record, for example. Who was present at the christening? Likely, the mother was not: she may have been at home, secluded, as was sometimes the custom. How well informed were those present concerning the mother's parents? Or of when the baby was actually born? How far was the chapel from the parents' residence? Who made the journey? Or did the priest go to the family? Did he carry the record book with him? Did the priest know the family? Did he make the record himself or did an assistant? Was the record made at the time of the christening or later from memory? Did the priest gather the information amid a lot of conversation and confusion? Was he in a hurry? Did the informants have anything to hide? How many times was the record copied? ...
There are hundreds of such questions. Always consider the circumstances and the times, and imagin the possible variations.
Alice Blake wrote:
>Thanks so much, Stuart. Many things to consider. Being a novice at genealogy, I took for granted that the record entries I was reading were the originals. I've run across all sorts of things, like an entry stating a Sept date placed in the middle of Nov. One of my favorites is the ever helpful, "on the same day, of the same month, of the same year" on page after page! Thanks so much, Alice
>
>--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Stuart Armstrong wrote:
>
>
>From: Stuart Armstrong
>Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
>Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 6:25 PM
>
>
>>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
>
>In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
>determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
>that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
>mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
>are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
>with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
>31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
>that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
>running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
>that order is if they were copied from something else.
>
>In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
>noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
>when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
>and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
>though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
>from evidently were not.
>
>Other common mistakes:
> Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
> Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
> Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
> Part of a record has some information copied from another
> unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
> Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
>
>What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
>English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
>then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
>around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
>might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
>aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
>never intended by the original creator of the record.
>
>In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
>mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
>be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
>relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
>exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
>surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
>as many as seven different surnames.
>
>Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
>beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
>
>"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
>firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
>en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
>con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
>por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
>espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
>reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
>presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
>responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
>principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
>proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
>rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
>certifica.
>
>Very rough translation:
>
>Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
>certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
>ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
>precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
>verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
>comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
>that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
>Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
>
>
>
>-- Best regards, Stuart
>mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
>
Submitted by robert mena on 5 September, 2010 - 8:00pm.
"Hi, I'm researching de Mena, Gordoa, Gonzalez and Quiroz. These surnames come
from a triangular ranch area whose points are bordered by Lagos de Moreno
Jalisco on the northwest, Union de San Antonio, Jalisco on the southeast and
Leon, Guanajuato on the east. Specifically I'm mainly interested in my the
parents of Jose Antonio Guillermo de Mena and Maria de Jesus Quezada who were
born in this area about 1750. They had several boys who I know about. I'm
approximating that these two were married about 1772-1782 in Lagos de Moreno,
Jal.
Since many of the Mena clan were raised in Union de San Antonio, Jalisco and
Leon, Guanjuato, I'm speculating that my ancestors might have extended back in
this area first before I look elsewhere toward Guadalajara or Zacatecas between
1600's-1750's and possibly crossing into Spain sometime between 1500's and
1600's.since there was a great migration from Spain in this 150 yrs period.
Thank you in advance.
R Mena
It was worse in parts of spain and parts of italy. It was a jewish tradition that the first child used the father's surname and the succeeding children used a grandparents and greatgrandparents in a certain order. If a child died sometimes the order was thrown off. Sometimes the child would change the last name when they came of age. Also the last name changes in some families due to a nickname or they moved from one area to another and the person took the original area where they were from as a last name. Sometimes they had to take a certain last name in order to claim an inheritance. The Salcedos took the maternal grandparents name in order to claim the inheritance and they were obligated to continue the salcedo line. The last name sometimes was the father's first name, grandparent's name, in the case of the Enriquez the name was taken to honor their uncle king enrique II of castilla. Sometimes it was the name of the town or region and other times if your were the count of various areas then sometimes they shortened it and used it as your last name. Sometimes the name is often attached to another name. The Martel were often Known as Perez Martel.
Sometimes a big event in your life changed what you used as your last name.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Blake
Sender: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:28:13
To:
Reply-To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
Thanks to all for your input.
What I gather is:
Unlike today, at that point in time in Mexico, the names were interchangeable. I wonder if the same existed at the same time in Spain?
Of course, note both names for my records. And if indeed the names were interchangeable, I should see more of the same. I was just afraid, picking one or the other would lead me on the wrong track.
Thanks again for all your help. Alice
- On Mon, 7/19/10, Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon wrote:
From: Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
To: "Patty Hoyos"
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 3:12 AM
I would just combine the names and put them together, since they were interchangeable.
So put your ancestor as X Garcia Garza or Garza Garcia whatever you feel.
