General Comments
I feel it would be a good idea to have a discussion topic on general comments, i.e. not describing a specific meaning of a specific word - which would be described in the glossary (https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/126907/general-glossary). This could include questions on legal requirements (at the time of your ancestors), traditions, sources, hints on how to make your research more effective, …. No promise that I will be able to answer all questions - but if you have a question, don't hesitate to ask! If I cannot provide an answer, possibly other community members can 😉.
コメント
-
The marriage record (rather the announcement record) discussed on https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/458399/#Comment_458399 starts with "Die Einwilligung des Bräutigams, bezeugt durch deßen Mutter, die der Braut schriftl(ich) durch ihren Vater.".
Johannes Zbinden (from Guggisberg) and Barbara Zbinden (from Schwarzenburg) get married on 22 April 1842 in Köniz BE. Planned marriages have to be announced three times prior to the actual marriage. In simple cases (both partners from the same parish getting married in this parish, it is simple … here we have a more complicated case: two partners from different parishes get married in a third parish.
As Bern is not my area of research, I wanted to get other people's comments on the issue - and started a discussion on https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=31863. I would like to thank Peter.D and Bochtella for their comments.
"Die Einwilligung der Brautleute ist ein nothwendiges Erforderniß zu der Eingehung einer Ehe." (The agreement from both partners is a necessary requirement to get married) may seem obvious - but was actually laid down in Satzung 30 of the Civil-Gesetzbuch of canton Bern of 1825 … and the priest actually had to check this. It likely makes sense that this already applies to the announcement of a planned marriage. In the simple case (only a single parish involved) I have never seen a comment on this issue - the engaged couple would attend in person and this was considered the standard which did not have to be documented.
The marriage discussed here actually took place in Köniz: not a home parish for either partner, therefore no announcements. Both partners attended the ceremony, therefore no comment in this context.
The marriage was announced in Wahlern (parish for Schwarzenburg) - with just a short note that this was testified by the priest (name cannot be deciphered on the copy from the Bern State Archive). So the most plausible explanation is that both partners attended the announcements (at least the first one).
The marriage was also announced in Guggisberg - and here's the problem: the couple could not attend two events in different parishes at the same time. Instead the groom's mother confirmed in person that her son had agreed to this marriage, and the bride's father did that in writing.
As an aside: the marriage took place in Köniz on 22 April 1842 - the record in Wahlern gives 25 April … just showing that even primary sources can be wrong!
Another aside in the context of requirements to be met in order to get married: the groom had to prove he was in military service - which included owning a gun and a uniform … and he had to show up in uniform for the marriage ceremony. This would make a nice contribution about the term "Blaue Montur" in the glossary (https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/126907/general-glossary): should you be interested in detail, please, just ask there about it.
Also - if you have any other question in this context, don't hesitate to ask!
0 -
Unusual diacritical characters
Umlauts (ä ö ü) will be familiar for members here, dealing with documents in German. An example of a diacritical character not in use nowadays turned up in the discussion https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/127954/zbinden-family:
The "o over u" is transliterated "uo" - as that is how it would be pronounced: Cuonradt, modern Konrad.
Another (older) example can be found at the Stadtarchiv Schaffhausen:
Note that here the o has been displaced somewhat - looks like placed over the n, not the u - but the name will still be Cuonrat(h) not Cnuorat(h). Such a displacement is found quite frequently.
In older texts, written e.g. in Gothic italic scripts like Notula (https://www.obib.de/Schriften/AlteSchriften/Mittelalter/Notula.html) one finds e over a, o, u. Later (with the "German" script the e was abbreviated to two dashes or dots) umlauts were created.
0 -
Regulations related to Privacy Protection in Switzerland - and their consequences for genealogical research.
Warning: this will be a lengthy and detailed text - but should help you to understand some of the limitations encountered when trying to access information, online as well as responses from different offices.
