"Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Are you looking for an Italian surname? Do you need more information about your family heritage?
This is the right place to start your genealogy search.
User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

"Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 06 Mar 2015, 20:26

According to her marriage record in Monteroduni, my ancestor Lorenza Palladino was born in 1859, mother Giovanna Palladino, father unknown. I looked all through the Monteroduni births 1844-1865 and didn't find Lorenza but I did find two of her sisters, born in 1855 and 1860 (Antonia and Camilla - same mother, father unknown) - and then I found a record of a "Bambina" Palladino, born 1848 (same mother, father unknown). I know bambina means baby girl so I'm wondering if this is Lorenza and she simply wasn't named yet when the birth was registered so they just put down "baby girl". Or was Bambina the actual name, meaning this isn't Lorenza?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Anizio
Elite
Elite
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Oct 2014, 22:37
Location: Canada

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Anizio » 06 Mar 2015, 20:30

It is highly unlikely that there would be a mistake of 11 years on her marriage record.

I'd say there is almost no chance it is her. If anything it is more likely that the sister born in 1860 is actually her and that the name she went by at marriage was a married name. However you can't assume that without proof.

The marriage record would have her age, not her exact birth date. Which means 2 potential years of birth depending on the month of the marriage and month of the birth. Do that math, it could be the 1860 sister is actually your ancestor.
TIP: When asking for records from Italy, do NOT ask for an "estratto." ALWAYS ask for a "copia integrale." A photocopy of the original Act will contain more information

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 06 Mar 2015, 20:41

Anizio wrote:It is highly unlikely that there would be a mistake of 11 years on her marriage record.

I'd say there is almost no chance it is her. If anything it is more likely that the sister born in 1860 is actually her and that the name she went by at marriage was a married name. However you can't assume that without proof.

The marriage record would have her age, not her exact birth date. Which means 2 potential years of birth depending on the month of the marriage and month of the birth. Do that math, it could be the 1860 sister is actually your ancestor.


Yeah, the marriage record is from Feb 1879 and says she's 20 years old. I had considered that Camilla born 1860 could have been Lorenza but Camilla's birth record has no other birth names on it and I couldn't figure why someone named Camilla would later go by Lorenza. I know Catholics take confirmation names later on but I've never seen someone go by their confirmation name. What do you mean by Lorenza could be a married name? Why would marrying change her given name?

Also, assuming "Bambina" is not Lorenza, does that mean her name was actually Bambina or is this still a case of her not being named yet so they just put down "baby girl"? Will I find her on later records as Bambina?

Thanks for your help.

Anizio
Elite
Elite
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Oct 2014, 22:37
Location: Canada

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Anizio » 06 Mar 2015, 20:54

Robin B Mc wrote: I couldn't figure why someone named Camilla would later go by Lorenza. I know Catholics take confirmation names later on but I've never seen someone go by their confirmation name. What do you mean by Lorenza could be a married name? Why would marrying change her given name?

Also, assuming "Bambina" is not Lorenza, does that mean her name was actually Bambina or is this still a case of her not being named yet so they just put down "baby girl"? Will I find her on later records as Bambina?


Sorry if I said married name, I meant middle name.

Civil acts did not always contain the middle names. I can think of dozens of examples, you usually need parish records for an accurate account of all of someone's middle names. Ie. My ancestor Giuliana Santulli born in 1817 was listed as such in the Civil Record, but the church record was "Giuliana Onorata Sabina Santulli."

Now what you need to understand about italians is that there is no such thing as a middle name. There are given names and family name(s). Sometimes multiple of each. So for example my ancestor from Rome was Serafino Gaetano Maria Maccarelli. On his birth record were all 3 of his names, at his marriage was only called Serafino, and at his daughter's marriage was only called Gaetano. Each name is legitimate, it would be like someone in English named "George Simon Smith" going by George S. Smith or G. Simon Smith except in Italian there is no initial included.

So it is entirely possible your ancestor was named Camilla Lorenza, or Lorenza Camilla (probably C-L since the Civil Records would usually include only the first if it didn't include them all)

And yes, it says she named her daughter Bambina so it is Bambina.
TIP: When asking for records from Italy, do NOT ask for an "estratto." ALWAYS ask for a "copia integrale." A photocopy of the original Act will contain more information

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 06 Mar 2015, 21:20

That's interesting, I have seen birth acts that list three or four given names so I assumed if there were any "middle" names, they would be listed on the birth act. Thanks for the info - unfortunately, Monteroduni church records aren't available on microfilm so I may have to put this issue on the back burner.

carubia
Master
Master
Posts: 902
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 12:13
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby carubia » 08 Mar 2015, 02:59

I see it all the time where a name used later in life was different from that on the birth act. Since I rarely have access to church records I can't tell whether the name on the marriage record was also on the baptismal record, but at least the phenomenon of changing names was common. Sometimes the marriage record will indicate, e.g., Lorenza aka Camilla, but usually it doesn't acknowledge the former name.

