Please translate these 1770 marriage records (duplicates?)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS8Y-2NYB?i=358 No. 7 (bottom of left page): FHL Film 176236; image 359 of 424. I think this is the marriage of Peter [Wilhelm] Knecht and Anna Christina Jörgens that I also found on:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS8B-QQKT-Y?i=237&cat=15599 (1st item) Film 186088; image 238 of 288. Here's what I can make out:
"Anno 1770 __er ___ in der Reformirton Gemeinde Zü Grafrath
"19 Martz _____ gegeben Peter Knecht G _____ Zu Solingen _____ Anna Christina Jürgens: _____ Gegenwartz Andreas Jörgens, und Joh. Wilhelm Schnitzler."
Comentarios
-
Hello Gary,
Here's the second record:
"Anno 1770. Verehlicht in der Reformirten Gemeinde zu Grafrath" = In the year 1770 married in the Reformed Parish at Gräfrath."
"den 19ten Märtz sind ehelich zusamen gegeben Peter Knecht getauft zu Solingen und Anna Christina Jörgens getauft dahier, in Gegenwarth Andreas Jörgens, und Joh. Wilhelm Schnitzler."
Translation: on the 19th of March are given together in marriage Peter Knecht, baptized at Solingen, and Anna Christina Jörgens, baptized, here, in the presence of Andreas Jörgens and Joh: Wilhelm Schnitzler.
Comment: The baptisms of the bride and groom may have something to do with the rites of the Protestant Reformed Church. You would need to research further to confirm.
0 -
Translation of the first record:
On the 19th of March having been issued a ______? dispensation at Gräfrath were married Peter Knecht, legitimate son of Peter Knecht, merchant at Schlicken, and was [the groom] baptized here, with maiden Anna Christina Jörgens, baptized at Gräfrath, legitimate daughter of Johann Jörgens there.
Comments: The two records refer to the same marriage but they are not exact duplicates of one another. The bride and groom came from different parishes. The groom had to receive dispensation/permission to marry in the bride's parish.
0 -
@Robert Seal_1 -- This is great information. Thanks for the translations. They raise several questions:
In which parish did they marry on 19 Mar 1770: in Gräfrath or in Solingen?
What are the words (in German) before "dispensation"? Or those you can decipher?
Who can educate me about rites of the Protestant Reformed Church? Is the dispensation because they were baptized in different parishes or could there be another reason?
Records say they had 2 children (1772 and 1774). Other records suggest Peter might have been 51 and Anna Christina 39 when they married. Is that possible?
0 -
Hello Gary,
(1) I think they married in the bride's parish of Gräfrath given the heading at the top of the page "Anno 1770. Verehlicht in der Reformirten Gemeinde zu Grafrath" = In the year 1770 married in the Reformed Parish at Gräfrath.
(2) den 19. Martÿ haben auf gdgsten [= an abbreviation?] _________? dispensation . . .
(3) Try searching the Internet for the Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche, or ask on the community as a new question.
(4) If Anna Christina was 39 when she married in 1770, she would have been 41 when the first child was born and 43 when the second child was born -- so yes it is certainly possible.
0 -
I think the words/abbreviation before "dispensation" could possibly be ... auf gdgste churfl..... i.e. ... auf gnädigste churfürstliche ... meaning "by the most graceful dispensation of the Prince-elector".
The Kurfürst Karl Theodor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Theodore,_Elector_of_Bavaria) was the sovereign of the Palatinate and Bavaria to which Solingen belonged.
1 -
Thank you, Ulrich!
0 -
I think a careful transcription of this record (in German) might help me frame a good question about rites of the Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche. My guess is the "graceful dispensation" was needed because they were originally baptized in different parishes, but I'd like to know if that was customary in the 1770s.
A transcription might also help me confirm where the marriage took place. Each translation seems to suggest the marriage took place in that parish.
Thank you both, @Robert Seal_1 and @Ulrich Neitzel
0 -
Hello Gary,
Record from Solingen:
Heading at the top of the page:
"Register der procl., dimitt., und Copul. vom jahr 1770" = Register of proclamations, dismissals, and marriages in the year 1770.
Transcription of record no. 7:
den 19. Martii haben auf grädigste churfürstliche dispensation sich copuliert lassen __? Peter Knecht, __? Peter Knecht Kaufhändlers zur Schlicken ehelich Sohn,
mit jgfrund hieselbst getauft, mit Jungfrau Anna Christina Jörgens, getauft zu Gräfrath, __? Johann Jörgens daselbst ehelich Tochter.Comments: What I think is an abbreviation before the three men's names might be Hr. = Herr = Mr.
Something to note of interest: Your record no. 7 is the only record on these two pages which does not have something written in the left margin.
0 -
Sorry -- the word is gnädigste, not grädigste.
0 -
Thank you @Robert Seal_1
This is not yet clear: "... Peter Knecht, Hr. Peter Knecht Kaufhändlers zur Schlicken ehelich Sohn,
mit jgfrund hieselbst getauft, ..."Which Peter Knecht is Kaufhändlers? Does "hieselbst getauft"? mean the groom was baptized in the parish where he was married? And is that parish "Schlicken" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlicken_(Solingen)) which is part of Höhscheid?
0 -
Hello Gary,
"... Peter Knecht, Hr. Peter Knecht Kaufhändlers zur Schlicken ehelich Sohn,
mit jgfrund hieselbst getauft, ..." translates as:. . . Peter Knecht [the groom], legitimate son of Peter Knecht, merchant at Schlicken, and [he, the groom] was baptized here (in Solingen) . . .
So, Peter Knecht (the groom) was baptized in Solingen, his father was also named Peter Knecht, and he (the father) was a merchant in Schlicken.
Here is the link for Schlicken from Meyers Gazetteer: https://www.meyersgaz.org/place/20722026
Note that the entry for Schlicken in Meyers says to see Solingen for additional information.
Schlicken is where the groom's father was a merchant. Schlicken is just south of Solingen.
Schlicken is not a parish -- the closest Protestant and Catholic parishes for Schlicken are located in Solingen.
0 -
Many thanks, @Robert Seal_1.
0 -
You are most welcome, Gary.
0 -
Could the dispensation be to skip the Banns? Normally they would be posted three times in both parishes.
I would think that a merchant was probably a free man, but if one or both of them were owned by the Prince Elector, they would need his permission to marry.
0 -
Interesting possibilities. Both might be impossible to verify....
1 -
@Gary Knecht the status, free or owned by ___, was sometimes included as part of the church records, depending on place and time. In Versmold, that info was included starting in the 1750's. You might get lucky if you find the records for ancestors or descendants.
The most likely reason for skipping Banns would be impending birth of a child.
0