|
Irma,
I'll tell you right now who all those fathers were: "Espanoles aprovechados." I like your speculations.
Alice
Irma GomezLucero <igomezlucero@...> wrote:
I have also seen this in Jalisco records. The father was listed as "desconocido." Also Paternal grandparents were not even mentioned either.
I have seen many similar situations for Indian & Mulata women.
Makes you wonder who the fathers were, huh?
Did the woman never mention the father's name to the priest or were the names divulged in confession which would NEVER have become public record. I think more the latter. It isn't that the priest would be protecting the father, it's more the confidentiality of the Confession.
Something to think about...
Irma Gomez
In my genealogy research using records of baptism (1700-1800) from Zacatecas and Chihuahua, I found when a child was born out of wedlock, the child would take the mother's last name. The father's name was never mentioned or listed, only those of the godparents, maternal grandparents, and mother. The mother's full name was always listed. Also, I don't know if this was true for other parts of Mexico.
Good luck.
Alberto Duarte
While looking at the International Genealogical Index I came across
an ancestor possibly having a child with a woman other than his wife
during the late 1700's. The child carried the father's last name
only (no mother's name attached at the end)and only the mother's
first name was listed. I was under the impression an illegitimate
child never used his father's last name, so this confused me.
I've ordered a copy of the entry from the History Center, but it
will take weeks for me to receive it. In the meantime, does anyone
know if there were strict standards regarding an illegitimate
child's use of a father's last
name? And also, why would only a
first name be listed for a mother? I see this all the time while
perusing the IGI.
Thanks,
Alicia
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
| 
by Date 
-