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 08 Mar 2015, 18:27

Thanks, I think you're probably right that Camilla and Lorenza are the same person - it makes the most sense, since Lorenza isn't found in the birth records at all and as far as I can tell, there's no missing records. The only alternative is that Lorenza was born in a nearby town but that seems unlikely given that her sister was born in Monteroduni in 1855, and then Camilla was born in Monteroduni in 1860 - why would the mother have a child in a completely different town in 1859? I think it's more likely Lorenza is Camilla.

Anizio
Elite
Elite
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Oct 2014, 22:37
Location: Canada

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Anizio » 08 Mar 2015, 22:24

Robin B Mc wrote:Thanks, I think you're probably right that Camilla and Lorenza are the same person - it makes the most sense, since Lorenza isn't found in the birth records at all and as far as I can tell, there's no missing records. The only alternative is that Lorenza was born in a nearby town but that seems unlikely given that her sister was born in Monteroduni in 1855, and then Camilla was born in Monteroduni in 1860 - why would the mother have a child in a completely different town in 1859? I think it's more likely Lorenza is Camilla.


If you think thats a possibility, look. It does happen. Life didn't stop just because people were pregnant, sometimes they still went between closeby towns on a regular basis for business or religion or family, and sometimes women had babies while away. A good example of this is my ancestor who lived in Rome, his wife and children were in Rome, but died visiting his mother in Como.

The only thing is just simple math. What is the date of the marriage and what is the date of the birth. If the math tells you that Lorenza and Camilla, if sisters, would have been born within 9 months of each other you KNOW they can't be two different people.
TIP: When asking for records from Italy, do NOT ask for an "estratto." ALWAYS ask for a "copia integrale." A photocopy of the original Act will contain more information

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 09 Mar 2015, 03:26

Anizio wrote:
Robin B Mc wrote:Thanks, I think you're probably right that Camilla and Lorenza are the same person - it makes the most sense, since Lorenza isn't found in the birth records at all and as far as I can tell, there's no missing records. The only alternative is that Lorenza was born in a nearby town but that seems unlikely given that her sister was born in Monteroduni in 1855, and then Camilla was born in Monteroduni in 1860 - why would the mother have a child in a completely different town in 1859? I think it's more likely Lorenza is Camilla.


If you think thats a possibility, look. It does happen. Life didn't stop just because people were pregnant, sometimes they still went between closeby towns on a regular basis for business or religion or family, and sometimes women had babies while away. A good example of this is my ancestor who lived in Rome, his wife and children were in Rome, but died visiting his mother in Como.


I couldn't find any nearby towns on microfilm so it won't be that easy, unfortunately

The only thing is just simple math. What is the date of the marriage and what is the date of the birth. If the math tells you that Lorenza and Camilla, if sisters, would have been born within 9 months of each other you KNOW they can't be two different people.


The marriage record is from Feb 27, 1879 and says Lorenza is 20 years old. Camilla's birth was August 13, 1860. If they are the same person, she should have been 18 at the time of marriage, not 20. That's nearly 2 years off so they still could have been sisters.

Anizio
Elite
Elite
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Oct 2014, 22:37
Location: Canada

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Anizio » 09 Mar 2015, 04:00

Robin B Mc wrote:
The marriage record is from Feb 27, 1879 and says Lorenza is 20 years old. Camilla's birth was August 13, 1860. If they are the same person, she should have been 18 at the time of marriage, not 20. That's nearly 2 years off so they still could have been sisters.



If you say 2 years, they are not the same person. People may have lost track of age when they are 50 or 80, but not 20. If there is a 2 year difference the are different people.
By your math there is a 1-2 year difference.

Your options are 1) find Lorenza's birth record, 2) find Camilla's baptismal record, 3) find the allegati to the marriage which will confirm Lorenza's date of birth.
TIP: When asking for records from Italy, do NOT ask for an "estratto." ALWAYS ask for a "copia integrale." A photocopy of the original Act will contain more information

carubia
Master
Master
Posts: 902
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 12:13
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby carubia » 09 Mar 2015, 05:39

A 2-year age discrepancy on a marriage record in the 19th century is not large enough to conclude that they were not the same person (especially since they often rounded off ages, up or down), but it's enough to make you consider alternatives. If the names were the same this age discrepancy wouldn't dissuade me from thinking they were probably the same person, but the name difference coupled with the age difference makes it a little more probable than not that they were not the same person.

