The Bastard

In 1974 American writer John Jakes had published the The Bastard, the first book in his American Bicentennial series. The main protagonist in that historical novel was seventeen years of age in 1770, placing his birth about 1753. Illegitimate children were not unusual at the time, but many, particularly in the lower and working classes were often discarded if not disowned. In upper class households things were often different. This post will be about this situation and the context in which the illegitimate child and the mother were generally treated in the late 1600's and into the following century in central Europe, with a case study. Simon Havel, my 6th great grandfather, had a sister Elisabeth who gave birth to an illegitimate child, Joseph, in about 1693, the only illegitimate child which I recall having located  so far located in the family tree. (Although there are some conceived before marriage.) He was found not in the parish registers, but in a land register. The oldest available parish record of which I am aware and digitized for the village goes back to 1694. What I found is that the Havel family treated Elisabeth's illegitimate child, or the bastard (to be crass), in a charitable manner, much differently than what was the norm of the time for common peasants.

Elisabeth Havel Death Record, 14 May 1696
Trebon Archives, Catholic Parish Registers, Lhenice 1, img 138 

As noted, the norms were different based on class distinctions. The illegitimate son of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor (born to his mistress) was given control of Krumlov domain in the early seventeenth century, and squandered the opportunity such that the emperor sold it to the Schwarzenberg family. Benjamin Franklin, had an illegitimate son, William, who was colonial governor of New Jersey, and was a Tory during the Revolutionary War. William also sired an illegitimate son, Temple, who was Benjamin's secretary in France during the time when Benjamin was obtaining France as an ally and then the peace negotiations. Temple also had a daughter born out of wedlock. It is said, by persons with much more authority than I, that illegitimate children were more common than one would think back in that time. It was also said that illegitimate children also bore illegitimate children, which is clearly shown in the Franklin case. 

One wonders about the circumstances surrounding Elizabeth, and questions arise. For example, who was the father of the child? It was not unusual for a peasant girl or young woman to be posted to a house as a servant, and often a male in that household would be the one who impregnated the girl or young lady. Or, it could have been a farm helper on their own farm. The Havel family farm was small, being a "quarter" farm, so I wonder if they could afford much in the way of a farm hand. I tend to rule that explanation out. It could have been a soldier moving through town (although they often returned to the village to marry the woman, per one Czech professional genealogist). It could as well have been a married, or unmarried a man in the village.  A nonconsensual relationship, that is rape, can not be ruled out, but neither can a consensual relationship. 

Then there are the circumstances of the birth. Many illegitimate children were neglected by mother and family, failing to live beyond a few days. If the mother had wanted to care for the child, she was often sent back to work as if she had never had a child, meaning the care of the child was very limited.  Health care was pretty much non-existent and any care for an illegitimate child was even worse. The mother could have a permanent mark to her name, not unlike the letter A for adultery in Puritan America. There are many instances of an illegitimate child being baptized in Bohemia, as many researchers have noted.

As Elizabeth was preparing to give birth to Joseph, which likely occurred in or near 1693, what were the circumstances?  What assistance did her mother, also named Elisabeth, who would pass away in 1703, provide? Was a midwife used? Were her older sisters supportive? I hope she was not alone. Elizabeth was probably at or near 25 years of age when her son was born. In this case, lacking a record of her birth, I am using a birth year of 1668, as she was recorded as being age two in the 1670 Seignorial Register. Unfortunately we know little of any mental or physical condition, or capabilities. Given the primitive medical conditions, and lack of what we understand today as proper sanitation, it was not unusual for many of our ancestors to have some type of underlying morbidity, even at a young age. For example, she had a brother who was visually impaired and disabled, thus we cannot discount a mental or physical disability. I have a death record for an Elisabeth Havel, daughter of Georgius Havel, having died on 14 May 1696 at the age of 27. While death records are notorious for the wrong age, her age of death places her within a year of the possible birth age identified in the Seignorial Register. How many "Elisabeth Havels daughter of Georgius" could there be in that small village?

Land Register Notation on Elisabeth Havel and
her Son Josef, highlighted is added note on his marriage year.
Land Register, Cesky Krumlov, Ordinal 139, img 69

The Seignorial Registers I have had transcribed for my immediate family lose Joseph and Elizabeth for some years. The first Seignorial record of which I am aware that identifies him is in 1712. From 1712 to 1716 Joseph is identified as  being with Simon Havel in the village, or on the farm, meaning home farm. Simon took over the farm from his father in 1712. Simon is identified as Joseph's cousin, but other Seignorial Records are clear that Joseph is the son of Elisabeth, who is Simon's sister. For a period of three years--1717 through 1719--Joseph is in service to the Plawnitz Meirerhoff, probably a large farm where he is a farm hand. After his three years of service, Joseph goes back to the village and is listed as listed as being with the Havels. In 1722 the Seignorial register note is more lengthy as he is identified as age 28 and is "In the village with the Havels. Has purchased in Ratiborova Lhota in 1722."  The land register has a note, by his name that he was married in 1722. In 1722, it appears, from the land register for folio 1, that he married Ursula Marko or Marek, the widow of Vit Marko (Marek) at a smallholding, which is associated with folio 1 in Ratiborova Lhota.

