Brita Amundsdatter (around 1744-)

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Spouses and relationship events
Married:1Clemet Jonsen (around 1743-), farmer
Children
Children with Clemet Jonsen:
Jon Clemetsen Fure (around 1777-)2
Malene Clemetsdatter Fure (around 1782-)3
Lorentse Clemetsdatter Fure (around 1786-)4
Rasmus Clemetsen Fure (around 1788-)5
Attributes
Events
Born:6around 1744
Personal Info
Groups
Issues

Sources

1 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002676; .
2 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002677; .
3 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002679; .
4 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002680; .
5 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002678; .
6 , "Folketelling 1801 for 1447P Innvik prestegjeld", database, Arkivverket, Digitalarkivet (http://digitalarkivet.no : ), pf01058410002676; .
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.