Dear List, Here is some new info on Michiel Tadens, the inn keeper of Pearl Street: http://17thcenturyhollanders.pbworks.com/w/page/62543473/Michiel%20Tadens%20of%20New%20Amsterdam Regards Cor Snabel

Hi Howard, Yes, I remember what Stuyvesant's problem with the marriage of Johannes van Beeck with Maria Varlet was about. Stuyvesant was trying to preserve his own hide. Johannes van Beeck's father, Isaac van Beeck, was a bewindhebber (Director) in the West Indies Company in the Amsterdam Camer. Records from New Amsterdam bear his signature on various WIC drectives addressed to Pieter Stuyvesant in the 1650's. Stuyvesant had recently questioned the authority of a less-then full complement of the bewindhebbers to give him an order (probably by way of explaining why he didn't fulfill one of their directives). Than in one of their return letters to Stuyvesant, the Lords-Directors chastized him, making a point of telling him that even though only two Directors at a time sign these directives to him, their instructions should be considered to be from all of them as a unanimous unit. In the letter wherein they make that comment, all of the directors at that time in the Amsterdam WIC do sign as an proof to Stuyvesant that they all agree that when two signatures appear on one of their directives no matter which two, it is always to be understood as coming from them all. After that, the Directors take turns signing these letters. Isaac van Beeck's name appears in these directives to Stuyvesant several times in the 1650s. In 1652, two of Isaac van Beeck's older sons, Nicholas and Joost, joined into their own company and set out to invest in farmland in the NN colony, near New Amsterdam. Letters from the WIC indicate that they instructed Stuyvesant to facilitate these men, "or their agents" could acquire "as much and such land in New Netherland, as they shall be able to cultivate, also one or two good lots on the Manhattans, to build houses...". I believe that Nicholas and Joost van Beeck's agent was their younger brother Johannes van Beeck. He was in New Amsterdaam by March 13th 1653, when the Burgomeesters and Schepens had a meeting about strengthening the defenses of the Fort New Amsterdam. His name appears on a list of persons "who are to contribute provisionally the following sums for the repairs of the defenses of this City." Johannes van Beeck's name is the second on the list, and he is to contribute f200, one of several who are assessed that amount, which is the highest amount anyone is asked to contribute. This is actually a loan made to the city by the wealthier part of New Amsterdam's citizens.. Johannes van Beeck was not even 25, the legal age of majority, in 1653, since he was baptized on 5 July 1629 in Amsterdam. Probably van Beeck carried private latters of introduction to Stuyvesant, as well as powers of attorney from his brothers, and letters of credit from them, and so forth. We can't know for sure, but possibly his father Isaac van Beeck had privately requested Stuyvesant to look after Johannes, but even if not, Stuyvesant would have known of his youth. And the custom in Holland was that a parent or guardian, or another family member would appear at the office of marriage registrations at the time of the ondertrouw (official engagement), to give consent to the engagement --even if the marrying person was older than 25. So Stuyvesant, who I am sure felt responsible for this young man, would have been very concerned over the effect this marriage would have upon ihs own career once Isaac van Beeck learned of it. In February, 1654, Johannes van Beeck petitioned the court at New Amsterdam for permission to post banns in New Amsterdam. Copy. Kind Friends: Whereas on this date the 10th of February, 1654, by petition presented to our Court by Johannes van Beeck, he requests, that his bans with Maria Varleth may be entered and be properly proclaimed here, and we have understood, that the same Johannes van Beeck and Marya Verleth had previously to this made proclamation of their bans through your Court at Gravesend, which (under correction) is contrary to the style and laws of our Fatherland, it is our request to your Honorable Court, in case such a circumstance should hereafter occur, that we may be informed thereof in order to prevent on one side and the other all improprieties, which we on our part engage to do in like manner, especially as it is usual, according to the custom of our Fatherland, that every one shall have three publications at the place, where his domicile is, and then he may go and be married wherever he pleases; wherein we are and remain Your affectionate friends (Signed) Arent van Hattem By order of the Burgomasters and Schepens of the City of N. Amsterdam. Jacob Kip, Secretary. Done, N. Amsterdam in N. Netherland this 10 February 1654. The superscription is: The Worsp l the Magistrates at Gravesend. [Source: Fernow, Berthold, ed., The Records of New Amsterdam From 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, Volume I Minutes of the Court of Burgomasters and Schepens 1653-1655, pp. 157-58 (NY, NY: The Knickerbocker Press, 1897). pp.158-60] Apparently no one in New Amsterdam felt they could give consent for Johannes van Beeck. I am sure Maria Varlet's father did approve and give consent for his daughter, but this is only one-half of the consents needed. Johannes van Beeck would need written consent from his father, and Stuyvesant would need to see that, or the minister would need to, and would be expected to let Stuyvesant know he had it. Meanwhile, Johannes van Beeck did turn 25 in July 1654. Tired of waiting around for what clearly would never happen in New Amsterdam, he and Maria Varlet were married on 14 September 1654, in Greenwich, by Goodman Crab. So that's the story. Best wishes, Liz J On 16 January 2013 19:33, Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > This situation in Gravesend seems to have been about just one couple -- > Johannes van Beeck and Maria Verleth. They were apparently living in > New Amsterdam, yet posted banns in Gravesend as opposed to posting > in the town where they lived. (see Nelson pp. xxii to xxv.) > > As you can see from the Duke’s Laws I provided a link to, > this was also in violation of English law and practice. > > I have seen some cases where the bride and groom were > living in different cities and marriage intentions and banns > in both cities have survived. > > I don’t know why Stuyvesant was so upset by this one case. > There is more in an article on the Verleth family in NYGBR -- > see vol 9, no. 3, pp 113 – 115. The couple seems to have > eventually gone to Connecticut to get married. > > I think we’ve discussed this particular case before here, but I’ve > forgotten the details and the motivations of the people involved. > Did someone oppose the marriage? > Maybe Liz will remember. > > Regards, > Howard > hswain@ix.netcom.com >

