Witnesses, Not Fathers: Understanding the 1812 Norwegian Church Book Forms
When researching 1812 revision of the Norwegian marriage records, one column has repeatedly led researchers to mistakes with serious consequences for their family trees. The problem is the column headed Hvem forloverne, which lists the marriage witnesses, not necessarily the bride’s and groom’s fathers.
When a name in this column conflicts with the patronymic of the bride or groom, researchers often ask for help. That is understandable. A woman recorded as Hansdatter would normally have a father named Hans, so a witness named Peder might seem an unlikely candidate. But when the patronymic matches one of the witnesses’ names, researchers may accept the relationship without further investigation.
Both reactions miss the central point. The names in this column identify the marriage witnesses. They do not establish who the bride’s or groom’s father was. A witness might have been a father, but you must establish the relationship through other evidence, not assume it from a matching name.
I have touched on this problem before in Witnesses, Not Fathers: A Note on a Misleading Transcription. In that article, I examined a transcription that incorrectly identified two marriage witnesses as the couple’s fathers. Here, I want to explain the column itself and why it is important to understand what the original record actually tells us.
What does Hvem forloverne mean?
The Norwegian word forlover refers to a person who served as a witness or sponsor in connection with a marriage. The heading Hvem forloverne asks who these people were.
The 1812 revision of the Norwegian church book forms included a column for recording the forlovere. These were the people who served as witnesses to the marriage. The heading identifies their role, not their relationship to the bride and groom.
A father could serve as a forlover. So could another relative, a neighbour, a friend or someone else in the local community. The names recorded in this column may provide useful clues about the couple’s social and family connections, but the column itself does not identify the witnesses as parents.
This distinction is easy to overlook when working with old church books. The handwriting may be difficult to read, the headings may be unfamiliar, and researchers naturally want to connect the names they find to the family they are investigating.
But we must first understand what the minister intended to record.
My cheat sheet to the 1812 Norwegian church book forms shows the layout of the forms and helps identify the different columns.
Here is an example of a church book with this form
Eidsberg prestekontor Kirkebøker, AV/SAO-A-10905/F/Fa/L0007: Kirkebok, 1814-1832, s. 193 : https://goto.digitalarkivet.no/kb20061019050404
A matching patronymic in the 1812 Norwegian marriage records is not proof of parentage
Norwegian naming customs can make the names in this column particularly tempting to interpret as those of the fathers.
Under the traditional patronymic system, a son might be named Hansson if his father was Hans, while a daughter might be named Hansdatter. These names are valuable clues when researching Norwegian families, but they do not remove the need to examine the evidence.
Imagine a marriage entry for a woman named Kari Hansdatter. One of the forlovere is a man named Hans Olsen.
It might seem reasonable to conclude that Hans Olsen was Kari’s father. Her patronymic fits his given name, and the explanation appears to make sense.
But Hans Olsen could have been her father, another relative, a neighbour or an unrelated person who served as a witness. The Hvem forloverne column does not tell us which.
The same principle applies when the names do not match. If a woman is recorded as Hansdatter and one of the witnesses is named Peder, there is no reason to assume that the record is wrong. Peder may simply have been a witness rather than her father.
Whether the names match or not, the column does not establish parentage.
This is an important distinction in genealogical research. We are often quick to question evidence that conflicts with our expectations, but we may accept evidence that appears to confirm what we already believe. A plausible explanation can become an assumed fact without anyone stopping to ask whether the source actually supports it.
When a transcription turns witnesses into fathers
In my earlier article, Witnesses, Not Fathers: A Note on a Misleading Transcription, I examined the marriage of Ole Olsen Fjeld and Sørinou Hansdatter Berg in Østre Toten.
An online transcription identified Ole Hansen Fjeld and Peder Hagen as the fathers of the couple. However, their names appeared in the original church book under the heading for the forlovere.
The transcription had therefore turned the marriage witnesses into fathers.
The case illustrates why it is important to understand the original 1812 Norwegian marriage records, rather than relying entirely on a transcription. A transcription can be useful for locating a record, but the information may have been read or interpreted incorrectly.
The problem is not always a misread name or a difficulty with handwriting. Sometimes the names have been transcribed correctly, but the relationships assigned to them are wrong.
This is why I encourage researchers to compare transcriptions with the original records whenever possible. Look at the column heading and establish what the minister actually recorded. Do not accept a family relationship simply because a transcription supplies one.
You can read the full example and examine the problem in more detail in the earlier article.
How should you use the names in this column?
The names of the forlovere are still useful to genealogists. They can provide leads for further research and help identify possible connections between families and members of a local community.
The important thing is to treat these names as clues, not conclusions.
If you suspect that one of the witnesses was the father of the bride or groom, look for evidence elsewhere. Baptismal records may identify the parents. Probate records may establish family relationships. Census records, other church entries and documents relating to the family may provide additional information.
You may eventually establish that a witness was indeed the father. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion when the evidence supports it. But the conclusion must come from the research, not from the fact that his name appears in the Hvem forloverne column.
When working with 1812 Norwegian marriage records, follow three simple steps:
- Read the heading. Establish what information the column was intended to record.
- Record what the source actually says. Do not add a parent-child relationship simply because a name appears beside the marriage entry.
- Investigate the relationship separately. Use other records to determine whether the witness was the father or another person connected to the couple.
This approach also helps when sharing your research with others. You can distinguish between what the original source records and what you have established through further investigation.
Check the original church book
Transcriptions make historical records easier to search. They are particularly useful when you are working with unfamiliar handwriting or trying to locate an ancestor in a large collection.
But a transcription is not the original record, and it may contain errors. Even when the names are correct, the interpretation may not be.
The 1812 church book forms include headings that help us understand what the minister recorded in each column. Learning to read those headings can prevent mistakes before they enter a family tree.
If you are researching a marriage recorded under these forms, take a moment to check the Hvem forloverne column. The names belong to the marriage witnesses. One or both may have been the fathers, but the column does not establish that relationship.
My cheat sheet to the 1812 Norwegian church book forms can help you identify the columns while examining the original entries. In my Downloads section you find cheat sheets to all the standardized church book forms
If a transcription identifies the witnesses as the fathers, compare it with the original before accepting the relationships. And even when a witness’s name appears to fit a patronymic, do not assume that the relationship has been proved.
A witness is not necessarily a father
The lesson is straightforward. The Hvem forloverne column in the 1812 Norwegian marriage records, identifies the marriage witnesses, not necessarily the fathers of the bride and groom.
A witness may have been a father, another relative, a neighbour or someone else connected to the couple. A matching patronymic may suggest a possible relationship, but it does not establish one.
My earlier article showed how a mistaken transcription can turn witnesses into fathers. This article explains why the column should not be interpreted as a list of parents in the first place.
When researching 1812 Norwegian marriage records, read the headings, check the original and investigate family relationships through supporting evidence. Do not let an assumption become a fact simply because it fits the names in front of you.
In genealogy, the question is not only what names appear in a record. It is what the record actually tells us about the people named there.
Further reading
- Witnesses, Not Fathers: A Note on a Misleading Transcription
- Cheat Sheet to the Norwegian Church Books: 1812 Revision
- The Norwegian Church Books
