Abbreviation 'KL' in Church Records
Dolmenx
the surname is shown preceded by the apparent abbreviation 'KL', for example
'Heinrich KL Schmidt'. Occasionally this type of record shows a different
surname for the child than that of the father. I have also come upon some
entries in which the word 'kleine' precedes a surname, for example 'kleine
Schmidt' .
I had suspected that 'KL' and 'kleine' were German equivalents to our 'Jr'
(junior) but am beginning to doubt that, as these references seem to run
through a family for many generations. It may be that 'KL' is not an
abbreviation for 'klein' .
Can anyone shed light on this?
Thank you.
Len.
Henning Boettcher
owner of that farm where the parents of the child were living and/or working
as farm-labourer. (E.g. in Thuringia)
Regards
Henning Boettcher
Switzerland
"Dolmenx" <dol...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20000429131431...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Dolmenx
>owner of that farm where the parents of the child were living and/or working
>as farm-labourer.
Henning:
Thanks for that information. It may go a way towards explaining those church
records. Do you know what 'KL' actually means?
Thanks,
Len
Frans L. Scholten
>Len
What about Kolonat, Kolonus?
See the discussion by o.a. Roy Johnson and W. Fred Rump around 9 and
10 April 2000 in this news group. (to be found using
dejanews/powersearch on Internet).
Succes,
Frans.
R.Winter
Hello Len, (dol...@aol.com),
You wrote on the 29 Apr 00 in /soc/genealogy/german
Subject: "Abbreviation 'KL' in Church Records":
>In checking church records from Westfalia I have noted several entries
>in which the surname is shown preceded by the apparent abbreviation
>'KL', for example 'Heinrich KL Schmidt'. Occasionally this type of
>record shows a different surname for the child than that of the
>father. I have also come upon some entries in which the word
>'kleine' precedes a surname, for example 'kleine Schmidt' .
>I had suspected that 'KL' and 'kleine' were German equivalents to our
>'Jr' (junior) but am beginning to doubt that, as these references seem
>to run through a family for many generations. It may be that 'KL' is
>not an abbreviation for 'klein' .
I think it is just that (kleine), but not in the sense of junior.
The prefix "Kleine-" or its counterpart the "Grosse-" usually came into
existence when an unequal split of the farmland occured. The farmland -
which could hold several farms - for instance belonged to a member of the
nobility and could be divided amongst the heirs. The other big land owner
- the church - had no heirs and no intention to give any away.
Another possible explanation is that two separate farms run by families
with the same name had a different share of the commons.
>Can anyone shed light on this?
As I cant point to any written source, just take it as a theory.
Regards
Raimund
* E-Mail: R.Wi...@T-Online.de *
* FIDO: Raimund.Winter@2:246/9007.7 *
* Homepage: http://home.t-online.de/home/r.winter *
Roy Johnson
> The prefix "Kleine-" or its counterpart the "Grosse-" usually came into
> existence when an unequal split of the farmland occured. The farmland -
> which could hold several farms - for instance belonged to a member of the
> nobility and could be divided amongst the heirs. The other big land owner
> - the church - had no heirs and no intention to give any away.
> Another possible explanation is that two separate farms run by families
> with the same name had a different share of the commons.
>
> >Can anyone shed light on this?
> As I cant point to any written source, just take it as a theory.
I have come across the above explanation several times and I believe it can
be considered more than a theory. The receiver of the greater dividend
would be Grosse-whatever and the receiver of the lesser dividend would be
Kleine-Whatever. Example: Grosse Meyer and Kleine Meyer.
Keep in mind that the name usually went with the farmstead rather than with
the people, and that if they moved, especially if a man married the heiress
to a farmstead and moved there, he would take the name of that farmstead.
Normally the eldest living legitimate son inherited the land, and if no
living sons, the eldest living daughter.
In my research, I have seen several Kleine Whatevers but few Grosse
Whatevers. I wonder if the inheritor of the larger half didn't just go on
using the family name, as Meyer, Schmidt, etc., while the "little guy" had
to distinguish himself and therefore became Kleine Meyer or Kleine Schmidt.
Sometimes trying to figure out their naming customs can drive you crazy. In
researching Schnakes, I found a Johann Christian Kleine Bode, wife's name
Kuhlmeier, whose son Johann Christian F. Kleine Bode "genennt (called)
Schnake" married Anne Marie Louise Boeker. One child was born at
Schnathorst #4, residence of the Schnake family; others were born in nearby
Hullhorst. All children carried the name Schnake.
