Help Please - Translation of Pietro Soriero - 1877

[KevinO]

Hello,

Can someone please translate the 1877 birth record (#1) accessible from the link below:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/T ... 1,54301301

I believe the parents are listed as Lorenzo Soriero and Maria Giovanna Suozzi. If the ages of these individuals are listed can you provide that as well?

Thanks in advance!

Kevin

[TerraLavoro]

The gist is on the 6th of January, 1877 at 11:25 am, in the town of Ruvo del Monte, a baby boy was born to Lorenzo Soriero, farmer, age 38, and Maria Giovanna Suozzi (no age given) his wife, with whom he resides. The baby was given the name of Pietro.

[erudita74]

The gist is on the 6th of January, 1877 in the town of Ruvo del Monte, a baby boy was born to Lorenzo Soriero, age 38, and Maria Giovanna Suozzi (no age given) his wife, with whom he resides.

Just to expand upon the above translation.
The record is dated on Jan 6, 1877 at 2:20 P.M. in Ruvo del Monte. Lorenzo Soriero was age 38 (by the way, his age was 60 in the other Pietro Soriero record I had translated for 1893), and he was a peasant/farmer. He reported that, at 11:25 a.m. on the 6th of the current month, in the house at #21 via sopra la Chiesa, a male infant was born to his wife, Maria Giovanna Suozzi (the word legitimate is not used in this record). She was a peasant/farmer living with her husband. It was this infant he was presenting to whom was being given the name Pietro. By the way, the declarant, the baby's father was illiterate and did not sign the document. The two witnesses were also illiterate and did not sign.

By the way, Kevin, I also replied to you question about the Provincia di Basilicata which appears in some of your records. I don't know if you've seen my reply.

http://www.italiangenealogy.com/forum/l ... taly/32145

Erudita

[KevinO]

Thank you very much--below is the record for Donatantonio Soriero (who is potentially the brother of Pietro??).

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/T ... 1,54182001

Also, you indicated that the word "legitimate" is not used in the record. With the omission of this word can we assume that the Lorenze and Giovanna Suozzi were not married? I have been looking through hundreds of marriage records and have not found one--perhaps this is why.

Thanks again for all the help and support!

Best

Kevin

[Tessa78]

Thank you very much--below is the record for Donatantonio Soriero (who is potentially the brother of Pietro??).

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/T ... 1,54182001

Also, you indicated that the word "legitimate" is not used in the record. With the omission of this word can we assume that the Lorenze and Giovanna Suozzi were not married? I have been looking through hundreds of marriage records and have not found one--perhaps this is why.

Thanks again for all the help and support!

Best

Kevin

#64
Dated 14 July 1871 at the town office at 8 PM
Before the official appeared
Lorenzo Soriero, son of deceased Donato, age 30, peasant farmer residing in this town, to present a male child who he declared was born on 13 of the abovesaid month of July at 6 PM to his wife Maria Giovanna Suozzi, daughter of deceased Pietro, {wife} living with him at the place in this town at strada above the Chiesa Madre (Mother Church), and they named the child DONATANTONIO
Witnesses to the record: Donato Molfese of deceased Giuseppe, age 62, peasant farmer; and Vincenzo di Vincenza of deceased Domenico, age 50, peasant farmer.

T.

[erudita74]

"Also, you indicated that the word "legitimate" is not used in the record. With the omission of this word can we assume that the Lorenze and Giovanna Suozzi were not married? "

Kevin
to answer your above question, even though the word "legitimate" was omitted before the word "moglie (wife)," in your records, this does not mean that the couple was not married. Wording in these records tended to vary from town to town. If the couple was not married, the word "moglie" would not be used in the record. The record would then probably have read that the infant was born from Lorenzo's natural union with a woman who did not wish to be named. The other thing was that, just because a child was stated to have been born from a natural union, or out of wedlock, did not mean that the infant actually was. After 1871, and the unification of Italy, the civil state did not recognize marriages that were church marriages, and so some children born after the church marriages, were now considered to be illegitimate in the eyes of the civil state. They were then only "legitimized" if their parents proceeded to have a civil marriage. Sometimes people were resistant to have the civil marriage and did not have such a marriage until years after they had had a church marriage. In those cases, there would be a handwritten section at the bottom of the civil marriage which indicated that the marriage now legitimized the children previously born to the couple, and the children's names would be listed as well. I hope this info is not confusing to you.

Erudita

[KevinO]

Thank you all for your help!

Erudita--good insight into the records with the consideration of civil and church marriages as well as the impact to the unification; this will be great to document in my records and to share with my family.

The first Pietro you translated for me (born circa 1892/1893) I don't believe is an ancestor--the Lorenzo in my family died in 1878 at the age of 38. Your, as well as other's, insight has help me clear this up.

Also, for my own reference, what would be the Italian phrase of "legitimate wife" in a record?
Thanks again

Best
Kevin