Petrus Johannes van der Westhuizen (Haggas, 1822)

No dates recorded

Connection to the Koup

Held ground in this district: Haggas No. 145 (1822).

Names

Surname: van der Westhuizen

The formal baptismal name and the name a person was actually called are both kept, and neither is derived from the other. Spelling drift between records is evidence, not noise.

A life in the record

1822 land Held it, Haggas No. 145

Ground they are on record on

Haggas No. 145 held it · 1822

What we don't know

No birth date is recorded.
No death date is recorded.
Neither parent is recorded, so this person is not attached to the tree above them.

A sourced gap beats an unsourced fill. These are the open questions on this person, stated rather than papered over.

Research notes

[SRC-559] Line 52 of the 1822 Beaufort opgaafrol, with HAGAS against him in the leenings-plaatsen column, married to LOUISA CORNELIA HARMSE. *** HE IS THE 'P. VAN DER WESTHUIZEN' FOR WHOM STRETCH SURVEYED THE LOAN FARM HAGGA'S IN AUGUST 1833 (PAR-000094, DOC-0131), titled 15 April 1841 on Bf.W.Q.5-31 - the roll gives that initial a full name and puts him on the ground eleven years earlier. *** Created under 6's amendment, which extends the profile boundary to people related to the land. No dates: the roll gives none and none is invented. NOT MATCHED to the 1833 applicant beyond the surname and initial, which is what the two records share - 9.

These are working notes, not finished prose: they carry the reasoning, the corrections and the things still marked to verify. They are kept here so the page itself can read as what is known.

What the record is missing

Holds ground once, and leaves no other trace at all second order · B5 one-trace
Petrus Johannes van der WesthuizenH (Haggas, 1822) appears in exactly one land record and nowhere else, no birth, no death, no parents, no marriage, no burial, no estate. Who was this, and which family are they?

What would settle it A death notice (MOOC 6/9) names parents, spouse and children in one sheet and is the fastest way to attach an isolated landholder. Failing that, the baptism register for the district in the right decade.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.