--=======273950A6======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-66AE7375; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I should have added that Capt. Benjamin/3, the loyalist of Cheshire, CT and Claremont, NH, was the uncle of Lt. Thomas/4 of Cheshire, who I suggested is your loyalist. Henry/1 + Hannah POTTER Lt. Thomas/2 + Martha HOTCHKISS Stephen/3 (b. 1703) + Hannah BARNES Lt. Thomas/4 + Ruth [____] Capt. Benjamin/3 (b. 1720) + Thankful HICKOX Chris --=======273950A6======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-66AE7375 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.311 / Virus Database: 172 - Release Date: 12/27/2001 --=======273950A6=======--

--=======499238E======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-66AE7375; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pam Venn wrote: >"The Farmington, Connecticut Committee of Inspection investigated >reports that militia officer Thomas BROOKS was "unfriendly to the >constitutional rights of America in June 1776!" Brooks freely >admitted that he "could not satisfy himself that the colonies were >justified in their present measures and that he could not join them >to take up arms." Such "principles and temper," the committee voted, >disqualified him from holding a militia office, and it recommended >that the General Assembly strip him of that office. Committees >repeatedly used the formula of stating the furthest extent of >suspicion brought to their attention before indicating that the >evidence demonstrated a specific and less serious infraction." > ~~~ >SOURCE: The Loyalists in Revolutionary America, 1760-1781 >by Robert McCluer Calhoon >pg. 301 >ISBN 0-15154745-9 > >Can anyone on the list provide additional details of what followed >for Thomas? I find 5 men named Thomas Brooks associated with Hartford County, though=20 none with Farmington specifically, within the appropriate time frame. While= =20 militia companies were organized by town, they collected into regiments=20 organized by county, so proximity rather than literal residence is probably= =20 a sufficient qualifier. (1) Jacobus includes a Lt. Thomas/4 (Stephen/3, Lt. Thomas/2, Henry/1)= =20 in the Wallingford/Cheshire line, but gives no indication of military=20 service beyond his rank. Born at Wallingford 7 Mar 1738, he died 3 Dec=20 1812, and is buried at Burlington, CT -- where his gravestone styles him a= =20 Revolutionary soldier. (2) 20 or so miles away at Glastonbury, there's a Thomas/5 Jr.=20 (Thomas/4, Sgt. Samuel/3, Samuel/2, John/1) in what I call the Glastonbury= =20 line, although the emigrant progenitor lived at Windsor and Simsbury.=20 [Note: this line has proven difficult to document, and a number of=20 listreaders are still digging on this, both in CT and in Chenango County,=20 NY -- so don't hold me to that pedigree.] This fellow was born between 1750= =20 and 1761, depending on whom you ask :-), and is said to have died in 1822=20 in Chenengo County. The father of, among others, Theseus, Socrates, and=20 Roswell -- names with which we have had lots of fun on this list -- my=20 notes say that he was also a Revolutionary soldier, though I failed to=20 record the source (ugh). Hopefully one of the Chenango folks will set me=20 straight on this. When I search for Brooks events at Farmington, every single person I turn=20 up pre-1800 belongs to the Cheshire line, without exception. There is at least one documented family of Loyalists in the Cheshire line.= =20 In 1776, New Hampshire's provisional government undertook a census,=20 combined with a loyalty oath (the "Association Test") to the Revolutionary= =20 government. Capt. Benjamin/3 Brooks, born in Cheshire, had a year or two=20 previously gone up with three or more sons to Claremont, situated on the=20 Connecticut River in what is today the extreme southwestern corner of New=20 Hampshire. According to the state papers of New Hampshire, "The Names of=20 those who Refuse to sign the Declaration=85Capt. Benjamin Brooks=85Barnabas= =20 Brooks=85Benjamin Brooks jun." were recorded in May 1776. Brother Cornelius= =20 "made no association" (declined to respond?). As for the apparent turnaround in political sentiments, that may well be=20 misleading. First, there are many cases of those who doubted the cause of=20 independence initially, but subsequently served or supported it. Barbara=20 Elliott and Jane Patrick have researched a Samuel at Worcester, MA who with= =20 others signed a loyalty petition which enraged the local, pro-patriot=20 citizenry. A mob marched into the town clerk and forced him to empty his=20 inkwell over the page in the town records where the petition had been=20 copied, in order to obliterate the record. The page, complete with huge ink= =20 splat, still exists and I have a scan of it. Samuel, however,=20 recanted/repented/rethought, and subsequently served the Revolutionary=20 cause in several capacities. Secondly, gravestone claims should always be taken cum grano (with a grain= =20 of salt), just like the claims that "George Washington slept here." 50=20 years after the war, the family member who commissioned the stone may not=20 have had a clue about the decedent's true situation, or may have known but= =20 elected to record the facts for posterity in their most favorable light.=20 There are no gravestone police -- so the most heartless s.o.b. in life can= =20 become a loving father and respected citizen in death, if the stone's=20 purchaser is so inclined. My guess is candidate #1, based on rank and the Cheshire connection. You'd= =20 need to get into primary (town and militia) records for a conclusive=20 identification. If the Calhoon book provides a proper citation, you ought=20 to be able to follow the author's trail back. Sorry to be so poky in responding. Chris --=======499238E======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-66AE7375 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.311 / Virus Database: 172 - Release Date: 12/27/2001 --=======499238E=======--

