Hello,
This entry is from a family register, which seems to list entire families. I have no knowledge about the region.
Transcription:
Zahl der Kinder.
1. unehl.(iches) Kind d.(er) Hausmutter
2. unehl.(iches) Kind beider Ehegatten
Namen. / Geburt.
[Hinweise: Ich kombiniere diese Spalten mit einem "/" um anzuzeigen welches Geburtstdatum welchem Kind zugeordnet ist.]
Wilhelmina Gottliebia / g.(eboren) 22. April 1828 zu Stuttgart
--------- [eine horizontale Trennlinie]
1. [Ziffer 2. durchgestrichen] Louisa Regina Wilhelmina / g.(eboren) 13. Oct.(ober) 1829 zu Stuttgart
2. Louise Friederike + [bereits verstorben] / g.(eboren) 28. Nov.(ember) 1831
+ [Totgeburt] 3. anonymous / d. 6. May 1834
--------------------------------------------
Translation:
Number of children.
1. illegitimate child of the house mother
2. illegitimate child of both spouses
Namen. / Geburt.
[Note: I am combining these two columns with a "/" to indicate which birth date belongs to which child]
Wilhelmina Gottliebia / b.(orn) 22. April 1828 in Stuttgart
--------- (a horizontal separator)
1. [the number 2. as a strikethrough] Louisa Regina Wilhelmina / b.(orn)13. Oct.(ober) 1829 in Stuttgart
2. Louise Friederike + [already deceased] / b.(orn) 28. Nov.(ember) 1831
+ [stillborn] 3. anonymous / on 6. May 1834
----------end ----------------------------------------
Legend:
[Transcribers notes]
(supplements to abbreviations)
----------end ----------------------------------------
Interpretation:
1. Wilhelmina Gottliebia is the illegitimate child with a different father than the other children. The separating line in ink suggests that this record belongs to the first comment in column "Number of children". In addition, the record keeper has written the number "2" in front of the second child, Louisa Regina Wilhelmina - this was inside the appropriate field. He then stroke the number through and wrote the number "1" next to it (to the left side, outside of the field/box).
2. Louisa Regina Wilhelmina is an illegitimate child of the two spouses.
3. It might be possible that the other children, too, are illegitimate children of the two spouses given the layout of the listing, however, the use of the singular of the word "child" in the first column in "2. illegitimate child of both spouses" suggests that it was only one illegitimate child. I would therefore recommend looking for a marriage record between the two spouses between 13 Oct 1829 and 28 Nov 1831, and if none can be found after an exhaustive search, then this would indicate
a) that they are all illegitimate children, and
b) the record keeper used the singular form on accident, and realised only later that they had multiple illeg. children.
A second (and third...) pair of eyes would be useful to crititque the transcription and interpretation.
Sven