Unfortunately a pdf cannot be uploaded - so I had to convert it to 4 jpg-files - so the links won't work ☹ … so links are provided in the text:
Federal Civil Code: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/de
Federal Law on Data Protection: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1945_1945_1945/de
Federal Civil Registry Ordinance: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2004/362/de
Ordinance on Fees in Civil Registration: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/490/de
Example documents (Würth family of Lichtensteig): https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=31883
Cantonal Archives Law (St.Gallen): https://www.sg.ch/content/dam/sgch/kultur/staatsarchiv/bilder-schriften-aus-dem-staatsarchiv/Gesetz.pdf
Law on Data Protection (St.Gallen): https://www.gesetzessammlung.sg.ch/frontend/versions/1354/download_pdf_file
"discussed elsewhere": https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/458363/#Comment_458363
In the attachments below you'll find excerpts (with translations) of the most relevant sections plus explanations.
0 -
In the post on unusual diacritical characters (https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/461380/#Comment_461380) I had mentioned that the umlaut ä originated in "e over a". The image below begins with a document kept at the Stiftsarchiv St.Gallen from 25 May 1402: The Märk family (represented by Hansel Märk) reaches an agreement on disputed properties in Schwarzenbach and Rüti.
0 -
Abbreviated word endings … and the genitive
The following example has been taken from https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/128569/translation-help-3rd-version-of-marriage-record-1808:
Word (and name) endings like …en or just …n are often abbreviated with a downward curl - as opposed to the upward curl indicating a "proper" end of the word (see "Baumgartner von").
In Latin records one finds the downward curl regularly for …us or …ius.
Just a comment on "Hansen": the fathers' name is Hans - not Hansen. Hansen is the genitive: Hans' son (son of Hans).
0 -
What is a source - and how should it be referenced?
The most common sources in genealogical research will likely be church records - e.g. Taufrodel Guggisberg (Bern, Schweiz) 1637-1665
Schweiz, Kirchenbücher, 1277-1992, …, Bern > Guggisberg > Evangelisch-Reformierte > Taufen 1648-1678 and the corresponding URL is not(!) a source - it is the location, where a digitized copy of the source can be found. BTW - I am surprised by the years 1648-1678, which don't seem to correspond to the physical record - but cannot access the URL from home.
So - how should it be referenced? I would suggest to give the original title in the original language. Optimally next would be the physical location (for the above example: Staatsarchiv Bern) and signature (K Guggisberg 3). If one wants to make life easier for readers, the page number and/or date (unless mentioned in the quote already) could be added. If available online, this information could also be added - could be familysearch (which is not accessible from home, at least in Switzerland) and/or www.query.sta.be.ch/Dateien/19/D95001.pdf. Yes - I am aware of the occasionally poor image quality with the Bern State Archive versions - see https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/92218/church-records-in-canton-bern.
Why are source references crucial for genealogical research? Nowadays one can find genealogical data in numerous online databases - with widely varying quality. Consequently one will often find contradicting information - but which is the correct one? The only way to find this out is to check the original sources: this may be impossible if the source is not referenced.
0 -
Handwriting differences
That different people have different handwritings is obvious - but even letters written by the same hand in a single record may look different - see the following example, taken from https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/129083/please-help-with-correcting-transcription-and-translation-of-baptism-record-year-1770:
In such cases one has to take into account what is plausible. Knowing names common in the region helps.
0 -
Knowing names common in the region helps.
If you are not sure, which names are common in a region, check the Register of Swiss Surnames: https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/famn/?lg=e.
0 -
Sittengericht (Moral Court)
The functioning of these courts over time and in the different regions is far too complex for a short treatise - therefore here only the most important terms in the context will be mentioned. Don't hesitate to ask, if you want to discuss any specific issue in more detail.
Since the 13th century dioceses had courts (Offizialat) dealing not only with religious, but also other civil aspects. With the Reformation increased emphasis was placed on what was considered moral behaviour - which included (or better: excluded) too much dancing or drinking, wearing inappropriate clothes, and many more strict regulations (Mandat). To follow this up, Moral Courts were set up. They were named Ehegericht in cantons Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Schaffhausen, St.Gallen and Zürich, Bann in Basel (Consistoire in the parishes) and Chorgericht (later also Ehrbarkeit) in Bern (with the Obere Ehegericht or Oberchorgericht being the superior instance). The notation Chorgericht is due to the fact that their hearings (in the city of Bern) took place in the meeting room of the former Chorherrenstift (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berner_Münster). These courts were mainly set up in the cities; corresponding institutions in the "countryside" (often named Stillstand) had less authority: they often could reprimand, but not penalise - corresponding cases had to be sent to the moral court in the city (which in some cities even could impose the death penalty for e.g. being convicted a witch). Members of these courts were Kirchmeier or Kirchenpfleger (which previously had been responsible mainly for the administration of the parishes assets, usually a long term duty), Ehegaumer (not restricted to, but mainly in Bern and Zürich, also Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Schaffhausen, usually elected for 3 years), Chorrichter or Eherichter respectively, the priest (Prediger) and a few more.
