--=======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=======--

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