Hendrik Stephanus Pretorius
1792–1860 · Craddock, Cape, South Africa
| Born | ABT 1792, Craddock, Cape, South Africa |
|---|---|
| Baptised | 11 MAR 1792 |
| Died | 9 NOV 1860, Modderfontein aan Kafferrivier, South Africa |
| Record | @I504348@ |
Family
The mark describes the person, not the link. Of the 10 relatives drawn here, 0 have a document of their own in this archive — but that is not the same as a document tying them to this person. This archive holds no separate proof for most parent–child links; where it does, the note above this chart says so in words.
Where this comes from
Tree only
everything here comes from the family tree, and is unverified.
Where this sits in the family
Not on the direct line. They are published because they belong to one of the eight surnames this archive follows.
The register spells this surname more than one way, and the search folds the forms together — so Xubrinich and Žubrinić, Joannis and Ivan, find each other.
Where this surname sits on the map →
What the tree says that cannot be true →
Events, as the record has them
- birthABT 1792Craddock, Cape, South Africa
- death9 NOV 1860Modderfontein aan Kafferrivier, South Africa
- baptism11 MAR 1792Tulbagh, Breede River DC, Western Cape, South Africa
- christening11 MAR 1792
Sources attached in the tree
- Defranceski Family Site (23andMe) — https://www.myheritage.com/person-2000539_OYYV6PHYNEZIR6MCFUR5Y2YQASMLLIQ_OYYV6PHYNEZIR6MCFUR5Y2YQASMLLIQ/hendrik-stephanus-pretorius
An online family tree is a witness, not a source. Where a citation points at a parish register or a FamilySearch image, that is the thing worth going to. Sources →
Others of the same name
These parishes repeat their names relentlessly — 94 Marijas and 88 Ivans in this archive alone. These are different people, kept apart on purpose rather than merged into one. Merging on a name is exactly how this tree came to hold a man born after his own granddaughter.
| Hendrik Stephanus Pretorius | 8 JAN 1759–20 FEB 1870 | Tulbagh | |
| Hendrik Stephanus Pretorius | TO 8 JAN 1759 | Tulbagh |
Same name, and nothing here says they are related. Why the names repeat →