I am doing a happy dance and then some - we went to FHL yesterday to work on some more of the films we rented. So there we sit rolling through a film looking for a particular family member (we want some of the Pannozzo clan to show up who are related to us - as in we can 'prove' they are) -- lo and behold there is Raffaele DiCrocco - but we already had him and his great-grandson documented - or so we thought. We found an entirely handwritten group of documents - marriage certificates microfilmed in the middle of the Registrato dello Stato Civile (interestingly after about 20 of these handwritten ones it returns to fill in the blank forms in the same book?) - anyway - here is the happy dance part - Raffaele born abt. 1781 son of the late Filippo DiCrocco and Maria Loretta Lorello , farmer, 68 yrs old (so born abt 1751) married to Clorinda Fidaleo 31 yrs old, daughter of Vincenzo a carbonaro (charcoal maker) aged 56 and farmer Flamminia di Longis 52 yrs old!
I know the father Filippo is correct so this was interesting in that it appears as if Raffele at some point within a few year period remarried - Raffaele's son Fillippo was born in 1814 according to his birth certificate which I have - but it shows a different mother- that means either this is wrong Raffaele (not likely in small village with other names all matching also) or that dad remarried after first wife died - more logical as in relation to ages of Raffaele and Clorinda. I had in our tree that this Raffaele was married to a Maria Veneranda Zuena.
So here is the problem... I THINK I had that based on family information and on a photocopied certificate from that Raffaele's son ( my husband's greaqt grandfather) specifying mother Maria with dad Raffaele. Somehwere I cannot put my hands on the certificate and my source information does not list film number -- errrrr
I am usually so organized and I have everything in duplicate so how I lost a certificate with Maria's name on it is beyond me and I cannot seem to find it again! So now research is on hold until I go back and source everything or I will be chasing wrong families (although they are all interrelated someway or other based on only one family with that name in the town all related back and forth).

Sorry to hear that but maybe you'll find the certificate quickly. Let us know how you're progressing.

On a marriage, in most cases, they state whether the man/woman..was single or widowed. (even in those hand written ones) Some even mention the name of the previous spouse..so look carefully. It should appear right next to the name...celibe (single) vidovo (widow). Single for the woman is nubile and widowed would be vidova.

Hi,
sometimes marriage acts don't say if the groom/bride is vedovo/vedova or celibe/nubile. You have to look at the banns (Pubblicazioni) where they usually say that he/she presented the death act (atto di morte) of the previous spouse and this is usually written toward the end of the document. Re-marrying wasn't unusual, many women were dyeing in childbirth or infection and men could re-marry immediately after.

Ada

Unfortunately this (handwritten marriage license for Clorinda and Raffaele) does not specify single or widow/widower. I have been saying I regretted not carefully documenting sources - and also mentioned I am being much more detailed - I keep copies of everything and I went back and added sources/citations I thought to everything. But here I am with a missing piece of paper and documented source! So if anyone wants to know if it is worth it to source properly - the answer is yes - do it from the beginning! I know Maria Veneranda is not a name I would have invented... but that isn't proof.

BonVal wrote:

Raffaele born abt. 1781 son of the late Filippo DiCrocco and Maria Loretta Lorello , farmer, 68 yrs old (so born abt 1751) married to Clorinda Fidaleo 31 yrs old, daughter of Vincenzo a carbonaro (charcoal maker) aged 56 and farmer Flamminia di Longis 52 yrs old! (

It seems logical to me, given the details you have provided that this was a second marriage for Raffaele. Look within the written documents for the death record of your Maria Veneranda, it SHOULD be there, if as I suspect you are working with the Allegati. If my addition is correct and he was born in 1781 and 68 at the time of this marriage, we are looking at 1849 for this record. As you would imagine it is unlikely he was single until he was 68, yet another clue that this was most likely a second (or third) marriage.

It's amusing that this guy was 16 years OLDER than his mother in law!



Keep us posted with what you find!

Jim..you amaze me with your thinking! It would have taken me forever to figure that all out. You can tell the experience and how the mind works with it!

Nuccia - I agree - his experience is so helpful! It always gets us pointed in the right direction, doesn't he?
Jim --- It is the mother Maria Loreta Lorello who is a farmer and 68 - does not state age or profession of the late Filippo - - and I had not seen a completely handwritten one like this - not a fill in the blank form - and never saw ages and professions for the two sets of parents as well as the couple! But it does state that Raffaele and Clorinda are in their 30's - 38 for him and 31 for her - so that is still late for a first marriage?

What is the year of this marriage? Do you have a scan we can see of the page?

Thanks

It could be that they were both widowed.
Acts forms started to be unified and printed around 1870/75. In many towns before that date, all acts were usually handwritten and usually they were giving more info (age, occupation, sometimes name of the grandfather).

Ada

Not sure if I have this right or not -
img12.imageshack.us/im...001nj9.pdf
img3.imageshack.us/img...002ns6.pdf
Those are front and back of the form - I think date was 1817 - our ancestor Filippo was born in 1814 so this would mean his father was born about 1781 based on ages on the original document that I now cannot find again. So then that father Raffaele remarried when he (Filippo) was a toddler - obviously not uncommom.
edited to fix dates

This, as I said, it's the kind of handwritten document you could find in many towns before the forms for Marriages, Births and Deaths Acts were unified and printed with standard sentences.
The date to me seems April 14, 1818. Raffaele di Crocco is 38 years old and is a farmer, resident in Itri, strada San Gennaro (San Gennaro Street), first son to the late Filippo di Crocco etc. etc. The bride is 31 and it's stated she's the first daughter to Vincenzo Fidaleo and Flamminia di Longis. It sounds a bit odd that they had their parents consent to get married.
It's also stated that banns were published on March and April. I think their civil status was probably written there. The second page is a list of the witnesses.

Ada

Thanks...that translation pretty much matches what Val & I got out of it...talk about naming traditions ...in this line we have clear documents showing Filippo.had Raffaele who had Filippo who had Raffaele who had Filippo who...you guessed it...had Raffaele ...and then sons also chose those names so we have had a riot with this!

The traditions was:
1st son with name of paternal grandfather
1st daughter with name of paternal grandmother
2nd son with name of maternal grandfather
2nd daughter with name of maternal grandmother.
This was not mandatory, they had great respect (or fear) for their grandparents who were arranging marriages and deciding for inheritances or dowries.
They were also using 3 or 4 first names collecting all ancestors names.
In my families I found someone following the rule and others using completely different names related to the town patron saint or names coming into fashion.

Ada

uantiti wrote:

The traditions was: 1st son with name of paternal grandfather 1st daughter with name of paternal grandmother 2nd son with name of maternal grandfather 2nd daughter with name of maternal grandmother.

While not mandatory, this tradition was adhered to MUCH more often than not. At the very least the oldest son and daughter are named for the Paternal grandparents, after that I have seen deviations (although this is not common).