Joseph's marriage record to Ursula is interesting. Joseph's father is listed as Galli Petr, but the land register records give him the surname Hawle (Havel). Galli, is a version of the name Gall, and which in Bohemia the Havel surname is derived from Gall (think St Gall). The land registers are quite clear that Joseph was born out of wedlock, and in those registers the last name Hawle is used. Was Galli Petr his father, was it a mistake, or was it a clever play on words for the surname Havel by the priest? I like to think it was the latter as to be gracious to his illegitimate birth. Of course that is all pure speculation.

Veit Marek son of Jakub marriage to Ursula, widow of
Matheus Pobera, 29 April 1717. Simon Havel is a witness.
Parish Register Lhenice 1, img 112

Yet, there is more in regard to Joseph's surname. There is a death record for a Joseph in Lhota on 10 May 1729, but the surname is Pobera. Thanks to assistance from Richard D'Amelio, I have a high degree of certainty that this is Elisabeth's son Joseph. Odd things arise, such as payments were made under his name on 30 March 1730. Yet, what Richard found is confusing and complicated, but logical. First, Joseph's wife Ursula was the widow of Veit Marko/Marek who she married in 1717. Veit was Ursula's (at least) second husband, as her prior husband, Matheus Pobera (Wopalka is the surname in the land register) had died which led to her marriage to Veit Marko. As pointed out, when Veit died Joseph married Ursula, although he was identified as Joseph, son of Galli Petr in the marriage record, making him Joseph Petr. The Seignorial Register may be able to provide clarification, but the pages relating to folio 1 (this property) and 2 are missing from the 1702-1756 register. Although, as Richard says, who knows we may have yet found a different surname. The use of the Probera surname likely is what is referred to as an "after the roof" surname, which you can read about here. Essentially, people knew it as the Pobera house, and that surname became attached to Joseph. It does not appear that Marko used the Pobera surname, given other records, and the fact that Ursula is listed in her marriage record to Joseph as the widow of Veit Marko. I have been unable to find a marriage entry for Ursula to Matheus Probera. No one ever said that genealogical research was easy. 

Joseph Havel marriage record to Ursula
widow of Vitum Mark_
 Parish Register, Lhenice 1 Img 122

The land register, ordinal 139 (1707-1882), has a note in regards to Joseph's status. The sidebar notation reads: "In place of Elisabeth, her son Joseph 26 years old who was born out of wedlock, because the siblings have willingly allowed him to inherit--21ſß 40g 3½₰. Enacted on the 27th of March 1719." A second note, added to the first, indicates "married in 1722". Overall, the receipt of a share of the inheritance is a very unusual situation. First, unless released by the domain, the Todenfall rules for the Krumlov domain would not allow an illegitimate child to have claim to an inheritance. There is no mention in the record of Elisabeth being granted release from the domain, and as Joseph purchased a farm in Ratiborova Lhota he was subject to the domain so it is not likely that he was released since he stayed in the village. A professional genealogist on her blog "Czech Genealogy for Beginners" makes this statement: "Having an illegitimate child was a kind of mark. Woman which had such child had to count with different kinds of oppression from the society. First of all, her own family usually cut her off. She wasn't allowed to inherit any kind of property, it was often directly written in the cadastral books that she is excluded from inheritance because of illegitimate child."

Orphan of the late Elisabeth Havel, Joseph 18 years in the village with 
his cousin Simon Havel (Simon was his uncle)
Cesky Krumlov Seigniorial Register, Ord, 231,  Img 362

Yet, here we see the family having agreed to Joseph receiving his mother's share of the estate. I am taking it that the siblings were Elisabeth's brothers and sisters, not siblings of Joseph. In addition, unless there was a release, the domain would have had to also agree to Joseph receiving the share, as the domain, in the Krumlov domain, would otherwise have received Elisabeth's share. It was not the family that lost money, but the domain. Yet, the Havel family must have championed his cause, and given that he lived with Simon, I wonder if Simon was the primary champion for his cause of obtaining his mother's share of the inheritance? If one is released from the domain, they are also released from the Todenfall restrictions of that domain, and here perhaps the heirs of a released person could have had a claim to her share of the estate since an illegitimate child (as Todenfall does not apply to released persons). Joseph started receiving his share of the estate, in 1723. Please remember that Simon was only required to pay 4ſß per year, so some years some heirs received a payment but others in a following year. A prior post detailed that Simon paid his sister Ludmilla to purchase harness tack, and other than that year and the payment in 1719 for his father's funeral expenses, and the final payment in 1736 all payments were at 4ſß per year. 

