Hans Danchertsen Gierding (around 1702-1735)

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Father:1Danchert Gierding (around 1673-before 18 January 1713)
Mother:2Cathrina Hansdatter Hørup (1675-1748/49)
Spouses and relationship events
Married:3Engel Tengelman (-after 1735)
Children
Children with Engel Tengelman:
Johanna Catharina Gierding (1733-)4
Attributes
Events
Born:5around 1702
Died:61735
Probate:77 February 1735Bergen [city/town], Bergen kommune [municipality], Hordaland [Unknown/Unspecified], Norway [country]
Personal Info
Groups
Issues

Sources

1 , , , p. 1191, Danchert Gerding, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
2 Ibid
3 , , , p. 90, Hans Danchertsen Gierding, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
4 , , , p. 479, Catharina Brose, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
5 , , , p. 1191, Danchert Gerding, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
6 , , , p. 90, Hans Danchertsen Gierding, ; Database, Skifteavskrifter for Bergen 1675-1852, fra Sollied. http://www.arkivverket.no/digitalarkivet :
7 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.