Author Topic: Marriage Registry 1835 **COMPLETED**  (Read 702 times)

Offline scorny

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Marriage Registry 1835 **COMPLETED**
« on: Wednesday 21 November 12 04:11 GMT (UK) »
This handwriting is very faded and the copy is not good.  Any assistance is appreciated.  I can make out the first line, part of the second, and that is pretty much it.

46. 17  Hans Hinrich harder und Magdalena
    Mar  Studt? in Mözen, ?_____----1830
    _----10  _______?
   ?????????

Thanks,

Steve
Harder, Lohberg, Superczynski, Corneliussen, Schoolmann, Rospenda, Ratjen

Vestfold Norge, Schleswig-Holstein, Posen, Poland

Offline apwright

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Registry 1835
« Reply #1 on: Friday 23 November 12 07:46 GMT (UK) »
17 Mai
Hans Hinrich Harder und Magdalena
Stuth in Mözen. Siehe die Verlobten ?1833,
Nummer 10. Er, natürliche Blattern, ??
Ihr Vaccinationsattest vom Physikus ?Hen-
ning ist im Feuer geblieben.

17 May
Hans Hinrich Harder and Magdalena Stuth [sic] in Mözen. See the [register of] betrothals for ?1833, number 10. He, natural smallpox, ?? [can't read this word]. Her vaccination certificate from the physician ?Henning was lost in a fire.

Sounds like they were engaged, but had to postpone the marriage as he fell ill with smallpox.

Adrian

Offline scorny

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Registry 1835
« Reply #2 on: Friday 23 November 12 16:02 GMT (UK) »
Adrian,

Thank you so much for your work on this.  It is very informative.  I have had others look at this document also becuase it is so very unclear in places and there is general agreement for the most part.  It seems that even though in related and supporting records the bride's name should be "Studt", it is apparent the writer chose to record the name as "Stuth".  This is most likely an error maybe due to the registrar being unaquainted with the bride, or a variant of the name, or just a simple oversight.

Could the word you were uncertain of  below be  "Wittwe"? It is sometimes found written in this manner in genealogical entries to signify Widower.

number 10. He, natural smallpox, ?? [can't read this word].

Steve
Harder, Lohberg, Superczynski, Corneliussen, Schoolmann, Rospenda, Ratjen

Vestfold Norge, Schleswig-Holstein, Posen, Poland

Offline apwright

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Registry 1835
« Reply #3 on: Friday 23 November 12 16:17 GMT (UK) »
Hi Steve,
Yes, it certainly could be "Wittwer" (with an R at the end because he's male!).
Studt/Stuth/Stutt/Stut all sound virtually identical, so unless the registrar knew how it was supposed to be spelt, he can perhaps be forgiven. There's a lot of variation in spellings in documents of the time, and of course it's always possible that the bride herself didn't know the "correct" form.

Adrian


Offline scorny

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Registry 1835
« Reply #4 on: Friday 23 November 12 18:56 GMT (UK) »
Hi Adrian,

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion about the Stuth/Studt issue.  The name appears in all my other sources as "Studt", but it is evident that it is written as "Stuth" in this instance and very likely for the reasons you cite. I am going to consider this document to be completed, and thank you again for your excellent work!

Thanks,

Steve
Harder, Lohberg, Superczynski, Corneliussen, Schoolmann, Rospenda, Ratjen

Vestfold Norge, Schleswig-Holstein, Posen, Poland