Hi Jim, This situation in Gravesend seems to have been about just one couple -- Johannes van Beeck and Maria Verleth. They were apparently living in New Amsterdam, yet posted banns in Gravesend as opposed to posting in the town where they lived. (see Nelson pp. xxii to xxv.) As you can see from the Duke’s Laws I provided a link to, this was also in violation of English law and practice. I have seen some cases where the bride and groom were living in different cities and marriage intentions and banns in both cities have survived. I don’t know why Stuyvesant was so upset by this one case. There is more in an article on the Verleth family in NYGBR -- see vol 9, no. 3, pp 113 – 115. The couple seems to have eventually gone to Connecticut to get married. I think we’ve discussed this particular case before here, but I’ve forgotten the details and the motivations of the people involved. Did someone oppose the marriage? Maybe Liz will remember. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: James Harder Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:30 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns"(vs.marriage) Howard and list, In addition to a list of early marriage licenses issued in New Jersey, there's an extended treatment of colonial marriage laws and practices in Marriages 1665-1800, by William Nelson 1900, which is Vol. XXII of the DCHSNJ series, available on-line: http://archive.org/details/marriagerecords101nels It's interesting that you mention Gravesend, where the magistrates were ordered by the Director General in 1654 to cease the improper public posting of banns not "in accordance with correct practice of the ecclesiastical and civil order" (Nelson p.xxiii) Apparently the English settlers at Gravesend weren't following the Dutch laws precisely enough. Jim ________________________________ From: Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) Hi all, As I recall, marriage was not a sacrament in the Calvinist churches -- Reformed (including Dutch Reformed), the New England Puritans, etc. It was, thus, a civil matter. However, ministers could marry people, as well as could justices of the peace or magistrates. After the English took control in 1664, the Duke of York's Laws were promulgated in 1665. Here is the section on Marriages: http://books.google.com/books?id=ggQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=%22Whereas+by+the+law+of+England+no+marriage%22&lr=&as_brr=0 Note at the top of page 46: "...it shall be Lawfull for any Minister or for any Justice of Peace to joyne the Parties in Marriage..." (This is, of course, after the banns have been read 3 times.) Other than the marriage intentions and marriages shown in the various church records, there were many other places that pre-nuptial agreements, marriage intentions, marriage licenses, and marriages were recorded. Many marriage licenses are shown in: _Names of persons for whom marriage licenses were issued by the secretary of the province of New York, previous to 1784_, Albany : Weed, Parsons and Co., 1860. This was reprinted in 1968 with corrections and many additions. One of the additions is a list of marriages, etc. shown in O’Callaghan’s Calendar of Dutch Mss. and Calendar of English Mss. Some of these are from the Register of the Provincial Secretary and are called marriage contract. (Seems like its a combinational of pre-nup and marriage intentions.) Others are from the various volumes of Council Minutes and record an actual marriage by “the court”. In The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini, ed. by Berthold Fernow, Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1976 there are a few pages of banns entered before the Mayor of NY (vol. 6, pp. 262, 334, and 335). There are also marriages, marriage licences or both that were recorded in some of the will books and are in the Abstracts of Wills. I think there have been indications of marriages that were at least being planned in the Records of the Orphanmasters. Lastly, there is a list of Gravesend marriages from 1664 to 1702 in NYGBR vol 4, pp. 199-200. These were copied from the town books of Gravesend by Tunis Bergen. There may be more in other places; but this shows the variety of places were you can find (and should look for) marriage records. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Howard and list, In addition to a list of early marriage licenses issued in New Jersey, there's an extended treatment of colonial marriage laws and practices in Marriages 1665-1800, by William Nelson 1900, which is Vol. XXII of the DCHSNJ series, available on-line:  http://archive.org/details/marriagerecords101nels It's interesting that you mention Gravesend, where the magistrates were ordered by the Director General in 1654 to cease the improper public posting of banns not "in accordance with correct practice of the ecclesiastical and civil order" (Nelson p.xxiii)  Apparently the English settlers at Gravesend weren't following the Dutch laws precisely enough.   Jim ________________________________ From: Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) Hi all, As I recall, marriage was not a sacrament in the Calvinist churches -- Reformed (including Dutch Reformed), the New England Puritans, etc. It was, thus, a civil matter. However, ministers could marry people, as well as could justices of the peace or magistrates. After the English took control in 1664, the Duke of York's Laws were promulgated in 1665. Here is the section on Marriages: http://books.google.com/books?id=ggQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=%22Whereas+by+the+law+of+England+no+marriage%22&lr=&as_brr=0 Note at the top of page 46: "...it shall be Lawfull for any Minister or for any Justice of Peace to joyne the Parties in Marriage..." (This is, of course, after the banns have been read 3 times.) Other than the marriage intentions and marriages shown in the various church records, there were many other places that pre-nuptial agreements, marriage intentions, marriage licenses, and marriages were recorded. Many marriage licenses are shown in: _Names of persons for whom marriage licenses were issued by the secretary of the province of New York, previous to 1784_, Albany : Weed, Parsons and Co., 1860.  