Death record of Joseph Pobera, likely Joseph Havel, son of Elizabeth
 Parish Register Lhenice 2, Img 285

If Elisabeth or Joseph had not been released from the domain rules, why did the domain give up payments and allow Joseph to receive an inheritance? My theory is that they saw that Joseph could be a productive member of the community by farming in Ratiborova Lhota, even if it was a small holding, which would be better than any small plot of farmland lying fallow until a new owner is found. He married the widow of the prior owner, providing continuity of ownership. A widow could otherwise have been thrown off the farm. Joseph being a productive community member was likely in part due to the gracious manner he was treated by Simon and his siblings, and his cousins. The domain may have weighed the payment they were giving up, with the additional robota labor they were acquiring in a young man. I doubt the domain did it out of the graciousness of their heart, and it was most likely an economic decision.

Birth of Eva Probera to Joseph and Ursula
Parish Register, Lhenice 1 img 87
Eva died on 29 March 1729, several weeks before her father 

Whatever the exact situation was with Joseph and his variety of surnames, I think this was a very magnanimous of the Havel family to assist a child born out of wedlock in a time and age when illegitimate children of peasants were generally disowned. Joseph Havel, the bastard son of Elisabeth Havel, was born about seventy years before the birth of William Franklin. We find that the poorer, illiterate Havel family did something for Joseph that Benjamin Franklin (died 1790) did not do for his only son--provide him an inheritance. 

Sources:

http://czechgenealogy.nase-koreny.cz/2013/04/illegitimate-children.html

Trebon Archives

Somebody

There is a mysterious stranger occupying the space my wife and I inhabit. This stranger, this third person, is at our house, at our campsite, and other places we may be located. The Family Circus cartoon is famous for ghost characters named "Not me", "Ida Know" and "No Body." In our lives we have Somebody. The wife likes to refer to varied occurrences by saying: "Somebody did..." and get into what Somebody did. Most of the time there is only two of us in the house. I don't understand why she would refer to herself as Somebody, and after over three decades of marriage she should know my name. Hence, there is some ghost, not unlike in the Family Circus cartoon, in our lives. Let me share some examples.

Bike Bridge Three Eagle Trail

My wife often comments at home about how Somebody brought in dirt on "my (her) clean floor." She is highly vested in her cleaning and organizing, and hence she likes to personalize what was cleaned or organized. There are only the two of us in the house for most of the year, so there is this mysterious stranger that brings in dirt, not just dirt on a dirty floor, but dirt on a clean floor. I don't think it was me, and it certainly would not be her. At this point in time, I have yet to meet Somebody. Of course, the floor is swept regularly, perhaps once a day, and scrubbed once a week. I like to scrub the kitchen, dinette and front hall ceramic tile. I think the main reason is when the floor gets dirty I can say "Somebody got my floor dirty." It is exasperating for me to see my clean floor get dirty. This past Monday as she went for her walk, she made the definitive statement: "I will clean the house when I get back." I used to start cleaning the house when she would make that statement, but I have learned better. When I got back from my bike ride on Monday morning she had completed cleaning but for dusting and mopping the ceramic tile floor on the main level; she did let me scrub the floor. 

Bog along Three Eagle Trail

The knife block in the kitchen has certain spots for our knives, and she complains that Somebody mixed up the placement of the knives in the knife block. She does most all of the cooking, and to avoid her getting bored, I graciously allow her do the cooking. She expects the knife she wants to be in the correct spot. Now, I know the pots and pans, and knives are normally washed by hand, and I know that they are not dried by Somebody, as I do the drying, and putting away the dried dishes. How they got in the wrong spot, I am still trying to figure out. It has to be the Somebody poltergeist. Then there was the time while camping, that Somebody put something back on the wrong side of the chuck box.

Trail between Boulder Junction and Manitowish Waters

While at a cabin in Boulder Junction last week Somebody got plain creepy and weird. It was a cool night in the Northwoods of Wisconsin and the wife was already in bed with the covers wrapped around up to her neck. She had formed a nice cocoon of heat around her body. I gently lifted the covers to the side to crawl in on my side, when all of a sudden she said, "Somebody pulled the covers back too far and released the warm air." My first question that popped in my mind was, why is Somebody in bed with my wife? Quite frankly, I find disconcerting and upsetting. Somebody can dirty the floor, put the knives in the wrong slot, but get in bed with my wife?? is beyond the pale. I know I had gently moved the covers back to get in bed, so Somebody, who ever or what ever it is, moved the covers back even further, releasing the cool air of the room into her satisfyingly warm cocoon. I certainly don't think it is in my method, or demeanor, to be so crass as to whip the covers back and disrupt her warmed space. 

Too Many Deer, Boulder Junction
The squirrels of medium sized mammals

I certainly hope that someday, somehow, somewhere I can meet Somebody and give them a talking to so it stops mixing up the knives, getting the floor dirty, not to mention to stop getting in bed with my wife. The question is, will it make a difference, or will Somebody continue their mode of behavior?

