You are hereForums / Genealogy Research / Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/lafamilia/nuestrosranchos.com/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 123.

By meef98367 - Posted on 11 August 2006

I too have a case that has me wondering just what is Hijo Legitimo vs Hijo Natural:

My husband's great-great grandfather Ysac Cervantes gave as his father's name Encarnacion Cervantes in the baptism records of all his children and in his marriage record. This made it extremely difficult for me to find Ysac and Encarnacion. After backtracking and some help from Arturo, I discovered that the Cervantes name came from Ysac's mother Dorotea Cervantes who did not marry Encarnacion Talamantes until after Ysac's birth and that of his two brothers. Encarnacion and Dorotea were not married until July 10, 1839, three years after the birth of Ysac and six years after the birth of Ysac's brother Sotero. The Talamantes I believe were part Indian from Tlaltenango, and the Cerbantes' were espanoles from Encarnacion de Diaz.

I found Ysac's birth record for June 4, 1836 in "Hijos Legitimos" for La Encarnacion Church, Encarnacion de Diaz, Jalisco. In the margin the record reads: "h. lego.", yet in the body of the record it reads "bautise solamente---Jose Ysac de dos dias nacido en esta Villa h. n. de Dorotea Cerbantes. A. M. Anto. Cerbantes y Juliana Rovalcaba----. The record for Sotero reads the same, "h. lego." in the margin, and "h. n." in the body of the record for April 24, 1833. No father or paternal grandparents are listed in either record.

How could a child be listed as both "h. lego." and "h. n." in the same record in a book that is for "hijos legitimos"? Why would Ysac change his father's/stepfather's name from Talamantes to Cervantes for the records?

Can anyone shed light on this?

Emilie Garcia
Port Orchard, WA ---

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.com
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.

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.

Hi, Helyn,
When I was an adult and learned that such things occurred (priests
fathering children or single women having children) I was truly
surprised. I was incredibly naive (and continue to be in some
respects.) Marge:)

On Aug 12, 2006, at 11:02 AM, 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.

Regarding the issue of children born out of wedlock, I agree with Helyn that
"loose knickers" was not the major reason for this occurrance. My wife's
maternal grandmother had six children, each with a different father. The
first one was from an unexpected pregnancy when she was very young and
unmarried. To avoid scandal, the family took her to another village where
the child was born. After this, she was, undoubtedly, not prime marriage
material. She is subsequently listed in census records as head of household
with several children. At the time (late nineteenth, early twentieth
centuries) it would have been difficult for a young, single, uneducated
female to survive on her own. Women in her case surely relied on the
temporary support of serial partners that did not marry them for their and
their children's survival. Birth control and abortion were not an option
then, so children inevitably resulted from each temporary relationship.
Padre desconosido predictably appears on the baptismal certificates of these
children.
Jose Aguayo
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Vallazza"
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Hijo Legitimo/Hijo Natural

> Hi, Helyn,
> When I was an adult and learned that such things occurred (priests
> fathering children or single women having children) I was truly
> surprised. I was incredibly naive (and continue to be in some
> respects.) Marge:)
>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 11:02 AM, 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.

Births out of wedlock were not at all uncommon in Mexico, particularly in periods when there was demographic upheaval due to disease or war. I ran across a book that plotted historical changes in out of birth wedlocks in Nueva Galicia through colonial history and there were periods in the 17th century when these reached 60 percent of births.

=====================
From: erniealderete@charter.net
Date: 2006/08/11 Fri PM 01:40:38 CDT
To: research@nuestrosranchos.com
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'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!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Navigation

Who's online

There is currently 1 user and 1 guest online.

Online users

  • arturoramos

Languages