This was reprinted in 1968 with corrections and many additions. One of the additions is a list of marriages, etc. shown in O’Callaghan’s Calendar of Dutch Mss. and Calendar of English Mss.  Some of these are from the Register of the Provincial Secretary and are called marriage contract. (Seems like its a combinational of pre-nup and marriage intentions.) Others are from the various volumes of Council Minutes and record an actual marriage by “the court”. In The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini, ed. by Berthold Fernow, Baltimore:  Genealogical Pub. Co., 1976 there are a few pages of banns entered before the Mayor of NY (vol. 6, pp. 262, 334, and 335). There are also marriages, marriage licences or both that were recorded in some of the will books and are in the Abstracts of Wills. I think there have been indications of marriages that were at least being planned in the Records of the Orphanmasters. Lastly, there is a list of Gravesend marriages from 1664 to 1702 in NYGBR vol 4, pp. 199-200. These were copied from the town books of Gravesend by Tunis Bergen. There may be more in other places; but this shows the variety of places were you can find (and should look for) marriage records. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: juliasgenes Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:04 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) It's just me interjecting my naive and unscholarly opinion here, but I suppose one inference of finding evidence of ancestors following the banns procedure would be that the parties were fairly religious in the RDC and were rules-followers, not ones to shake things up. If no banns are found where they would be expected to be in spite of diligent searching, some inferences could be made that the parties had left the RDC and aligned themselves with a faith that does not have a process of speaking/ publishing banns; or maybe that they have removed to someplace else, at least for the period when the banns would be made; or that they were iconoclasts and had dropped out of religion altogether. Which brings to mind this question: was there a civil alternative in colonial New Netherlands for marriage? Or for the non-religious Dutch, was marriage one of those few times they absolutely had to step into a church? Positive information is always great to have, but many people fail to realize that there just might be value in negative information. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all, As I recall, marriage was not a sacrament in the Calvinist churches -- Reformed (including Dutch Reformed), the New England Puritans, etc. It was, thus, a civil matter. However, ministers could marry people, as well as could justices of the peace or magistrates. After the English took control in 1664, the Duke of York's Laws were promulgated in 1665. Here is the section on Marriages: http://books.google.com/books?id=ggQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=%22Whereas+by+the+law+of+England+no+marriage%22&lr=&as_brr=0 Note at the top of page 46: "...it shall be Lawfull for any Minister or for any Justice of Peace to joyne the Parties in Marriage..." (This is, of course, after the banns have been read 3 times.) Other than the marriage intentions and marriages shown in the various church records, there were many other places that pre-nuptial agreements, marriage intentions, marriage licenses, and marriages were recorded. Many marriage licenses are shown in: _Names of persons for whom marriage licenses were issued by the secretary of the province of New York, previous to 1784_, Albany : Weed, Parsons and Co., 1860. This was reprinted in 1968 with corrections and many additions. One of the additions is a list of marriages, etc. shown in O’Callaghan’s Calendar of Dutch Mss. and Calendar of English Mss. Some of these are from the Register of the Provincial Secretary and are called marriage contract. (Seems like its a combinational of pre-nup and marriage intentions.) Others are from the various volumes of Council Minutes and record an actual marriage by “the court”. In The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini, ed. by Berthold Fernow, Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1976 there are a few pages of banns entered before the Mayor of NY (vol. 6, pp. 262, 334, and 335). There are also marriages, marriage licences or both that were recorded in some of the will books and are in the Abstracts of Wills. I think there have been indications of marriages that were at least being planned in the Records of the Orphanmasters. Lastly, there is a list of Gravesend marriages from 1664 to 1702 in NYGBR vol 4, pp. 199-200. These were copied from the town books of Gravesend by Tunis Bergen. There may be more in other places; but this shows the variety of places were you can find (and should look for) marriage records. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: juliasgenes Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:04 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) It's just me interjecting my naive and unscholarly opinion here, but I suppose one inference of finding evidence of ancestors following the banns procedure would be that the parties were fairly religious in the RDC and were rules-followers, not ones to shake things up. If no banns are found where they would be expected to be in spite of diligent searching, some inferences could be made that the parties had left the RDC and aligned themselves with a faith that does not have a process of speaking/ publishing banns; or maybe that they have removed to someplace else, at least for the period when the banns would be made; or that they were iconoclasts and had dropped out of religion altogether. Which brings to mind this question: was there a civil alternative in colonial New Netherlands for marriage? Or for the non-religious Dutch, was marriage one of those few times they absolutely had to step into a church? Positive information is always great to have, but many people fail to realize that there just might be value in negative information.

