Translation help
I am trying to read a marriage record and need help and confirmation with two words.
It is from the Alingsås Landsförsamling Vigselbok 1688 - 1730. The copy I am viewing is from SL Film #004359467 Page 184 (image 102 of 746). The link to the page is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-67VS-RL2?i=101&cc=1978773&cat=220676&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQ2WK-5BZ7
This is the full page
This is the entry :
I am reading this as 31 Mar 1717 "Ryttare = cavalryman" (am I correct?) Erik Ros married to ??.
This record was indexed but the indexer did not put in the wife's name. I find the wife's name hard to read and therein is my problem. The first letter is difficult and there appears to be a "k" at the end of the given name?. My best guess is "Eriksdotter" ?? Unfortunately this does not give me a given name and I was expecting the name to be Kierstin Larsdotter (or Larsson)! If it is of any help I am matching this Erik Ros to the FamilySearch person LW5D-CWC and the wife to KPWX-Q1X.
Thank you to anyone who can help.
Joseph Eliason
Comments
-
The word Ryttare(n) is correct.
I believe the word at the end of the line means Enka(n) (widow). Compare the first letter to the E in Erik. The double underlined ending is similar to the one on the word soldaten in the first entry on this page and to Pigan in several places. It seems to be a shorthand symbol for standard word endings. See also the first record of 1717 where the groom is given as Enk[lingen] Pehr Bengtsson.
It is strange, however, that no name is given for the bride. Obviously the scribe/pastor did not know or recall her name at the time of entry. Similarly for the last entry on the right page where both the surname of the groom and the full name of the bride are missing.
0 -
Thank you. The E's are a very good match and the double underline is interesting. I certainly did not expect to find "widow" at this point in the record. The writer not knowing the name is frustrating and odd, however, as you point out, there are a number of other entries in this record where the names of the bride and groom are omitted. That seems to have been a thing with this scribe/pastor. It does suggest that the bride had been previously married and that entries were not always (perhaps usually not) made at the time of the event when such omissions could have been easily corrected.
Anyway, useful information is obtained from the record while a mystery remains, who is the widow?
Again, thank you so very much for the help.
0