Christiaan 'Kraffie' de Wit (Scholtzkloof)
active 1977 · de Wit line
No birth date is recorded for this person. The family puts an outer limit on it: born no later than 1916, because their spouse born 1891, within 25 years. That rests on an assumption about ordinary childbearing ages, not on a document. It is an upper bound and not a birth year, and nothing in the model records it as one.
Names
- Called
- Kraffie
- Given
- Christiaan
- Surname
- de Wit
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.
Immediate family
- Married
- Miemie de Wit (nee du Plessis)
Stories
- mentioned The war reaches the Koup
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.
- No dated record ties this person to a specific piece of ground.
- Nothing dated is recorded about them at all, they are here because another record names them.
A sourced gap beats an unsourced fill. These are the open questions on this person, stated rather than papered over.
Research notes
Thin record. SRC-172, Helena MarincowitzM, *Prince Albert and the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902)*, Fransie Pienaar Museum, 1999, p.34: Miemie de WitH (PER-002051) 'was married to Christiaan de Wit (Kraffie) of Scholtzkloof'. He is here because he is why the eyewitness of the Remhoogte grave is recorded under the name de Wit rather than du Plessis, which is exactly the kind of join that goes missing. No dates are known and none are guessed. [TO VERIFY] A SECOND de WIT APPEARS IN THE SAME BOOK AND IS NOT KNOWN TO BE RELATED: p.35, Fritz de Wit of Prince Albert, previously farmed Damascus, whose father Jan said the English and the Boers fought behind Kredouw.
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.