Ron Hughes wrote: >I was going through some of my "Brooks Junk" that I've accumulated, and >thought I'd post what I have. None of it pertains to my line (that's why >it's 'Brooks Junk"), but someone else may be looking for it. Some of it is >just notes my brother scribbled on a piece of paper. One man's junk is another's treasure, of course -- the flea market principle. Your names include Bethuel (whom Bruce Brooks is researching) and three or four others I recognize. Thanks for sending it in. Chris

I was going through some of my "Brooks Junk" that I've accumulated, and thought I'd post what I have. None of it pertains to my line (that's why it's 'Brooks Junk"), but someone else may be looking for it. Some of it is just notes my brother scribbled on a piece of paper. William J. Brooks from Hibernia, Dutchess, NY. Born in Ancram, Columbia, NY on 19Aug1861. His father was Henry Brooks, from England. Settled around Poughkeepsie, NY. Henry's wife was Rachel Butts. Brooks, Lenora Rundell (6Dec1851-4Jan1929) Brooks, OsEmer L. (Ithaca, NY) Brooks, James (Ithaca). Murdered near Belmont Brooks, Bertha. Brooks, Bethuel (Lisle NY) Married (1) Eliza Chamberlain (2) Permelia Griffing. Children: Asa (Batavia, NY) John, and Wesley Caroline Elizabeth Brooks (died in Ohio). Brooks, Asa Minister, Maine, NY Brooks, Alfred J. (1873-1950). Possibly married to Rachel Brooks, Alfred (1816-1899). Married Cornelia Horton. Buried in No. Lansing Cemetery. Possibly had a son named George F. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >From an unknown book: "Children of James and Polly Loft Brooks". Their children- James Thorton Brooks, William Rennselaer, Margaret Jane, Mary Etta , Lavina, Melissa, Rebecca. William Rennselaer's children: Evans, Benjamin Franklin, Charles, Daniel, Anne, Rose, Julia. Also mentioned are the names: Sprague, Smith, Wood and Broadhead.

--=======56B5400======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2F0B1E3D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Good morning, In an attempt to follow up on this thread, I subscribed as suggested to the DUTCH-COLONIES list at RootsWeb, and posted a query. Unfortunately, only one reader bothered to reply in a week's span. I'm pasting in his response in case Ron Hughes or anyone else wants to contact him. Gordon Courtright, <[email protected]>, wrote: > In my family history there are numerous folks with the > Ten Broeck surname as well as others with Ten Eyck > and Ten Hout. All appear to be of Dutch origin, as far > as my history is concerned as nearly all married into > other Dutch families. These go back to the mid-late > 1600's at the time many Dutch were migrating to Nieu > Amsterdam. In the course of my own research on Brooks families, I have looked into English, Scottish, French-Canadian, Afro-American, German, and now Dutch origins, usages and adaptations of the BROOKS surname. In contrast, my sense of the Dutch Colonies list, after reading it for a week, is that this list community is quite self-content in its own little world and has scant interest in exploring its margins or its broader connections with the rest of the North American colonial world. In today's digest, for instance, the majority of messages are concerned with the debut of the Euro, and whether the Euro coin with a Dutchman's portrait is a "must have" collectible for Dutch descendants. Thanks to all, and especially Val, who have shared what they know on this question. It looks to me like we'll just have to keep digging on our own. Chris --=======56B5400======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2F0B1E3D Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01 --=======56B5400=======--

Found this while surfing > J. Montgomery Seaver of the American Historical-Genealogical Society, in > 1929, wrote: >"A variety of prefixes employed with it such as de la Broke, ate Broke, ad >le Broke, apud Broke, etc. The name is common to all parts of England, >Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Names such as le Brok, del Brock, Bruc, >Bruckyse, the Flemish Broeckx; the German, Brucks; the Dutch, Broeks. >Among ancient records, there are mentioned Richard Atte Brooks (1419), >Martha Brookes (1616), the Brookes of Suffolk Co., who were descended from >William de la Brok or Broke, who was the owner and Lord of the Manor of >Brooke in Somerset County." http://coyote.accessnv.com/rondh/Part1.htm

I thought it was interesting that when I did a Google search on the word BROEKS, up popped several websites with the .nl in the address, meaning pages hosted in the Netherlands. There are over 1100 results, and there appear to be many people with the surname BROEKS in Holland right now. I guess that's a clue, or at least a fine red herring. Hau'oli Makahiki Hou*, everyone. Aloha Eve *Happy New Year, of course.

--=======A4732F4======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6A573B35; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > | The virus lies dormant for 14 days, then it kills your hard drive. [snip] > > | 9. IF YOU FIND IT IN YOUR COMPUTER, YOU NEED TO SEND THIS OR A SIMILAR > > | MESSAGE TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK RIGHT AWAY! Two giveaways that this is a hoax: (1) Preceding the phrase "lies dormant for 14 days" in the original hoax message is the claim that neither Norton or McAfee can recognize this virus. If this were true, how, pray tell, would we know of its existence? :-) (2) Any message that insists you "tell all your friends" is either spam or a hoax. In the event of a real virus infection, you should do the exact opposite -- that is, you should immediately shut down your email software, download the latest signature files for your scanning software, close the internet connection, install the update files, and then disinfect your machine before re-establishing a connection. Please remember that DISCUSSION OF VIRUSES IS OFF-TOPIC FOR THIS LIST. (It says so in your list welcome message, our Legal Dept. reminds us.) Only the list administrator (lucky sod, he) may breach this rule, and only when he feels that exceptional circumstances warrant a breach. RootsWeb mailing lists do not allow attachments, and cannot transmit viruses. Only users can. If you have a virus problem or question impacting others on this list, write me offlist at [email protected] or [email protected] Thanks, Chris Christopher Brooks, List Administrator: ==================================== BROOKS-NE (Brooks Families of New England), HAPGOOD, and MERRIAM lists at RootsWeb. ==================================== [email protected] --=======A4732F4======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6A573B35 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01 --=======A4732F4=======--

This is a HOAX, do NOT delete this file!!!!! Regards, Fred V Provoncha Visit our Homepage at: http://home.att.net/~unclefred and Essex County Genweb page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyessex/ and Essex County ALH Page: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/essex/ and Quebec web page http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~unclefred/main.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn L (Runyan) Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 2:56 PM Subject: [B-NE] Virus I Found and May have Sent > > | Dear friends and family: > > | > > | A friend sent me the following information this morning. I checked our > > | system and sure enough I located the virus on our computer as well. It > > | apparently spreads automatically to everyone in your address book. > > | > > | The virus lies dormant for 14 days, then it kills your hard drive. > > | > > | Here's how to check for the virus: > > | > > | 1. Click "START", then either "Find" or "Search" for Files and Folders. > > | > > | 2. Search the "C" drive and any backup drives for the file sulfnbk.exe > > | (that's the virus program) > > | 3. If you find it, it has an ugly black icon and the sulfnbk.exe file > > | name > > | 4. If the first search doesn't find it, try a "new search", maybe > > | expanded to other drives...or maybe you might want to do this search > > | regularly until the anti virus updates catch up with it. > > | 5. IF YOU FIND IT, DON'T OPEN IT!!!!!!!! > > | 6. RIGHT click on it, then left click on the "delete" command. Send it > > | to the recycle bin. > > | 7. Go back to the desk top and right click on the Recycle Bin icon. > > | 8. Delete it as you did before or you can just empty the Recycle Bin > > | completely. > > | 9. IF YOU FIND IT IN YOUR COMPUTER, YOU NEED TO SEND THIS OR A SIMILAR > > | MESSAGE TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK RIGHT AWAY! > > | > > | > > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > To unsub, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > or [email protected] > >