Hi Liz Just to conclude what happened on the 1651 marriage mentioned in my note of 11 January. Thank you for the reference to the GAA online listings of which I was not previously aware so I checked the 1651 marriage as well as some other records I already have directly from the archives. My reading of the marriage as 11th October was wrong and not ' De xi ' but from their correct reading is in fact ' Xxi ' i.e. 21st Oct, a Saturday I believe. This now makes sense with the way we understand it ought to have worked : Ondertrouw Sat 21 Oct, [ assumed ] 1st banns 22, 2nd 29, 3rd 5 Nov : they married 12 Nov [ not 11th as I mis typed in last mail ] . I did see another marriage where the ondertrouw was followed by marriage actually on the 3rd Sunday thereafter. This gives an actual case example from Holland but I think the original premise may have been in relation to NN, as one might expect. I have the records to be able to check those mentioned but do not have records to be able to check NN. I will see if I can find anything. Does anyone have corresponding information for a NN case? This did not take too long to accomplish and was quite interesting but I do not think has increased my knowledge materially. Laurence -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:02 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) I have about a thousand marriage records from Amsterdam, mostly for the eriod between 1574 and 1660. These are records of ondertrouw -- marriage ntentions. Most are not annotated in the margin. iz J On 11 January 2013 09:48, <llvk2@aol.com> wrote: > Hi Liz Just checked the other ' marriage ' records I have and virtually all entries have margin notes so perhaps you have been very unlucky? I have from Haarlem : 1614; 1625; 1631; 1636 and 1645 nearly all events being margin noted and I think mostly all getroud and Ouderkerk / Amsterdam 1647 where 1 of 2 on the page has a note [ my one! :-) ] . Laurence ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Although the following does not pertain to my ancestry, I think that there is a good chance that it will be of interest to some subscribers of New-Netherland or Dutch-Colonies. Perry Streeter (perry@streeter.com) www.perry.streeter.com -----Original Message----- From: adrianbenjaminburke@gmail.com [mailto:adrianbenjaminburke@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:31 PM To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: FOUR NEW COLONIAL GATEWAY IMMIGRANTS WITH MEDIEVAL ANCESTRY My article "The Livingston Ancestry of the Duncanson Sisters of New Netherland", is the result of nearly five years of research partially co-financed by "The Duncanson/Livingston Project", founded by the author and including Anthony Glenn Hoskins, Joseph V.R. V.E. Laux, and John Camp-all descendants of the Duncanson sisters. It is being serialized in THE GENEALOGIST, with part I appearing this April, part II this Fall, and part III in Spring 2014. For subscription information, please visit The American Society of Genealogists' website: www.fasg.org The starting point for this project was an article by Gordon L. Remington, FASG, who identified the parentage of four Duncanson women in an article published in the RECORD in 1997. The Duncanson sisters were daughters of Mr James Duncanson, Minister of Alloa, Clackmannanshire, Scotland, and his wife Helen Livingston. Mr James was the eldest son and heir of Rev. John Duncanson, Minister to James VI. Mr James's daughter Katherine arrived in New Amsterdam (New York City) in 1639 followed by three of her older sisters. (It is conceivable that some of their other siblings also immigrated but there is no evidence of this. I did discover an elder brother-not included in Remington's article-who almost certainly lived in England.) Part I identifies Helen Livingston's parentage and traces her Livingston ancestry for several generations, and includes her siblings and Livingston aunts and uncles. Part II examines in detail Helen's legitimate descent from Robert III, King of Scots (d. 1406). The noted Scottish genealogist Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Stockton Springs, Maine, contributed several references. His analysis of key evidence bolstered aspects of the royal descent and corrected some errors that have appeared in print over the years. From this one royal line alone the vast number of descendants of the Duncanson sisters in America can claim a broad swath of British and continental European medieval ancestry. Much of this ancestry can be traced on Leo van de Pas's site www.genealogics.org. Part III identifies Helen Livingston's mother based on contemporary documents I obtained in England. I trace Helen's maternal grandfather's male line back through several generations of prosperous merchant burgesses of Edinburgh to the late 1400s. I also uncovered an unusually close network of servants to Mary, Queen of Scots, and her son James VI (later King of England) which included Helen's mother, maternal grandmother and several other close relatives. The unique relationship between Helen's mother and King James I of England is the likely reason why Helen twice received royal favor from King James and his son Charles I. Helen's children appear to have been plucky and resourceful like their mother-Helen's daughter Katherine Duncanson became a successful trader after the death of her husband Hon. Alexander Glen. And Katherine and Alexander Glen's children founded large and prosperous families near Schenectady, New York. The mansion house built on the Glen plantation named "Nova Scotia" (Scotia, New York) survives to this day as the Glen-Sanders Mansion hotel and restaurant. I stayed at the mansion for several days and finished writing the first draft of my monograph in one of the upper rooms of the restored home (now used for corporate events and weddings). I published a notice of this project in FOUNDATIONS last year that mentioned the fact that Helen Livingston also descends from John Napier, 3rd Laird of Merchiston, and his wife Elizabeth Menteith of Rusky, senior co-heir general to the ancient Gaelic earldom of Lennox. This can be found online by subscription at www.fmg.ac. Many talented genealogists have provided assistance: Tony Hoskins, Janet Wolfe, John Blythe Dobson, FASG, and Andrew B.W. MacEwen. My editor Col. Charles Hansen, FASG, has worked tirelessly in preparing the lengthy manuscript and shown great patience over the past two years dealing with changes, additions, and corrections. I hope this project will promote greater interest not only in the Duncanson family but in other colonial New York families whose ancestries have not been studied in detail. ADRIAN BENJAMIN BURKE, JD, Bar of New York NEW YORK CITY

Howdy all, I have received permission from the author to repost the following announcement. Having been a financial supporter of the project, I can tell you that, while OT for this group, the findings were highly surprising with a spectacular resulting lineage. I am not at liberty to divulge any details of the findings outside of what is revealed in this announcement, so please don't ask. All inquiries should be made to the author, Adrian Benjamin Burke (adrianbenjaminburke@gmail.com). Thanks, John ================Start of announcement=================== My article "The Livingston Ancestry of the Duncanson Sisters of New Netherland", is the result of nearly five years of research partially co-financed by "The Duncanson/Livingston Project", founded by the author and including Anthony Glenn Hoskins, Joseph V.R. V.E. Laux, and John Camp-all descendants of the Duncanson sisters. It is being serialized in THE GENEALOGIST, with part I appearing this April, part II this Fall, and part III in Spring 2014. For subscription information, please visit The American Society of Genealogists' website: www.fasg.org. The starting point for this project was an article by Gordon L. Remington, FASG, who identified the parentage of four Duncanson women in an article published in the RECORD in 1997. The Duncanson sisters were daughters of Mr James Duncanson, Minister of Alloa, Clackmannanshire, Scotland, and his wife Helen Livingston. Mr James was the eldest son and heir of Rev. John Duncanson, Minister to James VI. Mr James's daughter Katherine arrived in New Amsterdam (New York City) in 1639 followed by three of her older sisters. (It is conceivable that some of their other siblings also immigrated but there is no evidence of this. I did discover an elder brother-not included in Remington's article-who almost certainly lived in England.) Part I identifies Helen Livingston's parentage and traces her Livingston ancestry for several generations, and includes her siblings and Livingston aunts and uncles. Part II examines in detail Helen's legitimate descent from Robert III, King of Scots (d. 1406). The noted Scottish genealogist Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Stockton Springs, Maine, contributed several references. His analysis of key evidence bolstered aspects of the royal descent and corrected some errors that have appeared in print over the years. From this one royal line alone the vast number of descendants of the Duncanson sisters in America can claim a broad swath of British and continental European medieval ancestry. Much of this ancestry can be traced on Leo van de Pas's site www.genealogics.org . Part III identifies Helen Livingston's mother based on contemporary documents I obtained in England. I trace Helen's maternal grandfather's male line back through several generations of prosperous merchant burgesses of Edinburgh to the late 1400s. I also uncovered an unusually close network of servants to Mary, Queen of Scots, and her son James VI (later King of England) which included Helen's mother, maternal grandmother and several other close relatives. The unique relationship between Helen's mother and King James I of England is the likely reason why Helen twice received royal favor from King James and his son Charles I. Helen's children appear to have been plucky and resourceful like their mother-Helen's daughter Katherine Duncanson became a successful trader after the death of her husband Hon. Alexander Glen. And Katherine and Alexander Glen's children founded large and prosperous families near Schenectady, New York. The mansion house built on the Glen plantation named "Nova Scotia" (Scotia, New York) survives to this day as the Glen-Sanders Mansion hotel and restaurant. I stayed at the mansion for several days and finished writing the first draft of my monograph in one of the upper rooms of the restored home (now used for corporate events and weddings). I published a notice of this project in FOUNDATIONS last year that mentioned the fact that Helen Livingston also descends from John Napier, 3rd Laird of Merchiston, and his wife Elizabeth Menteith of Rusky, senior co-heir general to the ancient Gaelic earldom of Lennox. This can be found online by subscription at http://fmg.ac/. Many talented genealogists have provided assistance: Tony Hoskins, Janet Wolfe, John Blythe Dobson, FASG, and Andrew B.W. MacEwen. My editor Col. Charles Hansen, FASG, has worked tirelessly in preparing the lengthy manuscript and shown great patience over the past two years dealing with changes, additions, and corrections. I hope this project will promote greater interest not only in the Duncanson family but in other colonial New York families whose ancestries have not been studied in detail. ADRIAN BENJAMIN BURKE, JD, Bar of New York NEW YORK CITYDelete Reply Reply All Forward Move Actions Next Previous Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message transmission, including any attachment(s), may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information from Chemical Abstracts Service ("CAS"), a division of the American Chemical Society ("ACS"). If you have received this transmission in error, be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please destroy all copies of the message and contact the sender immediately by either replying to this message or calling 614-447-3600.

Howdy John, Thank you for the announcement regarding the future publication of Adrian Benjamin Burke's article "The Livingston Ancestry of the Duncanson Sisters of New Netherland" in The Genealogist. For those on the List who are unfamiliar with the Duncanson sisters, the Record article referred to is this: "The Duncanson Wives of Four New Netherland Settlers: Glen, Teller, Powell, and Lookermans" by Gordon L. Remington, published in "The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, 128(Jan 1997):1-10. Regards, Pam Sears

Hi Laurence, This message didn't make it to my inbox, somehow. Didn't see it until just now. I guess if someone on the list needs to see the document you have, they should ask for it, and then you would have to send it to their personal email address. Liz J On 10 January 2013 13:36, <llvk2@aol.com> wrote: > > Hi Liz > > Thanks very much indeed for this and I will write again tomorrow more > fully. One thing - as far as I know we cannot upload photographs or ' > documents ' here but I just tested an email to myself which incuded a ' > photo ' of the actual document I mentioned in the body of the email and it > came though okay. Is it okay to include such in an email to the list so > that you and any others interested may see the document in question? > > Laurence >

I have about a thousand marriage records from Amsterdam, mostly for the period between 1574 and 1660. These are records of ondertrouw -- marriage intentions. Most are not annotated in the margin. Liz J On 11 January 2013 09:48, <llvk2@aol.com> wrote: > > Hi Liz > > Just checked the other ' marriage ' records I have and virtually all > entries have margin notes so perhaps you have been very unlucky? I have > from Haarlem : 1614; 1625; 1631; 1636 and 1645 nearly all events being > margin noted and I think mostly all getroud and Ouderkerk / Amsterdam 1647 > where 1 of 2 on the page has a note [ my one! :-) ] . > > Laurence > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Liz et al As I suspected I cannot seem to include the copy document in a mail so I will include a transcript shortly and attempt here a description of what the original contains. It is from the Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam and is a page of 3 [ I think ] intentions as you say. At the top of the page is the date which I have never before tried to read and is certainly October 1651 [ sorry, not 1652 as I said yesterday ] and what seems to be De xi [ i.e. the 11th ] . I think the 11th was a Wednesday. All 3 entries have margin notes by the side but I have never tried to read the other two. I will. I suspect this is a page, if not book, of intentions so that on the evidence of this single page they have managed a 100% check by noting the subsequent marriages [ subject to my discovering the other two say - never showed up !?, father last seen pursuing errant groom with shotgun ] . Funny how this wee survey radically differs from your experience. I will check the other records I have. When I said they had a printed form it is of course partially printed and I think there are 2 areas [1] the preamble which always says ' Compareer de als voorn - it then swings into the details of the particular event. There is then a further printed area below the details amounting to 6 lines which I confess I have neve read / translated. I will try and mail again. Then below that