Many Chorgerichtsmanuale (Court Minutes) of canton Bern have been digitized by the Bern Genealogical Society and can be purchased on CD (http://ghgb.ch/chorgerichtsmanuale-uebersicht.html). Several examples are shown (some transliterated) in the discussion on the position of the Heimlicher (https://geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=11510) [you have to be registered with the forum - which is free and without obligation - to view the images]. https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=11510#p38195 includes copies of several pages dealing with the Chorgericht, taken from the Dorfchronik (village chronicle) Grosshöchstetten. Complete example pages from Guggisberg (1683) may be viewed on https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/466326/#Comment_466326.
Following the revolutionary years (1798 …) the importance of th Moral Courts diminished, some were dissolved, some re-established again later - but the Federal Constitution of 1848 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution) put an end of them. In Appenzell Ausserrhoden there still was the institution of Ehegäumer in the cantonal laws 1864 (as a governmental institution).
Further reading:
https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/009622/: Sittengerichte / Consistoires / Concistoro
https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/438728/#Comment_438728: Ehegaumer
0 -
What title would be best for postings?
I have started a discussion on this topic on https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/129680/what-title-would-be-best-for-postings and hope for many opinions - please respond there.
0 -
How to post a request
https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/130603/how-to-post-a-request
To help the community volunteers to better help you, please note the following when posting a request for translation:
- Please state where the record is from.
- State the name(s) of the principal(s) in the record.
- If possible attach the image and the link to the image.
- Attach one image per translation request.
- Once the request is posted, please review it to (a) make sure it makes sense to the reader; (b) the image is attached; (c) the image is legible.
- If you have a large number of requests, please post one or two at a time; wait for a response; then post one or two more.
- Please post the entire image instead of a snippet.
- Please crop the image to see the entire page. It helps the translator to see the whole context and offers more material for comparison with the scribe's style of writing.
- Remember to thank the Responder.
- If you like the response, give the Responder a "Like".
These guidelines were posted to the Germany group - thanks to @Robert Seal_1 and @PABulfinch. I am quoting this here as these guidelines are also helpful when asking for help with reasearch in Switzerland. For the Switzerland group I have additionally suggested a structure for discussion titles in more detail on https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/129680/what-title-would-be-best-for-postings.
1 -
How to type special characters (ä, ß, …)
Computers don't know letters - just the numbers 0 and 1 (the "binary" system). Consequently letters have to be stored as binary numbers. A 7-bit binary number allows 128 options - the "ASCII codes" 0 through 127, containing 95 printable characters (the others are used for commands) which can be found on most "Western" keyboards. If you add an 8th digit you double the number of options (128 through 255), these "Extended ASCII codes" include several special characters of interest for genealogical research in German or French speaking regions.
How can they be used? With a Windows computer you have to hold down the "Alt" key, type in the ASCII code, and then release the "Alt" key … just try yourself with codes from the table below (a selection of the most useful codes). Check https://www.asciitable.com/ for a complete list.
I am not familiar with Apple equipment, but have been told that (depending on the keyboard) several options exist. Anyone with relevant experience is cordially invited to post advice.
Also of interest in this context might be the contributions on unusual diacritical characters (https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/461380/#Comment_461380) or the development from "e over a" to ä (https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/461874/#Comment_461874).
0 -
The development from sz to ß to ss (and the reading error hs)
I assume that most readers in this community will be familiar with the ß - still an official character in Germany, no longer in Switzerland: Zürich started in 1938 - and since 2006 the ß is history in all of Switzerland, replaced by ss - although this does not consider how the ß evolved historically.
The ß evolved from the ligature of the "long s" with a z:
Consequently the ß is colloquially called "scharfes s" (sharp s) or "eszet". The following has been taken from a marriage record 1883 in Blomberg (Germany): Claaszen - the family is today spelled Claaßen.