I also have this issues when woman and some men use their maternal name and perfer it,
Ill just put a note on the indivudual and hange their name to the one they used. So in mydatabase
if a Joseph Luna married MAria Gonzalez and their faughter Ana used Garcia after the paternal grandmother
in my database shell be listed as Ana Garcia not Ana Luna. These are always tricky and we have to
be careful with documentation. IThey also help identify ancestry. When men do this it is also very
interesting especially with the Guerra family of Los Altos, a perfect example of Alonso Guerra Valadez
who used his maternal grandfather's name since he had no sons of his own.
Once women have 4 or 5 names they used thats when it gets complicated, cant help you there :)
but I just make quick note of al that
Daniel Mendez de Camino y Garcia de Leon
> To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> From: mygenes2000 [at] yahoo [dot] com
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:01:29 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>
> One of my ancestors with the last name marin comes up with one record with her name listed as Martin. None of her ancestors (all lines) for 200 years are Martin so the priest most likely made a mistake when he should have written Marin.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alice Blake
> Sender: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:03:19
> To:
> Reply-To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
> Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>
> Dear Group,
> What is the recommended course of action?
> I'm accustomed to the regular changes in surname spelling, but recently I've come across the Garza/Garcia situation. I've always considered these surnames to be distinctly different, but I'm not sure that in the past that was always the case.
> On one 1715 IGI entry it states the parents as "Juan Garza or Garcia", and Jacinta Minchaca. I've viewed the actual entry and Garcia is clearly entered.
> Two years later 1717, another child, same couple, same place, the father's name on the entry is clearly "Juan Garza".
> Three years later, 1720, the IGI entry lists the baptismal name as "Pedro Garza or Garcia", and the father as "Juan Garza or Garcia". Why did IGI enter Garza or Garcia if the actual document clearly reads Juan Garza? That's why I'm asking if the names are interchangeable.
> How do I handle this? For my records I've entered it both ways, but aren't they two different surnames? And won't that cause problems later? Thanks so much for your expertise and help, Alice
>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
that order is if they were copied from something else.
In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
from evidently were not.
Other common mistakes:
Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
Part of a record has some information copied from another
unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
never intended by the original creator of the record.
In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
as many as seven different surnames.
Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
certifica.
Very rough translation:
Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
Stuart,
Fantastic synopsis of clerical mistakes made in parishes. I particularly enjoyed the document regarding the fine imposed by the bishop in an attempt to force some careless priests get their act together regarding keeping accurate records. Also, the information you provides teaches us a very important lesson: whenever possible back up your research with multiple sources.
Jaime
Stuart,
Fantastic synopsis of clerical mistakes made in parishes. I particularly enjoyed the document regarding the fine imposed by the bishop in an attempt to force some careless priests get their act together regarding keeping accurate records. Also, the information you provides teaches us a very important lesson: whenever possible back up your research with multiple sources.
Jaime
Thanks so much, Stuart. Many things to consider. Being a novice at genealogy, I took for granted that the record entries I was reading were the originals. I've run across all sorts of things, like an entry stating a Sept date placed in the middle of Nov. One of my favorites is the ever helpful, "on the same day, of the same month, of the same year" on page after page! Thanks so much, Alice
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Stuart Armstrong wrote:
From: Stuart Armstrong
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 6:25 PM
>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
that order is if they were copied from something else.
In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
from evidently were not.
Other common mistakes:
Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
Part of a record has some information copied from another
unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
never intended by the original creator of the record.
In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
as many as seven different surnames.
Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
certifica.
Very rough translation:
Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
-- Best regards, Stuart
mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
It is helpful when considering any genealogical source to find out, or imagine, how the record was created, and how the information was gathered. Most genealogical records are not court depositions, where the testimony of each informant was rigorously cross-examined for acurracy and validity. Technically, most genealogical evidence is just one step above hear-say.
Consider a christening record, for example. Who was present at the christening? Likely, the mother was not: she may have been at home, secluded, as was sometimes the custom. How well informed were those present concerning the mother's parents? Or of when the baby was actually born? How far was the chapel from the parents' residence? Who made the journey? Or did the priest go to the family? Did he carry the record book with him? Did the priest know the family? Did he make the record himself or did an assistant? Was the record made at the time of the christening or later from memory? Did the priest gather the information amid a lot of conversation and confusion? Was he in a hurry? Did the informants have anything to hide? How many times was the record copied? ...
There are hundreds of such questions. Always consider the circumstances and the times, and imagin the possible variations.
Alice Blake wrote:
>Thanks so much, Stuart. Many things to consider. Being a novice at genealogy, I took for granted that the record entries I was reading were the originals. I've run across all sorts of things, like an entry stating a Sept date placed in the middle of Nov. One of my favorites is the ever helpful, "on the same day, of the same month, of the same year" on page after page! Thanks so much, Alice
>
>--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Stuart Armstrong wrote:
>
>
>From: Stuart Armstrong
>Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] (no subject)
>To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
>Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 6:25 PM
>
>
>>...so the priest most likely made a mistake ...
