Unreolved Conflict Between Records and Their Interpretation

Issue

How could Johann Heinrich Krückeberg have become the holder of no. 10 Berenbusch through marriage by 1743-1744 when we know that he was not the holder of no. 10 Berenbuch in 1737 and we know he married well before 1737, in May 1737? While this was his first marriage, his second marriage did not occur until 1758, many years after 1743-44.

Background

I already have—​I believe—​the three marriages of Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, if that is, there was only one Johann Heinrich Krückeberg in Berenbusch in the early part of the 18th century, from 1727 to 1744 when a son was born to Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, who was also named Johann Heinrich. I have the Sep. 28 1727 marriage of that reads: "den 28ten Septemb ist Johann Henrich Krückeberg aus Berenbsuch mit Anna Maria Vahlsings aus Evesen copuliet". This wife died in May of 1757, I believe, because this death/burial records occurs then, which reads: "d 8t Maii Anna Maria Krückebergs aus Berenbusch begraben alt 56 Jarhe". Then on Sep. 29 1758, Johann Heinrich Krückberg, now a widower, remarries because we find this marriage record: "d. 29t Januarii Johan Henr[ich]. Krückeberg aus Berenbusch mit Ilse Margarethe Röseners aus Evesen copuliert". The next year they apparently had a daughter because we have this 1759 baptism record: "d 16 Sept. Ilse Margaretha Krückebergs des Johann Heinrich Krückebergs zu Berenbusch Tochter getauft. Gev[atterinnen] [3] Mädgens, Wiesen, Engelkings [um/un]". Finally, on Dec. 26, 1759, Johann Heinrich Krückeberg apparently dies because he find this Petzen parish death/burial record: "d 26t Decemb. Johan Henrich Krückeberg aus Berenbusch begraben alt 55 Jahre".

If the records I just mentioned show the marriages of Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, and the death of his first wife and his remarriage to his second wife later in the same year that his first wife died—​if I have this marriage history of his, how could it be the case that he became the holder of "no. 10 Berenbusch" through marriage. Recall the first three answers that Johann Heinrich Krückeberg gave to the "Protokolle über die Befragung der einzelnen Hofbesitzer in Evesen, Berenbusch, Nordholz und Rusbend im Rahmen der Generallandesvisitation (Landesvermessung) 1743-1744", which were: …​. 1. Johann Henrich Krückeberg vormahls Friedrich Kuhlmann auch Joh. Tönnies Eggerding 2. habe darauf geheyrahtet 3. ein Brinksitzer …​.

First of all, when he marries for the first time in 1727, he is "aus Berenbusch", he is from Berenbusch. It does not say he is from "no. 10 Berenbsuch", and it does not say he is the holder of no. 10 Berenbusch. But if the same Johann Heinrich Krückeberg who married ii 1727 is the same Johann Heinrich Krückberg who gave the reply "habe darauf geheyrahtet" in 1743-1744, how could this be? We know that in 1737 he was is not listed as the Brinksitzer of no. 10 Berenbusch. How could he have became the Brinksitzer of no. 10 Berenbusch by 1743-1744 by marriage when he had already married back in 1727. His second marriage didn;'t occur until 1758 well after 1743-1744.

Have I overlooked a marriage? Could there be two Johann Heinrich Krückebergs in Berenbusch? How do I go about resolving this conflict_

Possible Answer

The Succession Chain Does Not Depend on His Marriage

The real tenure evidence comes from:

  • 1743–44 Visitation:

    • Eggerding → Kuhlmann → Krückeberg

  • 1745 Vermessung:

    • Krückeberg at No. 10

  • 1747 Namensverzeichnis:

    • “Eggerding modo Krückeberg”

  • 1737 list:

    • No Krückeberg yet

None of these say: * “Kruckeberg received the house through his wife.”

They only show:

He became holder sometime between 1737 and 1745.

The mechanism of that transfer is unknown.

We don’t know what "darauf" refers to. Grammatically, the phrase means:

“(I) married onto it / married into it / married with reference to it.”

From “habe darauf geheiratet,” you can conclude only:

  1. His marital status was relevant to the answer.

  2. Marriage was considered part of his standing in relation to whatever was being discussed.

  3. The record does not specify a date, a spouse, or a transfer mechanism.

You cannot conclude:

  1. That he acquired No. 10 by marriage

  2. That the marriage was recent

  3. That the marriage involved the previous holder’s family

Conclusion:

In the 1743–44 visitation, Krückeberg stated “habe darauf geheiratet.” Because the questionnaire itself is not preserved, the referent of darauf is unclear. The phrase indicates that his marital status was relevant to the matter being asked about, but it does not establish that he acquired Haus Nr. 10 through marriage.