Duplikaat Origineel Register, Calvinia 1917, entry 675: Jacobus Johannes Gideon v.d. Merwe of Kareekop and Catharina Isabella Bruijn of Klipfontein, 1 October 1917
marriage register · an original record · consulted 2026-09-30
- Type
- marriage register
- Repository
- [TO VERIFY] Duplicate original marriage register, parish and district of Calvinia, form M.I. 09; the printed heading directs it to the Registrateur van Huweliken, Kaapstad. Archive, film and image not yet seen.
- Reference
- [TO VERIFY] Entry no. 675, year 1917. Two numbers stand on the sheet and are recorded without interpretation: "207" in the right margin beside the Toestemming column, and "8504" at the foot.
- Consulted
- 2026-09-30
The citation as it was given
TRANSCRIPTION, and it is the document LEAD-0381 asked for. Supplied by Frans as a photograph Columns as the form prints them: No. 675 | Wanneer Getrouwd 1 Oct 1917 | JACOBUS JOHANNES GIDEON V.D. MERWE, Ouderdom Laatste Verjaardag 29, Ras Europeaan, Staat JONGMAN, Rang of Beroep BOER, WOONPLAATS TIJDENS HET HUWELIK: KAREEKOP | CATHARINA ISABELLA BRUIJN, 23, Europeaan, JONGEDOCHTER, no occupation entered, WOONPLAATS TIJDENS HET HUWELIK: KLIPFONTEIN | Na Huweliks-gebooden: NA GEBODEN. Getrouwd in de N.G. KERK te CALVINIA. Signed by the parties as "J.J.G. v.d. Merwe" and "C. I. Bruijn"; witnesses [?H.] J. Bruijn - the initial is not certain - and HESTER LOMBARD; minister's signature [?Murray Jooste], Pred. N.G. Kerk, repeated at the foot with V.D.M. *** THE RESIDENCE COLUMN IS THE POINT. *** 5's third rule says a baptism names a church and not a home, and that the exception is a register which states a dwelling - this form has a dedicated WOONPLAATS TIJDENS HET HUWELIK column, so Kareekop is Tier A evidence for where he lived, not an inference. Until today it rested on Melville (SRC-263) alone. IT DOES NOT SETTLE TENURE. "Boer" and a dwelling say he farmed and lived there; they say nothing about whether he owned, hired or worked his father's ground. LEAD-0381 stands, narrowed. CORROBORATION ON A DATE: the bride is 23 on 1 October 1917, so she was born between October 1893 and October 1894. The model's 12 June 1894 fits; Melville's 1895 does not. CITATION [TO VERIFY] per 5a-ii - the reading is confident, the archival identifiers are not, because none has been seen. The sheet is a DUPLICATE original: the printed note says duplicate registers are not mere copies and must carry the original signatures, which these do.
Kept verbatim. This project contradicts published genealogies and corrects a family's own oral tradition, so every claim has to be checkable by someone who was not in the room.