Wish someone could tell me how he got to be "called Schnake". He was 38
when he married Anne Marie; the only thing I can figure is that it is a
second marriage and that he first married a Schnake and lived at the Schnake
farmstead and took that name, then kept it when he moved away. By the 19th
century, peasants were sometimes keeping their name when they moved.
Trying to follow custome so different from our own can drive you crazy.
Roy Johnson
Robert Heiling
> >What about Kolonat, Kolonus?
> >
> >See the discussion by o.a. Roy Johnson and W. Fred Rump around 9 and
> >10 April 2000 in this news group. (to be found using
> >dejanews/powersearch on Internet).
> >
> >Succes,
> >
> >Frans.
> >
> Frans:
>
> Thanks very much for this lead. It could well be the answer as the family that
> this 'KL' family married into was described as "Colon" as easrly as 1745. That
> term was explained to me as a settler sent to reclaim the marshy land in
> Westfalia for farming. But why that description would follow a family thru
> years of baptisms I find curious.
> Len.
As was explained to me by someone who knows much more about the Westfalen
settlements than I do, the settlers or "colonus" who settled on the major
landowners' property had a signed agreement "colonatsvertrag" that permitted their
ongoing use of the land. That agreement would pass from generation to generation
making them all "colonus".
Although I also have people in Westfalen, my main interest in that has been in the
Austro-Hungarian Burgenland where most of the settlers were also referred to as
"colonus" because they settled land belonging to the Esterhazy (and other) princes.
That's something I'm still waiting to totally sort out in terms of viewing an
actual "colonatsvertrag". Someday!
Bob
Dolmenx
Frans L. Scholten
>Colon" (............). That
>term was explained to me as a settler sent to reclaim the marshy land in
>Westfalia for farming. But why that description would follow a family thru
>years of baptisms I find curious.
>Len.
Len,
I think the response of Roy Johnson explains it:
>Keep in mind that the name usually went with the farmstead rather than with
>the people, and that if they moved, especially if a man married the heiress
>to a farmstead and moved there, he would take the name of that farmstead.
This was also true for the East of the Netherlands (near the border to
Germany). If fact it is still a custom, although the fixed surname was
already introduced in the Netherlands in 1812.
Sometimes people on a farm that has an own old name are only called in
daily life by their 'farm name'. This farmname may be better known in
the community than the official surname.
Frans.
Dolmenx
>researching Schnakes, I found a Johann Christian Kleine Bode, wife's name
>Kuhlmeier, whose son Johann Christian F. Kleine Bode "genennt (called)
>Schnake" married Anne Marie Louise Boeker. One child was born at
>Schnathorst #4, residence of the Schnake family; others were born in nearby
>Hullhorst. All children carried the name Schnake.
>
grandfather, of Johann Christian Kleine Bode, who may well have been born a
SCHNAKE. If he married a Kleine BODE heiress, he may have taken the name BODE
(or, as I have found it in Versmold records, he would also become known as KL
(kleine?) BODE), as would his children. I have one example with the first-born
child bearing the father's surname, but the second and all the rest were KL
PLUEMER. This could well mean that the wife's father had died and the transfer
of property and name had become effective with the second child.
Perhaps in a case such as this, the eldest would later be described as
"gennant'. In the case I am recalling from memory, I think he would be
"gennant" BECKERWEHRT. I might also be likely that some children or
descendants would choose to revert to the surname of the original paternal
line.
I'm now thinking, based on Roy's remarks, that 'KL' does indeed mean 'kleine'
and has nothing to do with a Kolon.
I should mention that at this point I am working with IGI records, without
any additional details which might appear in the original church records.
However, the person with whom I am researching has many original documents. In
the IGI priintouts a name, either parent or child, would appear as, e.g.:
Johann Heinrich KL PLUEMER.
Thanks to all.
Len Keane
Roy Johnson
"Frans L. Scholten" <flsc...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:390dd8eb.25814700@news...
> On 01 May 2000 01:25:36 GMT, dol...@aol.com (Dolmenx) wrote:
>
> >Colon" (............). That
> >term was explained to me as a settler sent to reclaim the marshy land in
> >Westfalia for farming. But why that description would follow a family
thru
> >years of baptisms I find curious.
> >Len.
>
The term "Colon" did not follow a family. It was purely an individual
title, given to the head of the family, the owner of the farmstead, and only
as long as he held that position. When a farmer became too old and retired,
he was no longer Colon, but was termed a "Leibzuchter" -- he had an
agreement that he could live on the farm the rest of his life, but he turned
the farming over to the new "colon", usually his eldest son but if he had no
living sons, other arrangements could be made.
Usually the title passed on when the living Colon died.