> | Dear friends and family: > | > | A friend sent me the following information this morning. I checked our > | system and sure enough I located the virus on our computer as well. It > | apparently spreads automatically to everyone in your address book. > | > | The virus lies dormant for 14 days, then it kills your hard drive. > | > | Here's how to check for the virus: > | > | 1. Click "START", then either "Find" or "Search" for Files and Folders. > | > | 2. Search the "C" drive and any backup drives for the file sulfnbk.exe > | (that's the virus program) > | 3. If you find it, it has an ugly black icon and the sulfnbk.exe file > | name > | 4. If the first search doesn't find it, try a "new search", maybe > | expanded to other drives...or maybe you might want to do this search > | regularly until the anti virus updates catch up with it. > | 5. IF YOU FIND IT, DON'T OPEN IT!!!!!!!! > | 6. RIGHT click on it, then left click on the "delete" command. Send it > | to the recycle bin. > | 7. Go back to the desk top and right click on the Recycle Bin icon. > | 8. Delete it as you did before or you can just empty the Recycle Bin > | completely. > | 9. IF YOU FIND IT IN YOUR COMPUTER, YOU NEED TO SEND THIS OR A SIMILAR > | MESSAGE TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK RIGHT AWAY! > | > |

Happy Holidays, Chris and List, While researching another ancestor, I found the following~~~ "The Farmington, Connecticut Committee of Inspection investigated reports that militia officer Thomas BROOKS was "unfriendly to the constitutional rights of America in June 1776!" Brooks freely admitted that he "could not satisfy himself that the colonies were justified in their present measures and that he could not join them to take up arms." Such "principles and temper," the committee voted, disqualified him from holding a militia office, and it recommended that the General Assembly strip him of that office. Committees repeatedly used the formula of stating the furthest extent of suspicion brought to their attention before indicating that the evidence demonstrated a specific and less serious infraction." ~~~ SOURCE: The Loyalists in Revolutionary America, 1760-1781 by Robert McCluer Calhoon pg. 301 ISBN 0-15154745-9 Can anyone on the list provide additional details of what followed for Thomas? (Note: my computer is still down so I'm checking my email at the library). ~~~Pam

Christopher Brooks wrote: [snip] > FWIW, I'm inclined to consider your identification plausible to likely -- > but IMO the evidence isn't really there yet to advance beyond the > hypothesis stage right now. [snip] I agree entirely. > Of William/1's 16 natural children, Jonathan happens to be the only one I > haven't been able to account for to my personal satisfaction. I'd love to > fit in the last remaining piece of that puzzle. :-) Me too. > Sorry if I seemed to misstate your position and/or write it off, and thanks > for straightening me out. :-) No question, it is a puzzlement! Maybe one day we will be able to figure it all out. > Chris Val

