Were There Two Jobst Heinrich Krückebergs in September 1808?

Were there two Jobst Heinrich Krückebergs in September 1808 living in the area of Berenbusch and nearby Evesen, one who lived at no. 10 Berenbusch, who was a Schusteramtsmeister (Shoemaker’s Guild Master) and a Hausherr, and another who was a Schneider (tailor) who lodged with the Wilharms at no. 11 Evesen?

All the Petzen records that we have for the Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg, who married on 12 Oct. 1790, and who had children born to him and his wife beginning in 1792 up until the birth of his last child, his son Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, who was born 17 Aug. 1806—​all these records list the "Wohnort", "Ortschaft", "Dortschaften" as "no. 10 Berenbusch". The birth record for their first child, Philippine Caroline Christine, is free-form and says she was born "in Berenbusch" (no number is given).

This Jobst Heinrich and his wife live a no. 10 Berenbusch. In 1803, he his listed in the baptism record of his daughter as a "Hausherr". His occupation is mentioned consistently in these records as a "Schuster". In 1806, when his son is born, he is described as a "Schuster Amtsmeister".

Can these facts be resolved with the Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg who wrote on September 29, 1808, when he petitioned the Rentkammer, that he was an Einlieger at the Wilharms at no. 11 iun Evesen:

Ich habe bisher als Einlieger beÿ Wilharm No 11 in Evesen gewohnt, wünschte aber jetzt mich selbst anzubauen.

Up to now I have lived as a lodger with Wilharm at No. 11 in Evesen, but I now wish to establish myself independently by building on my own.

— petition to Rentkammer date 29 September 1808

1. What the church records establish (firm ground)

From the Petzen parish records:

  • 1790–1806: Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg is consistently associated with No. 10 Berenbusch.

  • He is described as:

    • Schuster (shoemaker),

    • later Schuster Amtsmeister (1806),

    • once explicitly as Hausherr (1803).

What this means:

  • He had an established family household at No. 10 Berenbusch.

  • Hausherr here means head of a household, not a legal landholder.

  • Church records track family residence, not tenure security.

Up to 1806, there is no contradiction at all.

2. What the 1808 petition actually says (and what it does NOT say)

In September 1808 he writes:

Ich habe bisher als Einlieger beÿ Wilharm No 11 in Evesen gewohnt …

Key points:

  • Einlieger bei Wilharm in Evesen describes:

    • where he lodged, and

    • under what tenurial status (no independent holding).

  • It does not say:

    • that he never had a household elsewhere,

    • that his family lived in Evesen,

    • that he was unmarried or unattached.

The petition is written from the perspective of Rentkammer law, not parish life.

These records describe different things:

Church registers (Petzen)

  • Track:

    • marital unit,

    • children,

    • where the family household is anchored.

  • “Wohnort No. 10 Berenbusch” = the place where his wife and children belonged.

Rentkammer petition (1808)

  • Tracks:

    • legal-economic status at the moment of petition,

    • eligibility to receive a building place / holding.

  • “Einlieger bei Wilharm in Evesen” = the place where he lodged while working, without independent tenure.

There is no rule that a craftsman could not:

  • maintain a family household in one village, and

  • lodge near his work in another.

In fact, this was common for craftsmen.

4. Why this timing makes sense (1806 → 1808)

Consider the sequence:

  • 1806: last child is born; he is Schuster Amtsmeister.

  • Shortly after:

    • children are no longer infants,

    • his economic situation changes,

    • he seeks independent settlement rights.

  • 1808: he petitions to “sich selbst anbauen”:

    • to stop being an Einlieger,

    • to obtain a building place and create a new holding.

This fits a man transitioning from:

craftsman + household → craftsman + independent tenant-holder

5. Why this does NOT imply two Jobst Heinrich Krückebergs

If there were two men, you would expect:

  • two marriages in Petzen,

  • overlapping baptisms,

  • competing death records,

  • contradictory family structures.

You have none of that.

Instead you have:

  • one marriage,

  • one continuous set of children,

  • one occupational trajectory,

  • one coherent petition explaining his status.

Final conclusion (clear and defensible)

Yes — all the facts are reconcilable and point to a single individual.

  • Household location (church records): No. 10 Berenbusch

  • Economic/legal status (Rentkammer, 1808): Einlieger lodging in Evesen

  • Intent (petition): to cease lodging and become independently settled

This is not a contradiction. It is a transition, recorded by different authorities for different purposes.

This reading of the evidence is sound.