I found several instances when there were no living sons, and the person who
married the former Colon's daughter became the new Colon. Even if she died,
he kept the title, as long as he was living on that farm and was head of
household there. But the children were not called that, and it did not pass
through baptism. It passed only through land ownership.
One instance I found where Colon Schnake at Number 33 died; someone born
Meyer married his widow, took over the farm, and became the new Colon
Schnake. He was called Meyer or Schnake. Their children were called Schnake
even though neither parent was born Schnake.
Colon usually implied also that they were serfs, and "owning" the farm meant
that they were hereditary tenants -- they inherited the right to farm the
land and pay rent. They regarded it as "their" land because they could not
be removed from it as long as they paid the required rent, or more
accurately, feudal dues.
Please don't take everything I say as gospel truth. I know just enough to
be dangerous. Several native Germans have, in the past, corrected errors
that I have made, and I know there will be plenty more. But I enjoy jumping
in. That's how we all learn.
Roy Johnson
Researching Schnakes all over the world
So far ALL Schnake/Schnakes that I have found in North America come from
Unterluebbe or Schnathorst, two tiny villages only a few kilometers apart,
in Bergkirchen and Schnathorst parishes, Kreis Minden and Kreis Herford,
Westfalen.
Web page http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~schnake
gloria a bornio
Saxony, Germany who married Victoria ARMBRUSTER, a native of Renchen,
Baden, Germany. Their daughter, Augusta SEELIGER, was bon 28 Aug 1852 in
New Orleans, Louisiana.U.S.A. Charles E. SEELIGER was born around 1826.
It is believed that he was the proprietor of a beer garden in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Thanks for any information.
Gloria
Michael Maxfield
>
>I should mention that at this point I am working with IGI records, without
>any additional details which might appear in the original church records.
>However, the person with whom I am researching has many original documents. In
>the IGI priintouts a name, either parent or child, would appear as, e.g.:
>Johann Heinrich KL PLUEMER.
GET THE FILM!!!!
I can't stress it enough. The IGI data format can only bend so far. (and
there is also a difference between online and @FHC IGI outputs).
For one of my Westfalen lines found in the @FHC IGI, the surname shown
was "HENNEBOEHL OR SCHULTE". That surname combo went for 3 generations
in that village. To further confuse things, the next generation down in
a nearby village, the IGI only had HENNEBOEHL but the physical record
listed him as the son of "HENNEBOEHL geb. Schulte".
The truth, (best as I can ascertain) after looking at the film, is that
the farm was Schulte, but the caretakers/owners/inheritors of the farm
actually kept their surname, but appended it with the farm name, so as to
read "HENNEBOEHL vulgo Schulte" on the church records within that village.
From what I have read here in this thread and elsewhere though, not all
parts of Westfalen keep the original surname and may drop it completely
and adopt the farm name. Unless you have a good source for the specific
way it was handled in the village of interest, you will only get the truth
by looking at the films of the records and following several of the lines
(more than just your own) to get a feel for how it was done in that village.
Fortunately for me, my Hennebohle vulgo Schulte family had neighbors, a
family called Henneboehl vulgo Guhen which in the period that the Schulte
farm remained under Henneboehl control, the Guhen farm, following female
lines went through three owner surnames. (Unfortunately the books didn't
go back far enough for me to find a relation between the two families.)
GET THE FILM!!!
Unless someone pops up here who has already seen the film for that village
and figured out how the property handovers went (or if farmworkers also
took the farm/house name), then IMO anything read here is only a possibility
based upon someone's experience in a different village.
Good Luck
Mike
--
Michael Maxfield
tw...@io.com
Kbussmeyer
[snip]
>I'm now thinking, based on Roy's remarks, that 'KL' does indeed mean 'kleine'
>and has nothing to do with a Kolon.
>
>I should mention that at this point I am working with IGI records, without
>any additional details which might appear in the original church records.
>However, the person with whom I am researching has many original documents.
>In
>the IGI priintouts a name, either parent or child, would appear as, e.g.:
>Johann Heinrich KL PLUEMER.
>
Len,
there is a person Jobst Heinrich KLEINE PLUEMER, christened 21 Dec 1828 in the
Versmold IGI records, son of Peter Heinrich Kleine Pluemer and Catharine Agnese
Rahen.
This person gets married as Jobst Heinrich KL PLUEMER, to Cathrine Wilhelmine
FLACHMEIER, on 2 May 1861.
Then this couple has a child Marie Cathrine Charlotte KLEINE PLUEMER,
christened on 16 Nov 1862,
father: Jobst Heinrich KLEINE PLUEMER,
mother: Cathrine Wilhelmine FLACHMEIER
Evidently, KL is an abbreviation of KLEINE, at least in this case.
