francesco LaFranca e Cesarea Ciminno

[lindamauer]

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cc=2046915

record 69 top right

first i can't tell if the bottom left is a continuation.
2nd the record is very washed out
i forgot how to reverse the coloring to read it better
the family search ID is LR6T-854

a marriage date shows with no source as june 8 1621
I am trying to attach a source but it looks correct based on the index listing BUT
the date is difficult and i do not see La Franca i only see Ciminno

Please translate.

Best
Linda

[erudita74]

This is a particularly difficult record to locate but I found it. It is image 301 of 318, folio 69, # 1321 (right side). The date is June 8, 1631.

The groom, Francesco La Franca was the son of deceased Mundo and Francesca La Franca. I believe the Mundo is for Raimundus in Latin, or Raimondo in Italian/Raymond in English.

The bride, Cesarea Ciminna, was the daughter of deceased Biaggio and Giulia Ciminna.

Witnesses were Francesco Bruno and Andrea di Leo.

[mmogno]

This is a particularly difficult record to locate but I found it. It is image 301 of 318, folio 69, # 1321 (right side). The date is June 8, 1631.

The groom, Francesco La Franca was the son of deceased Mundo and Francesca La Franca. I believe the Mundo is for Raimundus in Latin, or Raimondo in Italian/Raymond in English.

The bride, Cesarea Ciminna, was the daughter of deceased Biaggio and Giulia Ciminna.

Witnesses were Francesco Bruno and Andrea di Leo.

@erudita74
Tutti e quattro i genitori dei due sposi erano defunti (delli quondam, plurale, per ambedue le coppie).
Pubblicazioni i giorni 18, 25, 29 Maggio.

[erudita74]

@mmogno

Thanks for the back-up, G. I don’t know how I missed the word “delli” in the record. Yes, all 4 parents were deceased at the time of the marriage.

Erudita

[lindamauer]

@erudita
i am confused as this translation is for a record 10 years later
mine is 1621- did i missread it
record 69 as stated. not folio.
is this record not the one listed

thanks
Linda

[lindamauer]

It does fit better on folio 69 NOT record 69
Thanks erudita and mmgno
Best
Linda

[erudita74]

@erudita
i am confused as this translation is for a record 10 years later
mine is 1621- did i missread it
record 69 as stated. not folio.
is this record not the one listed

thanks
Linda

Linda

The record I located is the correct one for the couple you requested. The link you provided was for a couple with the first names Vito and Domenica. See image 31 of 318, 7th down on the left, in the index. I’ve previously told you that there are a lot of errors in info found on family search, particularly when the person doesn’t provide a source for the info, but sometimes even when they do.

[lindamauer]

hey erudita,
yes i responded that i realized the difference from your correct record to my incorrect assumed finding.
when i read the index in the collection it stated 69- i found 69 just the incorrrect one.
you are correct. i do not listen to family search until proven
thanks for searching and finding the correct record.
Best
Linda

[erudita74]

No problem, Linda. A somewhat confusing index to navigate. Just glad the correct record was located.

Erudita

[lindamauer]

Erudita,
Thanks for your critical work
Best, linda