In 1816, under Governor Lord Charles Somerset, Slave Registers were set up by district to prevent abuse and illegal enslavement of free people, but also as step in the process towards abolition of slavery[7].
Jacobus Hugo, Jacobus's son, registered 33 slaves with the Tulbagh District Slave Register, in Ledger H, Folio H8[8] and Folio H31[9].
Sources
↑ 1.01.1 de Villiers C.C, Pama C, Genealogies Of Old South African Families, Vol I, p334, A A Balkema, 1981 (b2c2d6). Added at creation of WikiTree profile Hugo-805] by Riël Smit on 21 March 2020.
↑ 2.02.1 Familysearch personal ID for Jacobus Hugo (1765-1848) LHVB-WGZ
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Jacobus by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known yDNA or mtDNA test-takers in his direct paternal or maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Jacobus:
Hi Riel, I see you had some source for a birth date of 14 May 1765. I've just transcribed the Death Notice, calculated the birth from the given age, and concluded that it confirms your May month. Do you remember where you got that date? It may be the 'right' one.
As can be seen here, it came from De Villiers and Pama, i.e. the first reference under sources. It got "lost in translation" with all the merges. I will fix it.
Edit: Actually I see it was clear before, but one of your edits made it unclear :) The problem with some of those edits (e.g. moving the "creation" references to Acknowledgements) is that now one can no longer see where what came from and by whom. I know WikiTree's latest changes to BioCheck now complains about references that are not clear "sources" for some unknown definition of sources, but I believe those suggestions should be ignored because it removes the ability to provide footnotes via references. I guess it is time to take it up with Kay and see what he says. :)
Ah, now I'm seeing it in my own copy. Unfortunately, it is however given with the wavy lines of a baptism, not the star of a birth. That means De Villiers & Pama had the baptism date wrong, but possibly the wavy line should have been a star :-)
If I take the death notice at face value, assuming that the age is precisely 76 years, 9 months, and zero days .. then the date would have been 21st May. But not giving the number of days clearly means they didn't care about precision down to a day..
I wonder. Did people in those times celebrate their exact birthday or not? Now I'm looking up his wife's death notice, that that has nothing about his birth. She was 82 3/4 years old on 6th june 1862, and only mentions that she is widow of the late Jacob Hugo Senior.
.. now I'm curious who Jacobus Junior would have been. Was it their son 'Jacobus Francois', or another Jacob? So many Hugos.
Ah.. and now I notice that de Villiers & Pama added a warning, under 'stamvader' Daniel: "N.B. In hierdie stamlys is geen verskil gemaak tussen geboorte- en doopdatums en veral in die latere generasies is baie doopdatums in werklikheid dus geboortedatums."
That means that the date given is actually likely to be the birthdate, *because* it differs from the baptism date. Would still be nice to find some place that confirms it. But for now, this 14th May seems to be a good guess for the birth date.
Wow. The Hugo familytree in de Villiers & Pama has a pretty consistently recorded information about the farm(s) where each of these Hugo men did their work. The only problem is that we have no map indicating where all these farms were, in those times. In the 1700's, the Brede River valley was the wild east, where semi-nomadic cattle-farmers pushed out the Khoi/San original inhabitants, who were also devastated by the epidemic of flu/cold of 1713. The time of the Slave Registers in 1816-38 probably record the resulting slave-intensive farming operations, when wine farming also reached the Brede and Hex river valleys. The large families of de Wet, Hugo, de Vos, ... were main players in this process, and some of the modern elite wine and fruit farms are now their descendants.
Hi Trevor, I wasn't particularly looking, just found some children as I was searching for someone else. If you have links, please post them, or better yet, create the new profiles and link them here like I did :)
hi Trevor, I see that you actually have management privileges over this profile. So you could add the missing children, just to have a start. It looks like Familysearch agrees with the older de Villiers & Pama (1981) on this list.
Could you please explain why you believe Hugo-805 (now Húgot-22) is not the same persion as Húgot-19 ? Or do you just want Hugo-51 to be merged with Hugo-805 first?
If you open the profile of the spouse Jacobs-1339, you'll see two identical spouses. These two should be merged. Only if the merged profile then appears to be a duplicate of Húgot-19 (because there is no evidence [yet] that Húgot-19 had a spouse or even that she was Jacobs-1339, should they be merged. Right now the evidence seem to point that way; at the moment that the merge was proposed into Húgot-19, there was no evidence at all that they (or the father) were duplicates.
Hugo-805 and Húgot-19 appear to represent the same person because: they have similar birth dates, same father and mother (I was not allowed to add Anna Rossoúw as mother)
edited by Riël Smit
Edit: Actually I see it was clear before, but one of your edits made it unclear :) The problem with some of those edits (e.g. moving the "creation" references to Acknowledgements) is that now one can no longer see where what came from and by whom. I know WikiTree's latest changes to BioCheck now complains about references that are not clear "sources" for some unknown definition of sources, but I believe those suggestions should be ignored because it removes the ability to provide footnotes via references. I guess it is time to take it up with Kay and see what he says. :)
edited by Riël Smit
If I take the death notice at face value, assuming that the age is precisely 76 years, 9 months, and zero days .. then the date would have been 21st May. But not giving the number of days clearly means they didn't care about precision down to a day..
I wonder. Did people in those times celebrate their exact birthday or not? Now I'm looking up his wife's death notice, that that has nothing about his birth. She was 82 3/4 years old on 6th june 1862, and only mentions that she is widow of the late Jacob Hugo Senior.
.. now I'm curious who Jacobus Junior would have been. Was it their son 'Jacobus Francois', or another Jacob? So many Hugos.
That means that the date given is actually likely to be the birthdate, *because* it differs from the baptism date. Would still be nice to find some place that confirms it. But for now, this 14th May seems to be a good guess for the birth date.
I also see that the son, e7, Jacobus Francois, gets children f1-f9 listed in the book. This same list also appears at Familysearch, https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LHT8-LVK , with further sources.
edited by Riël Smit