Description

These forum posts are from the old “Ranchos Archives” which was part of a Yahoo Groups system that operated between 2003-2006. This was a hybrid of electronic mailing lists and internet message boards. The files are “Read Only” and many of the users of the Yahoo Groups are not part of the new NuestrosRanchos membership, so keep this in mind when viewing these message posts and replies.

information on records & "Guardar Reposo 40 días"

I really doubt that this is an accurate interpretation or a widespread
practice even in the old days.  "Guardar reposo por 40 días" or
resting for 40 days wasn't supposed to be taken that the mother should
stay in bed, not taking a bath, etc. rather that she should "keep the
husband away from her bed for 40 days", if you know what I mean...  

Victor

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, Irma GomezLucero 
wrote:
> I recall telling my mom & aunt about a family baptism record having the
> wrong information.  They  informed the same about the mother not
attending
> her own child's baptism.  The mother stayed in bed, had chicken
soup, and
> didn't bathe for 40 days!   It used to be the belief that a child
needed to
> be baptized right away within a few days of birth.  Since the mother
needed
> to "Guardar reposo" for 40 days, she was unable to attend the
baptism.  The
> father did go with the godparents in our experience.  My father even
had to
> hire someone to take care of

information on records

thank you Irma, great information there. . .I wish I had the interest
in la familia when my parents were alive.



thanks,



joseph



Irma GomezLucero wrote:

I recall telling my mom &
aunt about a family baptism record having the wrong information.  They 
informed the same about the mother not attending her own child's
baptism.  The mother stayed in bed, had chicken soup, and didn't bathe
for 40 days!   It used to be the belief that a child needed to be
baptized right away within a few days of birth.  Since the mother
needed to "Guardar reposo" for 40 days, she was unable to attend the
baptism.  The father did go with the godparents in our experience.  My
father even had to hire someone to take care of my mother after my
oldest sister's birth.  This lady cared for my mom, and their home
during these 40 days which was a real financial drain on them at the
time.  I guess he had to go to work, and couldn't care for her &
the baby.  I met the elderly lady on my last visit to

Open Files Area



I've opened the files area. They will be open Until August 12th. . .at
that time I'll reevaluate.



we are at 80% capacity and this area is only open for those members
that currently have folders there. NO NEW MEMBERS
are allowed to start a folder there.



We need to keep an eagle eye on the capacity. when it reaches 95% we
will need to start asking for volunteers to move their work to free up
the space.



. . .this is ridiculous. . .Arturo, build it and they will come.



joseph

information on records

I recall telling my mom & aunt about a family baptism
record having the wrong information.  They  informed the same about
the mother not attending her own child's baptism.  The mother stayed in
bed, had chicken soup, and didn't bathe for 40 days!   It used to be
the belief that a child needed to be baptized right away within a few days of
birth.  Since the mother needed to "Guardar reposo" for 40 days, she was
unable to attend the baptism.  The father did go with the godparents in our
experience.  My father even had to hire someone to take care of my mother
after my oldest sister's birth.  This lady cared for my mom, and their home
during these 40 days which was a real financial drain on them at the time. 
I guess he had to go to work, and couldn't care for her & the baby.  I
met the elderly lady on my last visit to Mexico with my dad.   
My mother only attended her children's baptisms when she immigrated to the
U.S.
Irma



From: Joseph Puentes [mailto:makas@...]

Sent: Fr

Fee



Arturo Ramos wrote:

The problem with everybody hosting data on their own sites is that it
is not possible to make it freely available to members and keep it
from being accessible to the public in general.

yup

 The Rootsweb web
space is simply to put up informational information.  I don't think
they have facilities to have member-restricted file access, etc.  They
don't allow any scripts--only static pages on the site...

Though, Joseph, it would probably be worthwhile putting up a page for
our group there that then leads people back here so that we can use it
to possibly recruit new members.

I'm not wanting to wholesale attract rootsweb people. We are 95 members
strong. We could be 150 strong in 6 months if 1/2 of us picked one or
two people to recruit from rootsweb who gave the strong impression of
being very very serious. None of this "do you know Maria Garcia from
Zacatecas? If so send me her whole genealogy. . .thanks in advance" kind
of people.



Would people be

information on records

so if the mother was in bed and the father was off doing war or work
then no one for the family except the padrinos were there to tell the
story. . .hmmmm, this makes good sense now.


thanks,

joseph

ps: where did you get the "Mothers were never at baptisms since the
custom was for her to stay in bed for 40 days.. " information?



Erlinda Castanon-Long wrote:

Many times information was being given by other members of the party
at the church who did not know who parents or grandparents were,
especially if the people were deceased or the family had moved.


Mothers were never at baptisms since the custom was for her to stay in
bed for 40 days.. that meant that someone else had to give her family
info and they were often wrong if there had been a remarriage after
the death of the first wife, her mother, for instance..


Linda from Wa.






Yahoo! Groups Links













Fee

The problem with everybody hosting data on their own sites is that it
is not possible to make it freely available to members and keep it
from being accessible to the public in general.  The Rootsweb web
space is simply to put up informational information.  I don't think
they have facilities to have member-restricted file access, etc.  They
don't allow any scripts--only static pages on the site...

Though, Joseph, it would probably be worthwhile putting up a page for
our group there that then leads people back here so that we can use it
to possibly recruit new members.

Would people be willing to do a site on a donation basis?

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "readysetgo95814"  wrote:
> I agree with John and Steven.  Free web space is available 
> elsewhere.  One such site is Rootsweb.  For individual accounts see:  
> http://accounts.rootsweb.com/index.cgi?op=show&page=freagree.htm
> 
> They also have an option for genealogical societies (such as ours) 
> that will give you

information on records

Many times information was being given by other members of the party 
at the church who did not know who parents or grandparents were, 
especially if the people were deceased or the family had moved.

Mothers were never at baptisms since the custom was for her to stay in 
bed for 40 days.. that meant that someone else had to give her family 
info and they were often wrong if there had been a remarriage after 
the death of the first wife, her mother, for instance..

Linda from Wa.




No Supo Dar Razon


class=234240720-22072005>or
it means like someone could not explain,give
details  . .

color=#800080>





From: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ranchos@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph
Puentes
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:34 PM
To:
LosRanchos
Subject: [ranchos] No Supo Dar Razon


  
has anyone done study on this phrase. When the
grandparents are missing
and "No supo dar razon" is inserted what exactly
does that mean? That
the Son didn't know who his parents were? But if this
is the case then
why would there be records before and after where they are
given? Or
that he might have had a temporary case of of abnesia
(sp--?).  Or that
he just didn't want to disclose them?

Also I
have a couple of records where only one grandparent is listed but
many more
where both are given.

So what gives?

No se dar
razon!

thanks,

joseph


No Supo Dar Razon


face="Bookman Old Style" color=#800080>I would think that he meant he didnt know
their whereabouts.





From: ranchos@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ranchos@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph
Puentes
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:34 PM
To:
LosRanchos
Subject: [ranchos] No Supo Dar Razon


  
has anyone done study on this phrase. When the
grandparents are missing
and "No supo dar razon" is inserted what exactly
does that mean? That
the Son didn't know who his parents were? But if this
is the case then
why would there be records before and after where they are
given? Or
that he might have had a temporary case of of abnesia
(sp--?).  Or that
he just didn't want to disclose them?

Also I
have a couple of records where only one grandparent is listed but
many more
where both are given.

So what gives?

No se dar
razon!

thanks,

joseph