The follow is an abstract of what was sent to me by Mr. Doherty as part of his study of the Beekman Patent, Dutchess County, NY. In many instances little other information is offered than what is found below, in a few cases substantially more is found. In most cases his sources are given, but an index of the abbreviations are not, though some are certainly apparent. Although the title page was not attached, I'm relatively confident that the work is copy written as Mr. Doherty sells chapters according to surname; thus I do not feel that I should transmit his notes in their entirety. However, if anyone would like I will be happy to respond privately on any specific name, with a exact date and Mr. Doherty's source together with any other comments he may have made. Chapter 93 (pp. 757-761) THE BROOKS FAMILY By: Frank Doherty ([email protected]) "Several members of the Brooks family were in Beekman and others were in Rombout. We have not found the origins of this family although we suspect that James Brooks was from New Jersey and William Brooks may have been of the Albany family, as was Jonathan. Our notes on this family follow:" -?- BROOKS m Margaret d/o Pontius Wooley of Clinton [Washington Co., NY?] Wooley's will was dated 1813 -?- BROOKS m a dau of William Clark of Petersburgh, NY; Clark's will dated 1822 & names Brooks gr-daus: Eliza, Polly, Zeline & Clarissa ABIGAIL mc 1800 Sylvanus Burtch DAVID w/ Maria McNeil at Red Hook 1796 D. & MARIA M. BROOKS witnessed will of Christopher Hagadorn of Livingston, Columbia Co., NY1800 DAVID (Jr) witnessed will of Matthew Van Bunschoten1818 ETHUREL of Schaghticoke, NY will dated 1816 HULDA m John Woodward bc 1765 ISAAC of Poughkeepsie will dated 1793, wife Mary, daus Elizabeth, Sarah & Jane Maria, brothers-in-law Rogers & Hendrickson ISRAEL of Hal Moon, Saratoga Co will dated 1794 mentions wife Sarah d/o John Bagg, dec'd of West Springfield, MA JAMES taxed 1755-69, witness to deed 1766, taxed 1770 JAMES bc 1733 in NJ, in muster 1760; m 1754; had: Anna, Elizabeth, George & Isaac JAMES m 1815 Mrs. Mary Hillequist both of Poughkeepsie JAMES sponser at Rhinebeck 1775 for Joseph Heakens JANE m Thomas Alley, no date JANE (sister of Isaac) m 1776 JANE MARIA, (dau of Isaac?) m 1814 Henry S. Northrup JOHANNES TOBIAS BROOKS w/ Rhody had: Tobias bp 1794 Rhinebeck JOHN m 1814 Ann Grimshaw of Poughkeepsie JONATHAN m at Albany 1727 Rebecca Totten, sister of John Totten of Rombout, Dutchess Co; John Toten left a will probated in 1771 in which Jonathan & Rebecca where appointed executors; had bp [at Albany]: Elizabeth, Ann, Maria, & Catarina JONATHAN taxed in 1758-72; his estate taxed 1773-79; Jonathan of Rombout will dated 1772, pr 1773; wife Elizabeth; had: Elizabeth & Jonathan (Jr) who m 1763 [1?] Elizabeth Griffen; m [2?] Mary Vermilia [Note VVZ: If Doherty, in his opening remarks, is suggesting that Jonathan of Albany & Jonathan of Rombout are one in the same, it does not seem to be correct. Jonathan of Albany did have a son Jonathan Jr. who w/ Elizabeth Bratt had 2 children bp at the Dutch Reformed Church at Albany: Rebecca 16 Oct 1774 & Johannes 14 May 1779. The two Jonathan Jrs. do seem to be about the same age, HOWEVER three Jonathans found in the NY 1790 cencus: one at Albany 1st ward; one at Fishkill, Dutchess, Co; & one