Funeral Costs--17 and 18th centuries

Regular readers of this blog know that I recently completed a three part post on the 200 year plus Havel family management of a farm in Ratiborova Lhota, Bohemia. The information used for this post was primarily from the land registers for that village which was under the Krumlov Domain. Every now and then you pick up some interesting information in the land registers.  A common piece of information was funeral or burial cost. This blog post will be about the funeral costs of some of my ancestors and what I know about Bohemian or Czech death, burial, and funeral customs.

Once a major landholder passed away the burial costs were paid from the value of the estate. After other debts were paid the net value remaining was then equally divided between the heirs. Inheritance practices in the Krumlov Domain were rather complicated, and hence some people you think may be an heir were not an heir. The intent is not to delve into the complexity of the inheritance practices of the domain, but rather to explore funeral customs and costs.

Simon Havel's spouse, Elizabetha death record.
This indicates she is buried at St Jakub's and sacraments
were duly administered

First, death was a common occurrence for our ancestors. Child mortality was high, with deaths in the first few weeks, months and years of birth being rather common due to disease, lack of hygiene and living conditions. It would not be uncommon for an epidemic to break out. Population decline and disruption due to the plague would lead to German colonization of part of Bohemia in the first part of the 17th century. Most of the Germans in southern Bohemia were from Bavaria settling in territories decimated by the plague. Many parts of the Netolice dominion, as an example, were subject to German settlement. In fact, Dolni Chrastany, where Frantisek, my third great grandfather, would move in 1796 is said to be part of the Sudetenland. As we all know, the ethnic German settlements in Bohemia were of dispute between Hitler, the Czechs, and some allied powers prior to the start of WWII. This led to the Munich accords, under which Neville Chamberlain and others, without the involvement of the Czechs, gave Czecheslovakia to Germany. The Havel family farm in Ratiborova Lhota would be on the other side of the Sudentenland border, just barely.

Changes in demographics could occur due to rampant death. Yet, death was most intensely experienced at the family level. As one commentator has stated, our ancestors saw death as it was, the end of life on earth, and the beginning of something new. To believers, that would be heaven (and hopefully not hell). Given a desire to reach heaven the sacrament of penance and extreme unction (now anointing of the sick), were important with the sacraments often noted in the death record and the name of the priest who provided the sacrament(s). 

Simon Havel death record, sacraments and name of priest

After death, or assumed death, the body was prepared for burial by the family--cleaning and dressing the corpse. However, burial was often two days after the date of death to allow time for examination by the priest, which occurred until the latter part of 19th century as doctors became more common. I think part of this was to assure the person was really dead. There are stories of people being buried alive. The body, in Bohemia, was dressed in what was referred to as grave clothes, and an open coffin display was held at the family home. The family kept watch day and night of the deceased to ward off evil spirits, and probably to assure they were dead. It would be rather unnerving to have a body laid out in the coffin only to hear it sigh. Neighbors would visit, our form of a wake, and bring pictures of saints, a custom that was common until the second part of the last century. 

Burial would usually take place two days after death with the whole village attending. The funeral mass was held and they would process to the cemetery. For the Havel family in Ratiborova Lhota this would be St Jakub's in Lhenice. A mourning period of generally six months was customary. No parties, no large family gatherings and generally no weddings. There were exceptions for weddings for a surviving widow or widower. With young children it was often necessary to remarry  within a couple months to allow the farm work to be accomplished with the raising of children. Farm fields were spread out and a person was required to be home with the children, in case of a widower (which we see in the Havel family), or a widow would remarry to assure that the farm did not pass to the domain and would be farmed and kept until an heir was of age and able to take the farm over. As noted in an earlier post, a domain could claim back a farm for poor management, and it was thought that a farm had to be headed by a married couple to be viable. Again, this occurred with the Havel family.

Matheus Havel (Sr) death 1767 
Died on the 19 Feb, buried 21 Feb
Notes sacraments were administered with name of priest

At this point let us examine what knowledge I presently have of the Havel family in Ratiborova Lhota and their costs for funerals. Overtime, and in varied land registers we see information on some who died, the cost of the funeral, who it was paid by, and the date it was paid. I provide, in the below table, only the year of payment. The registers provide funeral cost information for five persons over a period of 125 years, from Anezka's death in 1642 to 1767 when Matheus Sr passed away. In inheritance cases, which was all but the first, the funds are deducted from the estate value as noted above. In the first instance, the son or stepson of Anezka, Jakub, is deceased and the farm is with Jakub's widow and her new husband Hans. Sometime after Jakub's death, but before 12 Nov 1640 we know that Hans married Jakub's widow Catherina. The 1642 land register notes that Hans paid 2 ſß "against the funeral expenses of the widow Anezka." In this case the payment may have been a partial payment or a full payment. There is not another record of him paying additional funeral expenses for Anezka, so I will leave it at the 2. It may be the year, or because the widow was Catherina's mother-in-law that the cost was so low compared to the other costs. It kind of reminds me of the movie "About Schmidt" when Warren Schmidt's wife dies and he buys her a cheap casket, which his daughter complains about.  Warren did not lack for money, he was after all a VP of actuarial science at Woodman's Insurance in Omaha (a take off on Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.) I don't think his daughter ever forgave him for what she viewed as a cheap funeral. He defends himself saying it was not the cheapest. She says, yeah, a pine box was the other choice. Anezka, if she had a coffin, was probably a pine box. 