the signatures of groom and bride, no witnesses [ it apparently being intention ] . Then the margin note. This particular marriage thus seem to have had this document dated 11 October 1651 and may be the ondertrouw [ as far as I remember this ' marriage ' was in the index of trouwen ]. I cannot recall ever having seen an index of ondertrouwen but maybe they were there, it is many years since I got this. So, Wed 11th October 1651 was followed by 4 Sundays, 15th, 22nd, 29th and 5th November before the stated marriage on Sunday 11 November. I think others have alluded to the ' grant ' being ' open ended ' [ perhaps within reason ] so that this couple married on the 5th Sunday after the ' grant '. They did not marry in the City but in a small village on the river to the south, Ouderkerk - aan - de - Amstel, where the grooms father was keeping a low profile which is almost certainly why it took place in Ouderkerk and possibly also why it was ' delayed ' a week, if indeed it was. [ Sorry to go into what is probably un - necessary detail but it gives the full story ] . This is obviosuly an example from the ole country but may hold comparison to events in NN? This brings to mind the fact that I am not aware of having seen any such copy for a NN marriage. In fact I think I have only ever seen ' index entries ' of NN and subsequent colonial marriages? No doubt some on the list may perhaps have seen some? very interested to know please. If you have copies can you please say if they are visible anywhere or perhaps private me a copy? I have been very lucky with the marriages of my direct line insofaras I have the 1636 record from Holland of the immigrant pre travel, the next marriage c1676 [ probably either Flatbush or NA ] after immigration is the only one missing for the whole line for which I then have 4 18th century and 3 19th century. Lucky old me. Maybe there should be a list for those working on Europe or maybe there are the individual places - Holland etc lists. Maybe a sepaarte list for those from NN who are researching Europe? I guess the last question I raised is tough and maybe I would be stuck in trying to answer my own question? I do share your ' primary goal ' and will check out what has gone before and hopefully write again in due course. Very interesting. BTW - an very good archivist at Amsteldijk told me that the best way to find folks and pick up useful information was to chekc out the death registers because they give addresses! Here is the transcription : [ nb - I ' sent ' this earlier but it would not even seem to include a paste from word ] best Laurence nb - thus out of sync with last brief mail. -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:04 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) Laurence and all, > I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ncestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but hen quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a argin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had rinted forms. Here again, was this the record of Banns, or was this a record of marriage ntention? The intention (in Dutch, the ondertrouw) is not the banns. Banns ere read on 3 consecutive Sundays in the church. Banns could be read only fter the marriage intention was filed. In Amsterdam, they had three different marriage registrars, probably all at he city hall. One was the regular office, where a marrying couple, both embers of the Dutch Reformed church, would record their marriage ntention. After this, the banns would be read in the church. The second office, the Pui, recorded marriage intentions in their own book. n this situation, usually one or both parties were of a different eligion, such as Lutheran. After recording the marriage intentions, a otice (banns) would be posted in a certain place outside of the city hall, here anyone in town could read them and raise an objection if necessary. I now of one case in which a woman did object --the marriage was not llowed to go forward. It turned out that the person who objected had istaken the man wishing to be married with another already-married man who ad the same name. After investigation, the legitimately-engaged couple ere (of course) allowed to marry. The Extra-ordinaris intekenregister was the third office in which couples iled marriage intentions. Usually this office was consulted when one or oth of the marrying persons lived out of town, or whose parents did. A arent or guardian's consent was needed, which would be sent for. Sometimes certificate from the minister of the church they last attended was equired. This took extra time, since letters neeeded tobe exchanged etween different places, or a courier needed to be sent. Banns would be osted in the town(s) of residence after the consents or records of revious church membership (and eligibility to marry) were obtained. But the marriage intention, and not the banns, are what we find record of n Amsterdam. Sometimes the actual date of the marriage was written in a arginal note next to the record of marriage intention, but in my xperience (hundreds of marriage records since they became available a year go), not often. The actual marriage date was usually not the registrar's oncern. This issue below: > I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN o discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me o believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not nough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be n another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further eyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the reater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to ethuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? erhaps not. Yes. I am researching beyond the shores of North America, and I know everal others here who are also working on their European forebears --and ot by using DNA. I am not a member of any list researching persons in urope. > Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to chieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal enealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? I an not inclined to write about what I _hope_ to achieve. Writing about ishes and dreams would be a time-consuming and unnecessary middle step. nstead, I write about what I actually have achieved. Most people who know e, and I've been around here over 10 years now, know that one of my rimary goals is to connect descendants of the New Netherlanders with their re-immigration families. I have the best success with persons of Amsterdam not necessarily born there), because the records in Amsterdam are so uperior. They are well-preserved and the online presentation of the tadsarchief Amsterdam makes it possible to obtain information from as arly as 1564. Records of the Dutch church in Cologne are also very good rom 1571 onward, and I have good success with these also. Recently, here n the list I wrote about the Dutch forebears of the Van Nuys family (some lso Johnson or Okeson), which I was able to trace back another one or two enerations. I wrote two articles about this group, which are on my ebsite, and gave links to the pages where these articles can be found. ther articles concerning North Americans and their Dutch of Flemish orebears are also on this website. For an example of discovering the uropean ancestry of one extended family who lived in Cologne for a while, series of about a dozen articles on the Varlet family, co-authored by Cor nabel and me several years ago, is online on its own dedicated website. Liz J ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Hi Liz Just checked the other ' marriage ' records I have and virtually all entries have margin notes so perhaps you have been very unlucky? I have from Haarlem : 1614; 1625; 1631; 1636 and 1645 nearly all events being margin noted and I think mostly all getroud and Ouderkerk / Amsterdam 1647 where 1 of 2 on the page has a note [ my one! :-) ] . Laurence