BTW, PLUEMER (or Pl"umer) is a Plattdeutsch term and means a person who is
dealing with plums. The word for plum is the same in Plattdeutsch and English,
the pronunciation is different. You will find this surname mostly in northern
Germany, i.e. where they speak Plattdeutsch and eat plums (of course, some of
them moved to the middle and southern part of Germany).
But for correctness, I'm **not** saying that the Kleine Pluemer just sold small
plums ;-)
There are not too many Kleine Pluemers left in Germany. The White Pages just
show one, living in Halle, Westphalia, 10 km north east of Versmold.
Regards,
Klaus Bussmeyer
Celia Mitschelen
Everyone should realize the value of the IGI is for the clues it gives as to
location. Send for the church records and find out how it was used in that
particular village. It is impossible to generalize about Germany. There was
no "Germany" as we think of it now but many, many individual areas varying
in size, customs and laws.
You cannot even be sure that the people you are putting together as a family
belong in the same family. Unfortunately names were not unique to one family
and in spite of the common supposition of naming practices they cannot be
relied on. You need every clue available to do good research.
Example of abstracted records:
1. Johann Michael Kraemer, son of Johann Michael Kraemer married Catharina
Magdalena daughter of Johann Michael Kraemer on 8 May 1792 in Malmsheim,
Wuerttemberg
2. Johann Jakob Kraemer, son of Johann Michael Kraemer married Margaretha
Barbara daughter of Johann Michael Kraemer on 8 May 1792 in Malmsheim,
Wuerttemberg
A case of incest? Shocking.
As you can see you need more clues to get this straightened out. Clues that
will not be found in the IGI.
The complete church record has this additional information.
1. Johann Michael Kraemer, Schuhmacher son of Johann Michael Kraemer,
Schuhmacher married Catharina Magdalena daughter of Johann Michael Kraemer,
Beck on 8 May 1792 in Malmsheim, Wuerttemberg
2. Johann Jakob Kraemer, Beck, son of Johann Michael Kraemer, Beck married
Margaretha Barbara daughter of Johann Michael Kraemer, Schuhmacher on 8 May
1792 in Malmsheim, Wuerttemberg
Church records are wonderful, especially if you have a Pfarrer or Priest
that added personal notes.
DO NOT over look the value of looking at the original records. I presume
some like the IGI because they do not have to learn to read the records but
they are really missing out. If you can at least learn to transcribe them
you then have a chance of getting them translated, either with the help of
dictionaries or a German speaker. To get the amount of information found on
the IGI you do not even have learn German; the few words used can be found
on word lists and dictionaries.
There will still be some conjecture as to what was meant a 100 or 200 years
ago but at least you will have more to work with.
As I expanded into the village I found patterns that cleared up some
mysteries that I found just doing single family research.
Celia
> I should mention that at this point I am working with IGI records,
without
> any additional details which might appear in the original church records.
> However, the person with whom I am researching has many original
documents. In
> the IGI priintouts a name, either parent or child, would appear as, e.g.:
> Johann Heinrich KL PLUEMER.
>
mona_...@juno.com
On Tue, 2 May 2000 09:34:50 -0500 "Celia Mitschelen"
<cmi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Why would you want to work with just the IGI?
>
> Church records are wonderful, especially if you have a Pfarrer or
> Priest
> that added personal notes.
One of my ancestors was widowed and married a 2nd time. In the margins
of the church record of her 2nd marriage I found her first husband's name
and village. And the date of her death was added, as well.
Mona
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Dolmenx
>>
>> Church records are wonderful, especially if you have a Pfarrer or
>> Priest
>> that added personal notes.
>
researching her German lines for quite some time. She has many originals which
I will be examining soon. I use the IGI for a quick way to get an overview of
families in a particular parish. I've been involved in genealogiical research
for many years, mainly Irish families.
Len.
Dolmenx
>
>I can't stress it enough. The IGI data format can only bend so far. (and
>there is also a difference between online and @FHC IGI outputs).
>
past experience that the on-line IGI differs considerably from the films and
microfiche
In my original post I was considering the possibility that 'KL' might be a
fairly universal and well-known usage throughout Germany. Apparently not, based
on the diverging opinions.
Thanks for the advice,
Len.
Roy Johnson
is learning as much as I am from this exchange, and I hope continuing it is
not boring anyone.
Roy,
I think all below is true. It is exactly the same as in the East of the
Netherlands, also with the serfs. I have many ancestors who were serfs.