>
>In studying the records of San José de Gracia, Aguascalientes, I have
>determined that the "original records" are not really original. In
>that parish, for example, there are a great many oodles and gobs of
>mistakes like the ones described in this thread. Because the records
>are hand-written copies from other books or papers. Each month begins
>with the records from Rincón de Romos, and runs from the 1st to the
>31st. Then the records from San José de Gracia - another chapel in
>that parish - are entered, beginnin with the first of the month and
>running in order to the 31st. The only way they could be recorded in
>that order is if they were copied from something else.
>
>In noting the many variations of both given names and surnames, I have
>noticed that the mistakes are typically variations that LOOK alike
>when written, but do not necesarily sound alike - such as Florencia
>and Filomena, and Chávez and Chaires, and yes García and Garza. Even
>though the Cura's handwriting may be clear, the sources that he copied
>from evidently were not.
>
>Other common mistakes:
> Gender indicators inconsistant or simply wrong.
> Name in margin does not agree with name in the body of the record.
> Names of parents and abuelos mixed up.
> Part of a record has some information copied from another
> unrelated record, often from the preceding record.
> Omissions - required information accidentally omitted.
>
>What happens when a priest made a mistake and knew it? In modern
>English we were taught in school to put a line through the mistake and
>then write it correctly. But many priests simply put () parentheses
>around the mistake and continued. If you aren't looking closely you
>might miss that. Also if a person extracting names for the IGI wasn't
>aware of that practice, he or she might put down something that was
>never intended by the original creator of the record.
>
>In other cases, there are variations that do not appear to be
>mistakes. Sometimes a parent's name in a dozen different records will
>be half one way and half another. Problems with inconsistant family
>relationships can sometimes be traced to two siblings who have the
>exact same name. Women, particularly, did not always use the same
>surname, regardless of marital status. I have some who were known by
>as many as seven different surnames.
>
>Not all of the priests were concientious. In the front of each volume
>beginning about 1872 is the following notice:
>
>"Y por cuanto á que es tan frecuente que los Ministros dejan sin
>firmar las partidas de los bautismos que administran, mandó S.S.Y. que
>en lo sucesivo lo hagan en las primeros ocho dias del mes precisamente
>con las del anterior, bajo el concepto que no verificandolo, pagarán
>por cada vez que falten dos pesos á beneficio de la fábrica
>espiritual, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad de conciencia que
>reportan por no cumplir con ese deber, y á fin de que se tenga siempre
>presente ésta disposición, cuyo cumplimiento será de la
>responsabilidad de los párrocos, se copiarsá la presente cláusula al
>principio de los Libros que se hagan en lo sucesivo, Así S.S.Ylma. lo
>proveyó, mandó, y firmó. - firmado + Pedro - Arzobpo. de Guad.a - una
>rúbrica - Jacinto Lopez - una rúbrica - P. Srio." Es cópia que
>certifica.
>
>Very rough translation:
>
>Inasmuch as it is so frequent that the Ministers do not sign the
>certificates of the Baptisms they (have) administered, it is so
>ordered that, from now on, in the first eight days of the month
>precisely, all of the certificates of the previous month must be
>verified ... or they will be fined two pesos for each failure to
>comply ... and it will be the responsibility of the parish priests
>that this clause shall be copied to the front of every volume ...
>Provided, ordered, and affirmed by the Archbishop of Guadalajara ...
>
>
>
>-- Best regards, Stuart
>mailto:stuartarms [at] gmail [dot] com
>
ya mande una introduccion pero no se si esta bien, los downloads que hay ahi no son para Mac asi que tuve que improvisar.gracias.
"Hi, I'm researching de Mena, Gordoa, Gonzalez and Quiroz. These surnames come
from a triangular ranch area whose points are bordered by Lagos de Moreno
Jalisco on the northwest, Union de San Antonio, Jalisco on the southeast and
Leon, Guanajuato on the east. Specifically I'm mainly interested in my the
parents of Jose Antonio Guillermo de Mena and Maria de Jesus Quezada who were
born in this area about 1750. They had several boys who I know about. I'm
approximating that these two were married about 1772-1782 in Lagos de Moreno,
Jal.
Since many of the Mena clan were raised in Union de San Antonio, Jalisco and
Leon, Guanjuato, I'm speculating that my ancestors might have extended back in
this area first before I look elsewhere toward Guadalajara or Zacatecas between
1600's-1750's and possibly crossing into Spain sometime between 1500's and
1600's.since there was a great migration from Spain in this 150 yrs period.
Thank you in advance.
R Mena