Funeral Cost Table (see below for currency definition)

What is amazing to me is expense. To put it in relevant terms, From Catherina/Hans takeover in 1640 to Matheus Jr takeover in 1767 the farm value is the same--202 Meissen Schock. Yet, with inflation the costs of funerals saw a significant increase over the years. The last funeral cost is about 8 percent of the total farm value. Of course, the farm may be undervalued, but we really don't know. Perhaps land prices were stable in Bohemia in those decades. There were no large moguls buying farm land, or vacation rentals buying houses to skew the market. Perhaps, the farm value really did not change much over that 125 plus year length of time. The cost of Hans' funeral expenses was about 3 percent of the farm value. In addition, the annual debt payment to heirs for the farm was generally at 4 sß per year, meaning that the funeral cost, in all but the first case, exceeded the typical annual heir payment. 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to understand what accounted to the funeral cost. There was likely a cost for the coffin, if there was abought coffin, a stipend to the priest and the church, and perhaps payment for carriage, and other expenses. During this time period families rented their grave sites, so perhaps they made a large payment for a number of years to cover the rental cost of the grave site. As years went by, and grave site  payments ceased, the grave would be used by someone else, often the coffin removed (if still present), but the bones left in place. That is why it is hard to find grave sites of one's ancestors in Bohemia. I had a relative on my mother's side who was head of the Archdiocese of Chicago Cemeteries, and he told me that as land ran out in a cemetery it was not unusual to see caskets were doubled up in a grave. I guess that is not too far off the Bohemian model, although in the US they retained the grave marker. 

Currency Definition:

sß = Meissen Schock Groschen = 60 Meissen Groschen
g = Meissen Groschen = 7 small Pfennig
₰ (d) = Small Pfennig = 2 Heller
h = Heller

Sources: 

Wallish, George Michael 2022. "The Vallis/Wallish Family in South Bohemia: 1623-1901"

http://czechgenealogy.nase-koreny.cz/2012/06/death-and-burial-in-czech-past.html

Trebon Archives Land Registers

A Bicentennial Farm, part 3

Two earlier posts, of August 19 and August 24, described the Havel farm in Ratiborova Lhota from the year 1600 to 1737. Six generations of the Havel family were covered during that 137 year time span. In 1737 my fifth great grandfather, Matheus, was taking over the farm from his father, Simon. The farm record, however, started with Jan Wolff (my tenth great grandfather), whose son Bartos bought the farm rights starting about 1600 (as recorded in a 1603 land register), with Bartos then selling the rights to his brother Havel in 1607. Interrupted by Bartos, and perhaps Catherina/Hans (who may be Jakub Havel's mother or stepmothe) the line of direct ownership by my ancestors may goes at least as far back as 1585, to 1804 when the farm was sold to my third great grandfather's brother, Johann. This final post will cover the era of the two Matheus Havel's, father and son, with general information on subsequent sales. 

It was not a large farm, in the lingo of the time it was a 1/4 farm, with about 20 acres of arable land. In addition to the tilled land, the Havel farm included the house site, about 8.5 acres in meadow, from which hay would be cut, and about 5.6 acres of woodlot, which may have been primarily soft wood--pines, according to the ~1826 Indication Sketch (land survey). In this small village, according to the 1773 Urbaria land tax records, it was probably the fourth smallest of eleven farms. While the 1585 Urbaria record shows the farm existing in 1585, it may not have existed, based on land taxes, in 1550. As I look back, what I find interesting is that farming in 1802 was much more like farming in 1602 than it was in 1922, or perhaps even 1902. As we know from the Seignorial Records, the Havel family were also weavers of linen, a product derived from flax, to supplement their meager farm income. They were subsistence farmers, and drought, heavy rains, wet springs, early winters could make a difference in what was planted and harvested. Death was a common occurrence. 