at New Cornwall, Orange Co] JONATHAN m [no date] Catherine Matthews bc 1750, d/o Fletcher Matthew JONATHAN of Woodbridge, NJ m [no date] as her 2nd husband Hannah Bloomfield b 1725; administered estate of Jeremiah Bloomfield in 1757 MARIA M., D., & DANIEL N. witnessed will of Leonard Pells of Poughkeepsie 1819; Maria M. & David witnessed mtg betw Joseph Lockwood of Beekman & Thomas Tillotson of Rhinebeck1811 Mrs. MARY m 1796 John P. Vemont at Pleasant Valley NATHANIEL m 1767 in Rombout or Poughkeepsie to Catherine Haff NOAH of Leyden, Lewis Co., NY will dated 1811; wife Sarah, youngest sons Albert P. & Nathan T. & others [unnamed] PETER w/ Elizabeth Leddij had: Mallij b 1773 at Rhinebeck ROLLINS gr-dau of Uriah Lawrence whose will was dated 1800 SOPHIA w/ Nahemiah Perry had: Caroline b 1817 THOMAS taxed 1753-55 THOMAS m 1727 Desire b 1707 d/o Henry & Desire Bristol of Chesire, CT TIMOTHY w/ Katy Dutcher had: child [unnamed] bp 1787 in NYC WILLIAM taxed 1775 & 177; he is not in Beekman or Pawling in 1790 WILLIAM m 1764 Elizabeth Miller; had: Philip b 1767, William bp 1770 WILLEM w/ Sarah had: children [unnamed] bp at Zion Luthern Church [Note VVZ: this would be Wihelm bp 15 May 1748 DRC at Albany s/o Josua(h) Brooks/Broeks & Geertje Jans Bont, he m Sara(h) Halenbeek bp 12 Dec 1757 at DRC Athens; had bp at Athens 1778-92: Christina, Geesche, Josua, Cornelis, Annatje, Margareth; born at Claverack Abraham, & Casper betw 1795-97] WILLIAM m Sarah Applee sister of Conrad of Fishkill who's will dated 1783; William witness to will of Levinas Totten of Fishkill 11 Dec 1790 = = = = = = = = == = = = = 1790 Census for BROOKS in NY State County / Town / Page / Name / Males 16+ / Males 16- / Females Albany / Albany, 1st ward / 12 / Jonathan / 3 / 3 / 4 Albany / Coxsackie town / 22 / William / 1 / 2 / 3 Albany / Hoosick / 31 / William / 1 / 1 / 1 Albany / Rensselaerwick / 35 / John / 2 / 3 / illeg. Albany / Watervliet / 53 / Peter / 2 / 4 / 5 Dutchess / Fishkill / 80 / Jonathan / 2 / - / 1 Dutchess / Fishkill / 81 / William / 1 / 2 / 3 Dutchess / Frederickstown / 83 / Nathan / 1 / 4 / 1 Dutchess / Northeast Town / 86 / Joseph / 1 / 2 / 3 Dutchess / Poughkeepsie / 90 / Ruben / 1 / - / 4 Dutchess / Poughkeepsie / 91 / Isaac / 1 / - / 3 Dutchess / Rhinebeck / 92 / David / 2 / 3 / 4 Montgomery / Canajoharie /101 / Benjamin/ 1 / - / 4 Montgomery / Chemung /105 / Cornelius/ 1 / 2 / 7 Montgomery / Chemung / 105 / John / 1 / 1 / 1 New York / North Ward /125 / Michael/ 2 / 5 / 6 New York / Out Ward / 127 / Henry / 2 / 2 / 2 New York / West Ward / 134 / John / 1 / - / 1 Orange / Haverstaw / 140 / Nathaniel / 3 / 3 / 4 Orange / New Cornwall /144 / Jonathan / 5 / 3 / 3 Orange / New Cornwall /145 / George / 1 / 1 / 2 Orange / New Cornwall /145 / John / 2 / 4 / 5 Orange / New Cornwall /146 / John / 1 / 3 / 3 Orange / Warwick / 147 / Michael / 2 / 2 / 4 Queens / N. Hempstead /152 / David / 2 / 1 / 3 Queens / Qyster Bay / 154 / John / 1 / 1 / 1 Ulster / Mamakating / 173 / Jeremiah / 1 / 1/ 5 Ulster / Mamakating / 173 / Jeremiah / 2 / 1 / 4 Ulster / Mamakating / 173 / John / 2 / 1 / 4 Washington / Salem / 192 / Uri / 1 / 4 / 3 Washington / Westfield /193 / William/ 1 / 3 / 7 Westchester / Salem / 205 / Michael / 1 / 3 / 3 Westchester / Salem / 206 / John / 1 / 3 / 2

