Topics

Ernsthausen - look-up


Rudolf Huepfl
 

Dear Banaters,
Following my checks on the Hupfel entries, I came to a curious OFB Ensthausen entry. Family 1704 Hupfl Peter was married three times. His second wife Heinrich Maria, *Aug 13, 1885 in Ernsthausen is mentioned as the daugther of Magdalena Heinrich with reference 1476.5 of the same family book. As I do not have a copy of this entry I wonder what this entry says on family 1476. Under normal conditions, this number would mean fifth child of said mother. As no father is mentioned, would this mean they were all illeg ?
Would be anybody be so kind and send a copy of this entry or explain it.
Thank you in advance
Rudolf Hupfl


Dave Dreyer
 

Rudolf,

Did you ever get a reply to your query?

Maria had six other siblings and there is no father given in the family block for any kids of this family.  Again, as you point out there is no father given when any of these kids got married. My conclusion is that the father is unknown and is not recorded in the church books.  Must be illegement births. 

Dave Dreyer

On Thursday, November 19, 2020, 05:22:46 AM PST, Rudolf Huepfl via groups.io <huepfl@...> wrote:


Dear Banaters,
Following my checks on the Hupfel entries, I came to a curious OFB Ensthausen entry. Family 1704 Hupfl Peter was married three times. His second wife Heinrich Maria, *Aug 13, 1885 in Ernsthausen is mentioned as the daugther of Magdalena Heinrich with reference 1476.5 of the same family book. As I do not have a copy of this entry I wonder what this entry says on family 1476. Under normal conditions, this number would mean fifth child of said mother. As no father is mentioned, would this mean they were all illeg ?
Would be anybody be so kind and send a copy of this entry or explain it.
Thank you in advance
Rudolf Hupfl


Rudolf Huepfl
 

Dave,
No, besides your actual reply, there was not.
As the family book does not explain the issue, I agree with you. Most probably, all the six siblings are not legitim (in the eyes of the chuch). Other reason could be only, that the priest has other reasons for not mentioning the father. 
Thank you for your explanation
Rudolf