Ratiborova Lhota and east and south environs

Matheus' purchase price in 1737 was the same as that for his father, Simon in 1712,--202 schock meissen, and with accounting for dowry and debt owed the purchaser to his father being written off, in the end 122 was due. This was to be paid off in annual installments of 4 schock meissen, which would equate to 30.5 years of payments. This land register contract provides a more definitive account of what was included in the farm handover, than in any of the previous records. With the contract dated 9 February 1737, the handover occurs a week after groundhog day. Here is the translation in the land register for the relevant elements of the farm handover:

Since the aforementioned +Simon Havel, who has settled his purchase price in full, no longer wishes to manage the farm on account of old age, he cedes and sells it in the presence of the headman and his jurors, together with the arable land, meadows, cultivated winter grain (rye/wheat), 1 horse, 2 head of oxen, 1 head of cattle, 1 calf, 1 pig, 2 sheep, 1 unshod cart, 1 plow with iron plowshare, and all of the remaining household equipment, to his legitimate son Matheus Havel in the previous purchase price of 202ſß. In lieu of the first settlement, 40ſß on account of a debt owed to the purchaser by his father and 40ſß as a dowry, totaling 80ſß, is hereby written off. The remaining 122ſßd of the purchase price is to be settled via annual installments of 4ſß. In addition, the purchaser is to provide his mother and father with the stipulated lifelong retirement benefits of the purchase. Enacted at Krumlov Castle on the 9th February 1737. (Translation of land register record in Trebon Archives by Richard D'Amelio, document translated can be found here.)

From the above one can see that oxen rather than draft horses were the main beasts of burden for the Havel family. This was the case when Simon took on the farm in 1712 and when Frantisek took on his wife's farm in Dolni Chrastany in 1796. What is also interesting is the equipment of one unshod cart passed down. Georg had passed down two iron-shod carts to Simon. The Havel farm is a typical small farm--intent on feeding the family and, with the farm tenants hoping to harvest sufficient grain to meet their required payments to the domain, and along with meat or dairy, to pay off debts and meet the required tax payments. Interestingly, at least at this time, there were no poultry. Matheus started payments to his father two months later on April 11. Simon would pass away in 1749, and at that time a debt of 74 was left on the farm, which would be owed to the heirs. Funeral expenses, paid by his son Matheus would be deducted, leaving the three children (or their children) as heirs. They would include Matheus, Sophia who is wedded and living in Micovice, and the three children of daughter Gertraud, who was discharged to the Netolice dominion to receive 20 shock meissen each. In 1760 Matheus would pay off the final debt to Sophia and Gertraud's children, and with that his purchase price was settled in full.

Part of Havel Farm, Owned by J Mika

Matheus would farm for six more years. In 1766 the farm would be sold on 18 March to his son Matheus (Jr). Matheus (Jr), like other family members before him, also plied the weaver trade. The 1765 Seignorial Register indicates "Matheus Havel--Weaver (Lodging at home), with a further note "At his father's house under folio 9 in the land register which is to be transferred to him in half a year." We can see that succession planning was underway for Matheus (Jr) to take over the farm from his father. Matheus Jr's wife Mariana (nee Panusch) is also listed in the 1765 Seignorial Register as the couple was married on 17 Feb 1765. Junior would pay the same purchase price for the farm as his father and grandfather paid, 202 shock meissen (equal to 200f 40x Rhenish currency). At this point they start to use Rhenish currency. Matheus owes a debt of 35 fl, which combined with the purchase price of 200 fl, 40x  which leaves a total of 235 fl, 40x. Mathias Jr would owe an annual amount of 4fl 40x to his father and mother, Agnes, along with lifetime retirement benefits. The debt to Matheus would be written off, leaving his debt as the price of the farm. Mathias Jr would make his first payment in 1766 of 40fl 40x to his father. With the purchase Matheus obtains the "arable land, meadows, cultivated grain (rye/wheat), along with a legacy of 1 pair of oxen, 2 young head of cattle, 2 sheep, 1 breeding sow and small livestock." 

Havel House, circled

The following year, Matheus (Sr) would depart the bonds of earth leaving behind his wife and children. The children are identified as: Matheus (Jr); Urusla, who is married; Dorothea who is wedded; and also three young children who, according to the land register were: Anton-age 10, Theresia-age 6, and Johann-age 3. Meanwhile, the 1767 Seignorial Register, which is often thought to be more accurate in terms of persons and ages, records Matheus as deceased and Anna (sic) his wife (actually Agnes) Anthoni-14, Theresia-10, Johann-8, and Mathes-6 (I have a death record for Mathes passing away in 1763). Here we can see some differences in ages. Mathias' death sets forth a chain of events: a debt payment to Thomas Pram; Agnes is writing off an additional estate value of 7 fl; Matheus (Jr) inheritance value of 19fl 2x plus some change is written off; while a 2fl, 4x fee is paid to the inheritance division. A fee payment to the inheritance division may require more research, but, I suspect, it may be for the underage siblings of Matheus. When Matheus Sr dies, a note in the margin exists, which indicates that included in the estate value is "1 head of dairy cattle, and 1 chest of inferior condition....7 fl. This amount is added to the 154 fl purchase price still owed Matheus Sr by his son Matheus Jr. Meaning a total estate value of 161 fl. They made sure to include the chest of inferior condition, which makes me wonder if this is the same "1 old chest with lock" noted in 1712 when Simon purchased the farm from his father Georg, which was at that time valued at 1 schock meissen. If one old chest in inferior condition is specifically noted, it must mean the other furnishings were not all that great.

