Interpreting an old record (Wuerttemberg, 1677)

Question

Here is a record from the town of Fellbach (near Stuttgart), Wuerttemberg:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssk52466bd0zn1c/MariaJutzler.jpg?dl=0

It is from 1677, and I am interested in the last name of the groom. It seems very clearly readable as "Lorkh", but that does not resonate at all with me. I would immediately accept the name as "Lorch", but that throws up two questions right away

1: Is "Lorch" the correct (modern) reading?

2. Should the name be recorded in the modern spelling or as is?

Here is a link to the entire page from ancestry.com, in case more context makes it easier to read:

https://www.ancestrylibrary.ca/interactive/61023/1055979-01245

Comments

In my genealogy database, I generally keep spellings as in the original record. Sometimes spelling of names evolves over time. I think our records should reflect that.

This sometimes gets complicated and you need make a choice: I have cases where the same name is spelled two different ways in the same document. A good example comes from Spanish where b and v can represent the same sound.

There are names ending in “son” and “sen” where different branches of a family argue which is correct.

And then, there is the old axiom “In genealogy, spelling dosen’t count.”

Answer 1

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

My effort to transcribe and translate this:

Georg Lorkh, Sebastian Lorkh s: geweßen Burger u. Glastner[?] al

sind le[?] sterben[?] Ehl. Sohn, auch ein glaßer[?]: u. Maria Magdalena, Hanß

B/Gastmann[?] s: geweßen B. u. Maurer alhier sind [illegible] Wittib.

I translate this to mean that George Lorkh, son of the deceased Sebastian Lorkh (who was a citizen and Glastner? [not sure of where] married Maria Magdalena, widow of the deceased Hans B/Gastmann?, citizen and mason.

 

It's possible that Lorkh would later morph into Lorch but as George recommended, you should go with the spelling as it is on the original record.

Answer 2

I'm not sure there is an "r" in the family name at all, look at all other "r's" in the text. the letter before the "k" may very well be a "c". "kh" in older text often just represents the same as the modern "k" alone. Georg and his father were Glaser = glaziers.