zugebrachtes Kind?

I just got a copy of "Ortssippenbuch Niederhofen" published by Rolf
Bissinger in 2002 in Niederhofen, and I'm wondering about one line in it.

It lists Christian Stoll, his parents, his wife Auguste, her parents, and
then says

Der Gattin zugebrachtes Kind: Wilhelmine Katharine geb. in Ochsenburg am
27.9.1836.

Richard van Schaik...

I'm now even more convinced that it handles about a child legitimized in
marriage. If searched in Ochsenburg I would search for the birth of W.K.

Franz Gärke...

What is handling about what? We have a couple, a brought child and three
legitimately children. Maybe you could read it as: (Von) der Gattin (in die
Ehe) zugebrachtes (eingebrachtes) Kind. But it's not for sure, so it has to
be proven.

Schikner on 27-09-1836 and for the marriage on 06-11-1838 to find the
mentioning of this child as being recognized as legitimate. As for the

Franz Gärke...

Sure.

father .... maybe there is some mentioning of him in the
birthcertificate (or "church-counsil books?", I don't know if those are
present or called the same in germany this is my best translation of
books available in dutch reformed churches). But at least after marriage

Franz Gärke...

In german catholic areas a couple would have married short after knowing a
baby on the way. Not more than two years later.

he is lawfully the father if the child is indeed mentioned in this
marriagecertificate. And genealogy is all about lawfull parents, the

Franz Gärke...

Indeed.

mother is more certain also biological the mother (I heard stories about
mother and daughter moving to the countryside and afterwards the parents
had a late child ;-) ). But for fathers this is far more difficult to

Franz Gärke...

What do you think nowadays reading a newspaper, that a child is brought to
relatives because she lost her parents in an accident?
Would you automatically adopt your nephew or nice brought to you after their
parents were died suddenly? I heard about a couple that gave away their
second child to her sister (and her husband) who was not able having own
children? What are lawfull parents in genealogy? Just a word.

Richard van Schaik...

In the remainder you seem to agree cautiously, if other research
confirms (and that I agree on). But in this part I see a disagreement.

Any data we get from old certificates is mostly only interpreted as
being the thruth about our ancestors. If they baptize a child (after
being married that is) it is automatically assumed that the parents are
indeed the biological parents. But in essence they are only the lawfull
parents. It is still not proven in any way that they are indeed both the
biological parents. According to the estimate in my previous posting
they are indeed in about 95% of the births, but one in twenty of these
births gives not the biological parents but the lawfull parents (as they
recognise the child both by notification). Why then is it so much more a
problem to accept a child before marriage as belonging to the parents
who themselves say (in marriage) it is their child ........ I do have
cases where it is almost obvious that the child is not born from the
assumed father (my interpretation of those certificates), but if they
say so by recognition in the marriage certificate who am I then to doubt
this (I wasn't there during conception etc.). Only if there is some
other data pointing to the real parents, only then I'll note such a
child as not belonging to the marriage but make the "lawfull father" a
guardian.

prove (there are estimates for upto 5% "cuckoo's eggs"). Especially in
father daughter relations as then also DNA-tests on currently living
offspring are not possible to examine their relation.

Franz Gärke...

Ok.

Franz Gärke

f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE...

It seems you are describing a marriage of Christian x Auguste who (at
least the latter) had a premarital child recognized by this marriage as
legitimate.

My German is pretty rusty, but I get the feeling it's a child she "brought",
but since there's no father listed, does this imply that this is an
illegitimate child?

Henning Boettcher...

I would read this as follows:
A child was brought to the wife, perhaps(!) from her husband.

Richard van Schaik...

Sorry, Henning, but with your reading I still don't understand what is
being meant by this construction. Normally a couple is first being
married and after that earlier born children are recognised within the
same form as the marriage (i.e. in dutch examples I have). So I
interpret this sentence as "after being married the wive entered a child
to this marriage being born before marriage, but now the child should be
recognised as legitimate child of the married couple".

Henning Boettcher...

I never had seen these words before in a parish record. So what I
have written in my first answer is an interpretation of mine. There
might be others. For instance:
"Der Gattin" can be the dative case. That is what I have assumed in
my first answer. I don't know a word "zugebracht" or "zubringen"
(infinitive) in this context. So I must interprete it: somebody has
brought (...gebracht) the child to (zu...) somebody.
"Der Gattin" also can be the genitive case. This would mean that it
was a child of the wife that she brought with her.
In cases of legitimation I often have seen marginal notes in parish
records about the legitimation. They often look like later added
notes (other ink, other hand and so on).
I don't think that something that occured later ("after being
married ...") is written in the parish record.
But I must say "I know nothing for sure."

Richard van Schaik...

When you are "speaking" of dative and genetive I'm completely lost ;-)
(almost that is). In dutch forms (after 1811) children born before
marriage are immediately "recognised" as legitimate as belonging to the
married couple (or never recognised at all). In the second case they
have their mother's surname and in case of inheritance only their
mothers part (whom even seperately has to recognise them as her own
child in case of marriage of the child). In the second case they are

Richard van Schaik...

First case ofcourse!

fully and lawfully child of both parents, although the part of the
lawful father is not proven. He is lawfully father, but might not be

Franz Gärke...

Richard, what are you talking about?

Richard van Schaik...

As far as I know even in these books lines are related until the next
(unrelated) record begins.

Richard van Schaik...

Meant is that the following has no meaning on its own: Der Gattin
zugebrachtes Kind: Wilhelmine Katharine geb. in Ochsenburg am 27.9.1836.

Just in combination with the sentences above (interpreted as marriage)
it makes sense.

Franz Gärke...

What about a foundling brought to her, before the marriage or even just
before the Ortssippenbuch was written? And let's think about a foster child.
The evidence should be in the church files of Ochsenburg. Now we're
speculating about a relationship.

Franz Gärke

We are reading an Ortssippenbuch, we're not reading in a church file nor
having a copy of the Napoleon files in front of us.
As we do not know the age of the "child" (she could be 30) I take the line
as a kind of rumour.

I would like to read it as follows: There was living a female in
Niederhofen, born in Ochsenburg, which was assigned to the wife. In other
words: It was believed to be her child. In can see no other sense in the
line.

Franz Gärke

biological father.