Havel-Mika holding

In 1770 Matheus' (Jr) father-in-law died. Stephen Panusch farmed in the same village, with property associated with folio #4. In 1771, the land register records that Dorothea Havel, wedded, wrote off her inheritance payments and Maria wrote off her payments from the Panusch farm. It seems an odd occurrence, until you do a deeper dive.  Dorothea Havel was married to Andrej Panusch, in October of 1765. Andrej being Mariana Panusch Havel's brother. In a sense, with Stephen Panusch's death, the wives of each male heir gave up their respective inheritance rights with values that offset each other. It played to both interests by reducing their respective debts.

In 1787 Matheus Jr paid off his final payment to his brother Johann. After this payment, the record clearly states: "Settled in full". My third great grandfather, Frantisek would take on his wife's family farm in Dolni Chrastany, ending the ownership of the Ratiborova Lhota farm under ownership of my direct ancestors. It did not, however, end the Havel family ownership. On January 17, 1804 the Havel farm is taken over by Frantisek's younger brother Johann. Recorded in a separate document, Frantisek received a sahre of 50 fl 24 x, for a total of 252 fl divided over the five heirs. Frantisek would receive payments in 1813, and 1815 of 7 fl, and in 1818 a final payment of 36 fl 24x. The final payment is probably from when Johann received cash when he sold the farm in 1818. This record provides information on the area of the farm. Johann Havel took on a farm of 14 Joch and 280 quadraklafter (qk) of arable land (about 20.15 acres), 6 Joch and 1002-1/6 qk of meadows  (about 9.42 acres) and 4 Joch 362 qk of woodland (about 6 acres), with a purchase price of 252 florianns. (In total, per this record, the farm was about 35.57 acres.) Besides the land, Johann received four head of oxen, 2 sheep, and all remaining household and farming equipment. 

Havel Farm, Mika parcel

We know from his father's 1773 Urbarium record that they farmed in a system of three. On our large lawn growing up my Dad overseeded the grass with clover, stating that in drought it will stay green. Plus, it is good for pollinators. In Bohemia, under the system of three one-third of the land is fallow each year, and in its fallow state is planted with clover. The clover is tilled under the following spring, providing a natural manure. The main crops grown, per the records were rye, barley and oats. Lacking commercial fertilizers we have today, they understood field and crop rotation. How far back in time the system of three went, I don't know. It is heartening to know, that in the 18th century at least, they had understanding of conservation techniques. Johann Havel would farm until 1818 when he sold the farm to Johann Mika. Johann Mika is a son of Maria Havel, who married Vaclav Mika. Maria is a brother to the 1804-1818 farm owner Johann Havel and my third great grandfather, Frantisek Havel. Johann Mika is the owner that shows in the survey completed in about 1826. 

Havel Family Farm, Timeline,
See Note, below, for location of a more defined timeline

In 1842 Mika would sell the farm to Katherina Havel, daughter of Johann Havel. On the same day she would sell the farm to the Kozaks. Whether the Kozaks are related to the Havel's I don't know at this point in time.

Handover from Katherina Havel to Johann Kosakk 1842

The Havel farm passed from generation to generation for a period of more than 200 years. The farm likely started before 1585 with Jan Wolff (my 10th great grandfather), to his son Bartos, to Bartos' brother Havel (my 9th great grandfather), and then Jakub Havel. During a 28 year period either Jakub's mother or step-mother and her second husband (following the death of Jakub) owned the farm, before passing the farm to Jakub's son Georg (my 7th great grandfather) which then carried the line of direct ancestors through Simon and Matheus (Sr) until Matheus (Jr) passed away and the farm was sold in 1804 to Johann, the brother of my third great grandfather. Johann passed the farm to a nephew, Johann Mika who sold it in 1842 to Johann Havel's daughter Katherina, who quickly sold the farm perhaps ending the Havel line of ownership. It was a long run in which the family persevered through famine, floods, drought, and the implementation of the second serfdom. What is interesting, despite mandatory education in 1774, Maria (likely Mathues' is spouse), Frantisek, Johann, headman Georg Winzig and witness Kasper Winzig all sign with three crosses, "since those above named are illiterate, it was requested they provide their signatures as three crosses." By decree in 1774, Maria Theresia ordered six years of compulsory education. Frantisek (b 1769) and Johann (b 1775) were of the age they should have been schooled. Perhaps, the schools were not ready in the hinterlands of Southern Bohemia, or other factors got in the way. The start of schools would not have all of a sudden began in 1775. While Maria Theresia was an education pioneer in 18th century Europe, subsequent rulers may not have felt the same. Some commentator's place the actual start of compulsory education in 1869, the year after the Havel family departed for America. The lack of education may have been away for the domain to control the masses. After all, the servitude under which our ancestors served was one of control by the domain. The rulers of the varied domain's were quick to slap down and stifle varied reforms.