This is just off the top of my head, but I do not believe that the government of New Netherland allowed for marriages by other churches than the Reformed (which included the English Calvinist churches -- Congregational and Presbyterian, and the French Calvinist church). In the absence of clergy, there were a few marriages in Esopus (Kingston) conducted by the court of magistrates. Lutherans and Catholics were not even allowed to gather for worship, or to hold a prayer service with non-family in the home, and any clergy that entered the colony were hurried off to friendlier climes. Peter -----Original Message----- From: dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of juliasgenes Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:05 PM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) It's just me interjecting my naive and unscholarly opinion here, but I suppose one inference of finding evidence of ancestors following the banns procedure would be that the parties were fairly religious in the RDC and were rules-followers, not ones to shake things up. If no banns are found where they would be expected to be in spite of diligent searching, some inferences could be made that the parties had left the RDC and aligned themselves with a faith that does not have a process of speaking/ publishing banns; or maybe that they have removed to someplace else, at least for the period when the banns would be made; or that they were iconoclasts and had dropped out of religion altogether. Which brings to mind this question: was there a civil alternative in colonial New Netherlands for marriage? Or for the non-religious Dutch, was marriage one of those few times they absolutely had to step into a church? Positive information is always great to have, but many people fail to realize that there just might be value in negative information. ________________________________ > From: "llvk2@aol.com" <llvk2@aol.com> > > . . .Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate. . .[2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research?. . . > ================================================================== ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Liz Thanks very much indeed for this and I will write again tomorrow more fully. One thing - as far as I know we cannot upload photographs or ' documents ' here but I just tested an email to myself which incuded a ' photo ' of the actual document I mentioned in the body of the email and it came though okay. Is it okay to include such in an email to the list so that you and any others interested may see the document in question? Laurence -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:04 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) Laurence and all, > I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ncestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but hen quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a argin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had rinted forms. Here again, was this the record of Banns, or was this a record of marriage ntention? The intention (in Dutch, the ondertrouw) is not the banns. Banns ere read on 3 consecutive Sundays in the church. Banns could be read only fter the marriage intention was filed. In Amsterdam, they had three different marriage registrars, probably all at he city hall. One was the regular office, where a marrying couple, both embers of the Dutch Reformed church, would record their marriage ntention. After this, the banns would be read in the church. The second office, the Pui, recorded marriage intentions in their own book. n this situation, usually one or both parties were of a different eligion, such as Lutheran. After recording the marriage intentions, a otice (banns) would be posted in a certain place outside of the city hall, here anyone in town could read them and raise an objection if necessary. I now of one case in which a woman did object --the marriage was not llowed to go forward. It turned out that the person who objected had istaken the man wishing to be married with another already-married man who ad the same name. After investigation, the legitimately-engaged couple ere (of course) allowed to marry. The Extra-ordinaris intekenregister was the third office in which couples iled marriage intentions. Usually this office was consulted when one or oth of the marrying persons lived out of town, or whose parents did. A arent or guardian's consent was needed, which would be sent for. Sometimes certificate from the minister of the church they last attended was equired. This took extra time, since letters neeeded tobe exchanged etween different places, or a courier needed to be sent. Banns would be osted in the town(s) of residence after the consents or records of revious church membership (and eligibility to marry) were obtained. But the marriage intention, and not the banns, are what we find record of n Amsterdam. Sometimes the actual date of the marriage was written in a arginal note next to the record of marriage intention, but in my xperience (hundreds of marriage records since they became available a year go), not often. The actual marriage date was usually not the registrar's oncern. This issue below: > I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN o discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me o believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not nough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be n another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further eyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the reater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to ethuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? erhaps not. Yes. I am researching beyond the shores of North America, and I know everal others here who are also working on their European forebears --and ot by using DNA. I am not a member of any list researching persons in urope. > Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to chieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal enealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? I an not inclined to write about what I _hope_ to achieve. Writing about ishes and dreams would be a time-consuming and unnecessary middle step. nstead, I write about what I actually have achieved. Most people who know e, and I've been around here over 10 years now, know that one of my rimary goals is to connect descendants of the New Netherlanders with their re-immigration families. I have the best success with persons of Amsterdam not necessarily born there), because the records in Amsterdam are so uperior. They are well-preserved and the online presentation of the tadsarchief Amsterdam makes it possible to obtain information from as arly as 1564. Records of the Dutch church in Cologne are also very good rom 1571 onward, and I have good success with these also. Recently, here n the list I wrote about the Dutch forebears of the Van Nuys family (some lso Johnson or Okeson), which I was able to trace back another one or two enerations. I wrote two articles about this group, which are on my ebsite, and gave links to the pages where these articles can be found. ther articles concerning North Americans and their Dutch of Flemish orebears are also on this website. For an example of discovering the uropean ancestry of one extended family who lived in Cologne for a while, series of about a dozen articles on the Varlet family, co-authored