Hello again - I certainly bow to David Hoffman's comments. As for myself I do not have an answer. I can say that my little, very worn out, Dutch to English dictionary has the following: "ten - eerste, tweede = first(ly), second(ly)". Oddly enough the translation of "broek" is not brook, but trousers or pants. When looking up "brook" in the reverse dictionary (English to Dutch) one fines the Dutch word "dulden" meaning marshy lands. I have discovered in the past that my trusty little dictionary is not altogether accurate and should anyone want me to investigate further, I do have some Dutch pen pals who have come to my aide many times in the past. I would be happy to get their take on the question. I can tell you that there was an early Dutch family by the name "Ten Broek" in NYS. I saw many records for them some years ago when I was searching for some of my NYS surnames. I have not followed the line(s), but think that it might be very well researched by others. Val Christopher Brooks wrote: > David Hoffman wrote: > > >>What would the prefix Ten > >>translate to? > > > >Ten is a Dutch preposition meaning near. > > So might Ten Broek mean > > "near Brooks"? > as in "nearly [almost] Broek"? > > Does it refer to one who lives near water (assuming there's a Dutch > word > akin to broek for a brook or stream)? > > Do the English and Dutch surnames equate, or are they just similar by > coincidence as soundalikes? > > Anyone? > > Chris

--=======44702A0A======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5AB67445; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit David Hoffman wrote: >>What would the prefix Ten >>translate to? > >Ten is a Dutch preposition meaning near. So might Ten Broek mean "near Brooks"? as in "nearly [almost] Broek"? Does it refer to one who lives near water (assuming there's a Dutch word akin to broek for a brook or stream)? Do the English and Dutch surnames equate, or are they just similar by coincidence as soundalikes? Anyone? Chris --=======44702A0A======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5AB67445 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.309 / Virus Database: 170 - Release Date: 12/17/01 --=======44702A0A=======--

>From: Christopher Brooks <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [B-NE] Could Brooks be BROEKS? >Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:18:11 -0500 [snippet] >What would the prefix Ten >translate to? Ten is a Dutch preposition meaning near. David _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

--=======C885F65======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5AB67445; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Valentine Van Zee wrote: > I am not as >convinced as Chris that the line was originally Dutch, but have found no >evidence which would prove one way or another what the origin was. There >is no question that for 4 generations the Brooks men married Dutch wives >(at least in my line). Considering where they were living I do not find >this surprising; nor is the fact that they frequented the Dutch Reformed >Church. [snip] >Mrs. Harris' contention that the name was NOT originally Ten Broeks, >though in a number of records the name can be found as Broeks, as >recorded no doubt, by Dutch ministers or clerks, while in other records >found with the Anglicized spelling. [snip] I'm not as convinced, either. :-) You offer a logical explanation for the name spelling ... that he didn't change it, but rather that Dutch recorders translated Brooks to BROEKS or whatever. What would the prefix Ten translate to? >Mrs. Harris took her THEORY back one more generation, suggesting the >POSSIBILITY that the Jonathan Brooks first found in Albany in 1727 could >be the son of Jonathan Brooks born 13 Oct 1674, son of William Brooks >and Mary Burt. Jonathan (b 1674) reported left MA about 1701 and has >further been reported in either Staten Island or Long Island in 1725. >Personally I have never been able to locate a record to verify his >presence on either of these islands. However, it is interesting to note >that the Jonathan (of Albany) married a gal whose family came from >Hempstead, Long Island. Of the three sources I have for this Jonathan being on Long or Staten Island in 1725, only one offers any specifics as to his source. Warren's "Springfield Families," a humongous typescript which I've found to be quite accurate, says, "in Staten Island in 1725, see deed D-520," wherever that would be found. FWIW, I'm inclined to consider your identification plausible to likely -- but IMO the evidence isn't really there yet to advance beyond the hypothesis stage right now. Of William/1's 16 natural children, Jonathan happens to be the only one I haven't been able to account for to my personal satisfaction. I'd love to fit in the last remaining piece of that puzzle. :-) Sorry if I seemed to misstate your position and/or write it off, and thanks for straightening me out. :-) Chris --=======C885F65======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5AB67445 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.309 / Virus Database: 170 - Release Date: 12/17/01 --=======C885F65=======--

Let's complicate things even more: My BROOKS family imigrated to NYS from England, winding up in Woodhull, Steuben, NY. One of them, Carrie COLVIN (b. Mar1874) married Elwyn TENBROECK (Dec1872, son of Hiram TENBROECK. -----Original Message----- From: Eve [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [B-NE] Could Brooks be BROEKS? Hi, I am wondering if during research of NYS Brooks lines, anyone has traced a Brooks back to a Dutch BROEKS or Ten Broeks? (or something similar) My Brooks family married almost exclusively Dutch spouses and were baptized in Dutch Reformed churches in Columbia, Greene and Rensselaer counties. The earliest record in my line so far is the following, sent to me by another Brooks researcher, bless her heart. Joshua (Brooks) married Geertje Jans BONT, daughter of Jan Hendrikse Lendertsz BONT and Jannetje SCHERP, on 14 Jan 1729 in Linlithgo Reformed Church, Kinderhook, Albany County (now Columbia), NY. Geertje was christened1 on 18 Jan 1708 in Claverack, NY. The origins of Joshua arent' known to me. The later generations of this family lived in both Greene county and Schodack, Rensselaer county. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. Alternate spellings in church records are Broeks, Broocks, Broecks, and one Bruks. Aloha Eve ______________________________