Havel-Mika Woodlot and meadow

The Havel family were common peasants, far removed from the kings and princes. They worked a small 1/4 farm in Ratiborova Lhota with 20 arable acres, and with one-third of the land lying fallow each year, that means they had cultivated 13 to 14 acres each year. They struggled to make ends meet, with many in the family plying the trade as a linen weaver. Life was not easy, Havel and Jakub both met death while still active farmers. Jakub's widow remarried in order to maintain the Havel line of ownership, which was passed down to Georg. I am sure, however, that they did have some good times. As quarter farmers, they had a lower level farm in Ratiborova Lhota, perhaps the second smallest, but yet I think that meant they worked that much harder. Something always required tending to, whether it was work for the domain or on their own farm. In 1868, Frantisek's son Josef and his family would leave Bohemia and settle first in Wisconsin in Jefferson County and then in northcentral Iowa. The old country was left behind, similar to the bicentennial ownership of the Ratiborova Lhota farm fell out of the hands of my direct ancestors. 

Note:  I have created a Timeline of Havel Farm in Ratiborova Lhota which can be accessed  here. Click click on >> just below and to the right of the word "Timeline."  Some notations have images attached, a small photo-type of icon, please click for the image. I hope you enjoy this new feature. 

Sources:

Trebon Archives

https://ags.cuzk.cz/archiv/ (Map images from Indication Sketch maps, c 1826) 

The Hat

For several years now, the wife has been strongly advising me, more like ordering, to wear a hat to protect my scalp from sunburn due to my thinning head hair. I have worn out one hat, and so bought another for daily use earlier this summer. Both hats were what I would call a khaki green color, with the newer one a slightly darker green, at least at this time. The new one has the word Papa with a small bear symbol below. It is difficult to find a simple, plain baseball-style hats with a minor symbol or wording. I like the khaki-green color for a hat, and the symbol and wording are small and sufficiently innocuous that they do not draw attention. I bought the hat and have been wearing it for regular daily use this summer.

Me and my 2022 purchased hat
Photo by Chris Hovel

I also wear this hat when we camp. When I am camping I am outside, so much, with the hat on, that I sometimes forget that I have it on my head. During a camping trip in early August I went swimming at a boat landing adjacent to our campsite. It was warm and windy day when I went to the pier, laid my towel down on the pier and settled myself in the clear water with many minnows, or small fish swimming around the base of the pier all watching and waiting to bite my toes. As I was walking out to deeper water, I realized I had my hat on and so walked a few steps back to the pier and threw it up on the pier next to my towel.  Off I went swimming, doing varied strokes, and later just relaxing in the water laying on my back, with a gentler stroke looking at the beautiful sky and the lakeshore. About 30 minutes later I get out of the water and I grab my towel to dry off, and then look for my hat. No hat is around. I first wondered if when I grabbed my towel the hat fell off, so I looked around, but no hat. I got back in the water to look under the pier--no hat. "Hmm," I thought, "I am sure I had worn it to the pier," but I got up and walked and checked the campsite--no hat.

Hat pretty much worn out
I still wear it at times doing yard work

I then went back to the pier and knowing the direction the strong wind was blowing, I walked along or near the shoreline to see if I could spot the hat in the water. This is where the khaki green color of the hat worked against me. The edge of water contains a great deal of some weeds, and in particular detritus from leaves and other vegetation that has rotted over time, not to mention the trees that have fallen in. I then walked back to the campsite, and Land Girl and I take the kayak down so I can get in the kayak and check the water and shoreline from the water craft.

Lake area where I swam, red dots
indicate location of the pier

For a few times, I paddle over from the pier to the small bay, the direction in which the wind was blowing. I paddled the area between the pier and the shore. I was about to give, up, but then said a prayer to St Anthony and made the trek again. Still no hat. I decided to check once more, with one more prayer to St Anthony, and there I spotted it. It was on the floor of the lake, around some weeds and a tree that was down. I know it was windy, but its distance from the pier surprised me. I paddled closer and reached the paddle under the hat. I was successful in retrieving the hat, but it was full of a lot of silt and detritus, I washed it off in the lake water.

2022 hat, up close

I then hung it on our clothes line, and when that became shady, stuck it on a rock in the sun. And because we were camping, if of course rained. It poured and stormed a great deal that night, so the hat got a nice washing from Mother Nature. Us being the Rainmakers, certainly helped clean up my hat on this camping trip. I am not sure how much rain the area got but another camper told me he heard from someone in town, which is about 7 miles away, through all of July there was only .3 inches in that small crossroads town. The rainfall that night probably more than tripled that July rainfall given how wet everything was. By the middle of the next day the hat was nice and dry and once again wearable.

I do keep a hat in my car, for those instances where I may have forgotten to grab a hat, such as occurred on our recent trip to Kohler-Andre and Point Beach. As time has passed, and I am usually not as forgetful about grabbing a hat, so I don't really know why I forgot one when we departed Tuesday morning. The spare hat, I now know, is for when a hat may get lost or be out of commission for a time.