A common reading error happens with names written in Latin ("lateinische Schreibschrift"): the "long s" looks very similar to an h in "German Kurrent". In many records most of the text is written in Kurrent - but names are enhanced by using Latin - so easily the name could be assumed to be written in Kurrent:
Source: Von Montage von Der Barbar, unter Verwendung des Bildes ClaßenKölnK.jpg ({{GFDL-self}}) von Alex1011, - Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39258541
In this example the name is written with ss (the two different s - long s and short s): should be read Classen (or Claßen) - but frequently is misinterpreted as Clahsen. I had that problem with the Rottenfußer in my own research:
In her marriage record (unfortunately I don't have a copy - just my notes) I first read "Rottenfuhser" ☹.
If you want to read more about this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ß.
Keep in mind that in German ß and ss may influence the meaning of a word: e.g. Masse = mass or bulk / Maße is plural of measure or dimension. If you want to be correct (e.g. when transcribing a record) you'll have the problem that ß is not on your keybord - but it is part of the extended ASCII characters - so there is a solution: https://community.familysearch.org/de/discussion/comment/473010/#Comment_473010. On the other hand, the ss as "workaround" will usually be understood 😉.
0 -
To follow this up - here's the "Pastoral S":
In the Latin script used by pastors in the past, there was no letter ß, in contrast to the printed script of the time. Instead they used two different combinations of "long s" and "short s" - the so called "Pastoral S". The image below has been adapted from https://vereine.genealogy.net/ag-jeverland/seite9.htm.
2 -
Calendar reform: Julian > Gregorian
On 24 February 1582, Pope Gregory XIII promulgated a new calendar. Basics are described e.g. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar. In reformed and orthodox regions the new calendar was introduced reluctantly - e.g. in reformed Glarus in 1798 or orthodox Greece as late as 1923. Appenzell (in 1582 still united) adapted the new calendar in 1584 - but in 1597 Appenzell was separated into the catholic Innerrhoden and the reformed Ausserrhoden: Ausserrhoden returned to the old (Julian) calendar and introduced the Gregorian calendar as late as 1798.
In the context of a Zellweger of Trogen birth in Genova (Italy) we see the following case from 1796:
[https://www.kirchenbuecher-ar.ch/book/ZKB-12-B04/21/single to see the full page]
"Dorothea nata 1795. 27 nov St.n. bapt 1796 17 Aug."
Dorothea was born 27 Nov 1795 in Genua as daughter of "Herr" Johann Kaspar Zellweger and "Frau" Dorothea Geßner. Likely in Genua there was no possibility to have her baptised in a reformed church - so she was baptised 17 Aug 1795 when the family was back in Trogen AR. Her birth date was reported "St.n." (= stili novo = new style) whilst the baptismal date will be using the (old) Julian calendar. See https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=32963#p124032 for the explanation of St.n. and St.a., respectively.
This is an example what could happen if an event from a catholic country was reported to a reformed country - didn't happen too often. The situation was much more complicated in the Toggenburg Valley, ruled by the Abbot of St.Gallen - whilst several communities had the right (guaranteed by an old treaty) to stay reformed. In a few communities there were even both, catholic and reformed, parishes - using different calendars … must have been a nightmare for the community administration. The compromise was to give both dates in many documents (like church records). The arrangement varied between different parishes - likely depending on the pastor. On https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=24080#p89858 the following list has been published:
Listed are the years in which pastors in different parishes used "double dates" … example:
[unfortunately a direct link to the correct page is not possible - go to https://dls.staatsarchiv.sg.ch/records/1506540, click on "Viewer" and then manually select "page" 25]
Despite being a reformed parish the pastor used the new calendar ("Newen Calends") for the first marriage entry on 01 Feb 1632. Second entry was for the same day. Third entry (likely 1633 - not 1635) is not quite clear - but then the reformed people objected - and the "double date" was introduced: 22/12 Jenner 1634, meaning 22 Jan according to the Gregorian, 12 Jan according to the Julian calendar. In other entries the sequence is reversed.
This is by no means restricted to the Toggenburg Valley - you'll find this in many reformed church records, also in Germany, e.g. https://www.geneal-forum.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=32970.
0