Hi Eve and Chris - Yes, Eve and I corresponded back in September briefly. My original post to this list was in June 2000, and is in the archives. Since then I have not made any further progress in identifying Joshua Brooks. I am not as convinced as Chris that the line was originally Dutch, but have found no evidence which would prove one way or another what the origin was. There is no question that for 4 generations the Brooks men married Dutch wives (at least in my line). Considering where they were living I do not find this surprising; nor is the fact that they frequented the Dutch Reformed Church. Loretta Harris, who lived in the area, did a great deal of primary research on the family back in the '70s, but could not say for sure what the origin was. Her best GUESS was that Joshua MIGHT BE the brother of the Jonathan Brooks who was married at the Dutch Reformed Church at Albany in 1727 and can be found owing a lot on the west side of South Pearl Street at the foot of Gallows Hill in Albany in 1729. (Pearson, "Genealogies of the First Setters in Albany, 1978, p. 27) As far as I know there is no direct evidence that the two were in fact brothers. Both did begin to appear in Albany County (Joshua at Kinderhook) within two years of each other and both named daughters Elizabeth. From what is known of the two they also appear to have been in the same general age bracket and were the only two in the area who bore this name. It was Mrs. Harris' contention that the name was NOT originally Ten Broeks, though in a number of records the name can be found as Broeks, as recorded no doubt, by Dutch ministers or clerks, while in other records found with the Anglicized spelling. Mrs. Harris took her THEORY back one more generation, suggesting the POSSIBILITY that the Jonathan Brooks first found in Albany in 1727 could be the son of Jonathan Brooks born 13 Oct 1674, son of William Brooks and Mary Burt. Jonathan (b 1674) reported left MA about 1701 and has further been reported in either Staten Island or Long Island in 1725. Personally I have never been able to locate a record to verify his presence on either of these islands. However, it is interesting to note that the Jonathan (of Albany) married a gal whose family came from Hempstead, Long Island. I did send for (and receive) some Brooks information pertaining to research which has been done in the Beekman Patent, and apologize to the list for not forwarding it. In the coming days I will correct this oversight. Valentine Van Zee Atlanta, GA > Eve Grogan wrote: > > >I am wondering if during research of NYS Brooks lines, anyone has > traced a > >Brooks back to a > >Dutch BROEKS or Ten Broeks? (or something similar) > >My Brooks family married almost exclusively Dutch spouses and were > >baptized in Dutch Reformed > >churches in Columbia, Greene and Rensselaer counties. > >The earliest record in my line so far is the following, sent to me by > > >another Brooks researcher, bless > >her heart. > > > >Joshua (Brooks) married Geertje Jans BONT, daughter of Jan Hendrikse > >Lendertsz BONT and Jannetje SCHERP, on 14 Jan 1729 in Linlithgo > Reformed > >Church, Kinderhook, Albany County (now Columbia), NY. Geertje was > >christened1 on 18 Jan 1708 in Claverack, NY. > > > >The origins of Joshua arent' known to me. > >The later generations of this family lived in both Greene county and > >Schodack, Rensselaer county. > >If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. > >Alternate spellings in church records are Broeks, Broocks, Broecks, > and > >one Bruks. > Christopher Brooks wrote: > Valentine Van Zee (sp? capitalization?) inquired about this line > perhaps a > year or more ago, and there were several replies. A couple of months > ago > there was another query -- perhaps yours? -- and Anne Brooks Willis > replied > with some Dutch snippets and suggestions. Have you looked at the list > archive? This ought to provide you with additional researcher names, > and > with Val's address, if she wasn't the recent source you allude to. > > Obviously this line is of Dutch extraction, and first settled in the > Hudson > River Valley of New York. I haven't seen anything from Valentine since > her > original questions -- but whatever you find, it would be kind to share > it > with the list, so that we won't have to shrug and respond "Huh?" when > the > next Dutch query comes along. There was talk a year ago of looking > into the > Beekman Patent, and similar esoterica, but we as a list have received > no > followup information. > > Chris >

In looking for NY Dutch ancestors, I highly recommend the massive, very informative Dutch-Colonies list at rootsweb. Check the archives before joining! It's a very busy list. From this list [Dutch-Colonies] you'll also find all sorts of links to online information. Have fun! Dutch genealogy is like no other :>) Deb Inman