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 >