Marriage certificate 1699

Dear Christopher, I could decipher almost all words in this registration:

anno 1699 den 4 februar 1669 / Jean Philip Vetan j.m. [jongeman, young man] uyt Switserland / sergean onder de compagnie van de hr. [heer] enutaij ? Gommour / met / Geertruyd Roselet j.d. [jongedochter, young lady] van Berne en aldaer woonen / hij heeft consent van zijn capt [capitein] / sij heeft schriftelyck van haer ouder permissie.

In the margin: getrouwt den 25 mert 1699

Jean Philippe was sergeant in a military company. His fiancé Geertruyd Roselet (or is Reselet?) came from Bern. Jean Philippe's captain gave his consent to the marriage, Geerttruid had a permission from het parents in writing.

In which archive did you find this registration?

Hello,

Thank you very much! We were unsure about "Vetan". His name in documents written later is Jan Philip Sieta (or Sita).

I retrieved the document from https://westbrabantsarchief.nl

Chris.

The v ofVetan seems at first indeed curious! The letters i and j are clearly different in this badly legible script, as is the v. However, the paleography manual Lezen in Brabantse bronnen by Annemiek van der Veen and Rien Wols (2nd ed., 's-Hertogenbsch 1989) shows specifically this form for the letter v (page 22). The writing angle is the decisive element in determining it is indeed a v.

I am not sure about the V-solution. I first thought it to be an l, followed by an apostrophe, so l' Etan, but after a second look I would go for the solution Cetan; if you have a look at the second line, you will see the c of compagnie has the same look; the small dot above the c may be a remnant of the line connecting the c with the e.

By the way, the word before the captain's name is captey[n]

Thanks, René, for your convincing explanations! I suppose this official made his own phonetical version of Sieta by writing a c. The forms f the c are not totally consistent, the words capteyn and consent differ from compagnie.