Anizio
Elite
Elite
Posts: 398
Joined: 12 Oct 2014, 22:37
Location: Canada

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Anizio » 09 Mar 2015, 06:50

carubia wrote:A 2-year age discrepancy on a marriage record in the 19th century is not large enough to conclude that they were not the same person (especially since they often rounded off ages, up or down), but it's enough to make you consider alternatives. If the names were the same this age discrepancy wouldn't dissuade me from thinking they were probably the same person, but the name difference coupled with the age difference makes it a little more probable than not that they were not the same person.


I have yet to find a marriage of someone that young be incorrect as to the age. This whole "they rounded off ages" thing is absurd. I have never seen it. The only time ages tend to be off when for older people, 50+ lets say.

Every marriage, and I have read hundreds from Lombardia to Marche to Lazio to Abruzzo and more, has been an exact number of years when it is young people especially since every marriage includes a birth act or baptismal act in the allegati. If it were as common as you claim surely I should have come across it at least once it my search of records from 1750-1930, yet not once unless its the death of an old person.

2 year difference IS conclusive proof that it is not the same person when its supposed to be a 20 year old. The name difference isn't necessary to conclude it, but it helps.

But in the end, this is genealogy. Theories are nice, but meaningless. Every step must have proof, so even if it was a 1 year difference that could easily be accounted for by a birth date early or late in a year, you still need proof via allegati or parish records or its nothing more than an interesting theory and not strong enough to include in a tree.
TIP: When asking for records from Italy, do NOT ask for an "estratto." ALWAYS ask for a "copia integrale." A photocopy of the original Act will contain more information

carubia
Master
Master
Posts: 902
Joined: 25 Jan 2011, 12:13
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby carubia » 09 Mar 2015, 15:45

I see it all the time. I've gone through thousands of marriage records in Sicily. A few minutes before I posted I saw a case in Ribera from 1871 where the man was 28 but it said he was 31. I've also seen a number of cases where someone married more than once and the age in the marriage records differed by 5 years or more. Also ages differing between a marriage bann and the marriage record for the same marriage (and not because a birthday fell in between).

One thing that happens not infrequently is that a woman will marry using her older, deceased sister's birth record from a couple of years earlier, so that she appears a couple of years older in the marriage record. I'm not sure whether this was intentional or accidental.

And rounding up is really common. I wouldn't even think of that as a discrepancy. I know Jennabet has a theory as to why that occurred. What's really mystifying is when the age is given in terms of years and months, but it's still off by a few months.

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 09 Mar 2015, 17:19

Anizio wrote:
carubia wrote:A 2-year age discrepancy on a marriage record in the 19th century is not large enough to conclude that they were not the same person (especially since they often rounded off ages, up or down), but it's enough to make you consider alternatives. If the names were the same this age discrepancy wouldn't dissuade me from thinking they were probably the same person, but the name difference coupled with the age difference makes it a little more probable than not that they were not the same person.


I have yet to find a marriage of someone that young be incorrect as to the age. This whole "they rounded off ages" thing is absurd. I have never seen it. The only time ages tend to be off when for older people, 50+ lets say.


Well, looking at some of my other marriage/birth records of other couples in Italy, it does seem as though they round up. Another couple in Monteroduni is reported as 27 and 16 on their marriage record but I have found their birth records and technically, they would have been 26 and 15.

On another from Sulmona, it says the bride is 33 when she was actually 32. So it does sound like rounding up is not uncommon.

Also, I said it was a nearly 2 year difference - technically, it's a 1 year and 6 month difference. If Lorenza was off by one year, thinking she was 19 and turning 20 later that year, instead of 18 going on 19, and they rounded up, that would explain it. I'm not saying they are definitely the same person, just that I do think it's a possibility.

Finding Lorenza's birth record, Camilla's baptismal record, or any allegati will be easier said than done since they are not on microfilm. Also, I'm pretty sure Lorenza died after 1900, so again not on microfilm.

User avatar
Robin B Mc
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 00:02
Location: CO (PA at heart)
Contact:

Re: "Bambina" - Is this Lorenza?

Postby Robin B Mc » 19 May 2015, 23:22

In case anyone was curious, Camilla and Lorenza are NOT the same person. I happened to find Camilla's death record at only 2 years of age in 1862, so definitely not the same person who went on to later marry and having children.

So now I'm back to not having a birth record for Lorenza at all.


Return to “Italian Genealogy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], ForzaItaliaPgh, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests