Rasmus Engebrichtsen (-1732), repslager

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Spouses and relationship events
Married:13 July 1701Catharina Buckholt (-)Korskirken [Unknown/Unspecified], Bergen [city/town], Bergen kommune [municipality], Hordaland [Unknown/Unspecified], Norway [country]
Children
Attributes
Occupation:2repslagerSandviken [Unknown/Unspecified], Bergen [city/town], Bergen kommune [municipality], Hordaland [Unknown/Unspecified], Norway [country]
Events
Died:31732Bergen [city/town], Bergen kommune [municipality], Hordaland [Unknown/Unspecified], Norway [country]
Buried:412 November 1732Korskirkegården (Bergen [city/town], Bergen kommune [municipality], Hordaland [Unknown/Unspecified], Norway [country])
Personal Info
Groups
Issues

Sources

1 , "Ministerialbok for Korskirken prestegjeld 1698-1747 (1301M2): Viede b 1698-1747", Transcribed, Digitalarkivet (http://www.arkivverket.no/Digitalarkivet : ), hv00000000294392.
2 , , , p. 1331, Marie Buchholt, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
3 , "Ministerialbok for Korskirken prestegjeld 1731-1785 (1301M2): Døde og begravde b 1731-1785", Transcribed, Digitalarkivet (http://www.arkivverket.no/Digitalarkivet : ), hg00000000424350.
4 Ibid
certainlyThe information is supported by primary sources.
probablyThe information is supported by secondary sources which is most likely based on primary sources.
possiblyIt is unclear if the secondary source cited is based on primary sources, or the information is an assumption well supported by other evidence.
likelyThe information is only found in secondary sources with questioned quality, or there is a reason to suspect the information is wrong. Or the information is a likely assumption based on other evidence.
apparentlyThe information is doubtful and poorly documented, but still most likely correct.
perhapsThe information might be correct or it might be wrong. It is not supported by any trustworthy sources. It might me an assumption.
disprovedThe information is proven to be wrong.