This was not as bad as it looks, though.
Farmers don't like to leave the farm they were born on anyway. Moreover,
because the rights of serfs had been fixed so long ago (in the East of
the Netherlands in 1546 by Emperor Charles V of Germany, who was also
Lord of most of the Netherlands) the rents were also fixed and remained
fixed in the following centuries.
Due to inflation, the rent became more easy to bear and gradually, these
farms became wealthier. This (relative) wealth was also used by the
serfs to buy more land that was their own private property.
When the system of serfs came to an end, mostly around 1810 -1820, the
farms with serfs on them were often richer than other farms with free
tenants.
Frans.
(Dienstag, der 02.05.00)
Hallo Roy,
am Montag, den 01.05.00 schriebst Du mir
zum Thema "Re: Abbreviation 'KL' in Church Records":
>Then how is is in my records that I find females designated as "col."
>or "colon" and a listing like this: "Hoferbin aus erste Ehe: Anna
>Maria Engel, geb. 6.10.1645"?
If you can confirm that this is from an original contemporary document
then I stand corrected.
> The "col." listing only applied to
>females through which the property and family name was passed on. And
>Anna Maria Engel Schnake was one of those. She had no living
>brothers.
I think we have to distinguish between transfering an ownership of a farm
and transfering a "Kolonatsvertrag".
>Here's another with Cathar. Mar. "born Col." -- she seemed to inherit
>the Hof. But admittedly, when she married, her husband became the
>Colonus and continued to be Colonus using her surname even if she
>died. But if he died first, then she could marry again and the new
>guy would become the Colonus.
The guy would enter into a hereditary contract by marrying her but I am
not convinced that she owned the title/contract or the farm in our modern
sense. I am sure for instance she would not been allowed to sell the
property, but whoever she choose to marry would be accepted as a successor
of her first husband by the other contract-party.
I started looking for a date when the "weaker" sex was allowed to sign any
legal contract on their own but with no success yet.
I know they got the right to vote in 1918.
>> As you have the address of the farm you could try and find out what
>> happened to the "Hofakten" of that farm or landowner.
>Thanks. That might be tough to locate, and even harder to read. I
>have Sutterlin and Kroeburn scripts and can struggle through some,
>also if it is in Latin I can figure out some of it, but I am not
>fluent.
One usually needs the help of an expert to locate and translate such
documents. As they are of little interest to most people they are very
seldom microfilmed or published.
Regards
Raimund
E-Mail: R.Wi...@T-Online.de
FIDO: Raimund.Winter@2:246/9007.7 (XANTH-BBS)
Homepage: http://home.t-online.de/home/r.winter
## CrossPoint v3.20 RC1 R ##
=========
This is Roy Johnson again----
I also have the following, from a book by Robert Lowie in the 1950s which I
can no longer find. He tells us that there were differences of rank among
the peasants, from the most important to the least important:
"Foremost was the Meier or Schulte, originally the headman of the settlement
and economically characterized by the use of from six to ten horses in
tillage. ...Locally, the proprietor of a somewhat smaller farm was called
the Höner. Next came the owner of from four to six horses, the Vollbauer
[full peasant] Below him ranked the Kötter [cotter] or Halbbauer,
[half-peasant] with only one to three horses at his disposal and commonly
obliged to go into service or to take up a trade [NOTE: this was the
classification of the Unterlübbe No. 19 Schnakes, the ancestors of Karl
Ludwig Hermann Schnake. More on this later]. There were Westphalians who
kept no horses at all, working their plots with oxen or cows, and who lived
in a cottage called Stelle; if this stood on communal ground, the inmate was
called Brinksitzer [the Schnakes of Unterluebbe No. 33 had this
classification]; if it was located on a full peasant's farmstead, he was an
Einwohner, Einlieger, or Huerling (hireling or hired hand)."
My findings matched Lowie; the Schnakes of Nr. 19 in a chart in a book were
listed as "Hofklasse: Koetter" and they farmed 30 morgens (about 60 acres)
of land and had 3 horses, 2 cows, and a heifer.
The Hoefe (plural of Hof, farmstead) were also classed as free (Leibfrei) or
serf (Eigenbehoerig). There was no necessary connection between the peasant
classes above and whether they were free or serf. Some Koetters were free,
some were serfs.
The first Schnake farmstead listed was in 1572. Another one popped up out
of nowhere about 100 years later, and was classed "Brinksitzer", one class
lower than Koetter. However, the register showed that they were richer in
cattle than the other Schnakes, although it did not show that they were
assigned any land.
It's interesting and confusing to the modern mind.
Roy Johnson