by Cor nabel and me several years ago, is online on its own dedicated website. Liz J ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Laurence and all, > I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had printed forms. Here again, was this the record of Banns, or was this a record of marriage intention? The intention (in Dutch, the ondertrouw) is not the banns. Banns were read on 3 consecutive Sundays in the church. Banns could be read only after the marriage intention was filed. In Amsterdam, they had three different marriage registrars, probably all at the city hall. One was the regular office, where a marrying couple, both members of the Dutch Reformed church, would record their marriage intention. After this, the banns would be read in the church. The second office, the Pui, recorded marriage intentions in their own book. In this situation, usually one or both parties were of a different religion, such as Lutheran. After recording the marriage intentions, a notice (banns) would be posted in a certain place outside of the city hall, where anyone in town could read them and raise an objection if necessary. I know of one case in which a woman did object --the marriage was not allowed to go forward. It turned out that the person who objected had mistaken the man wishing to be married with another already-married man who had the same name. After investigation, the legitimately-engaged couple were (of course) allowed to marry. The Extra-ordinaris intekenregister was the third office in which couples filed marriage intentions. Usually this office was consulted when one or both of the marrying persons lived out of town, or whose parents did. A parent or guardian's consent was needed, which would be sent for. Sometimes a certificate from the minister of the church they last attended was required. This took extra time, since letters neeeded tobe exchanged between different places, or a courier needed to be sent. Banns would be posted in the town(s) of residence after the consents or records of previous church membership (and eligibility to marry) were obtained. But the marriage intention, and not the banns, are what we find record of in Amsterdam. Sometimes the actual date of the marriage was written in a marginal note next to the record of marriage intention, but in my experience (hundreds of marriage records since they became available a year ago), not often. The actual marriage date was usually not the registrar's concern. This issue below: > I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? Perhaps not. Yes. I am researching beyond the shores of North America, and I know several others here who are also working on their European forebears --and not by using DNA. I am not a member of any list researching persons in Europe. > Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? I an not inclined to write about what I _hope_ to achieve. Writing about wishes and dreams would be a time-consuming and unnecessary middle step. Instead, I write about what I actually have achieved. Most people who know me, and I've been around here over 10 years now, know that one of my primary goals is to connect descendants of the New Netherlanders with their pre-immigration families. I have the best success with persons of Amsterdam (not necessarily born there), because the records in Amsterdam are so superior. They are well-preserved and the online presentation of the Stadsarchief Amsterdam makes it possible to obtain information from as early as 1564. Records of the Dutch church in Cologne are also very good from 1571 onward, and I have good success with these also. Recently, here on the list I wrote about the Dutch forebears of the Van Nuys family (some also Johnson or Okeson), which I was able to trace back another one or two generations. I wrote two articles about this group, which are on my website, and gave links to the pages where these articles can be found. Other articles concerning North Americans and their Dutch of Flemish forebears are also on this website. For an example of discovering the European ancestry of one extended family who lived in Cologne for a while, a series of about a dozen articles on the Varlet family, co-authored by Cor Snabel and me several years ago, is online on its own dedicated website. Liz J

There were occasions when the intent and banns of marriage were read and either the bride or groom died prior to the marriage date, the couple changed their mind, a parent died or the records were destroyed by fire or what ever. Many researchers have gone ahead and simply assumed that the marriage took place not realizing this, which then opened a can or worms when the information they had didn't fit with the documentation available. When a marriage record is not available, then you must note that and makes certain that the marriage actually took place. They didn't always or a delay took place. It is important to consider the fact that marriages were often affairs of business or circumstance and not of the heart. Future Brides changed their minds, they were not about to get on the ship to American and leave Mom and there were times when sisters changed places. Events out of their control took place and interferred with the marriage proceeding. So you also need to be sure and check the names of the participants to ensure they are identical. In later years, many Societies assumed that a marriage bond or bann, was the marriage simply because they didn't realize they were two different events. Just because a couple got a marriage license did not mean that they actually married. Judy On 01/10/13, llvk2@aol.com wrote: This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a â date â I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of oneâÂÂs â family history âÂÂ. The â general sense of wellbeing, contentment â at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of oneâÂÂs ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you â know â the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course âÂÂeach to their own â .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect â these persons were married in â¦by⦠âÂÂ.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the â ultimate aim â . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority â to discover oneâÂÂs line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of oneâÂÂs ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical â nirvana âÂÂ? Laurence van Kleek This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a â date â I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of oneâÂÂs â family history âÂÂ. The â general sense of wellbeing, contentment â at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of oneâÂÂs ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you â know â the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course âÂÂeach to their own â .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect â these persons were married in â¦by⦠âÂÂ.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the â ultimate aim â . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority â to discover oneâÂÂs line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of oneâÂÂs ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical â nirvana âÂÂ? Laurence van Kleek -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <[1]iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <[2]dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:03 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) I don't know about clarifying this definitively, but there might be further onsiderations. Couples were eligible to marry after reading of the 3rd and ast banns, on the third consecitive Sunday. But that doesn't mean they arried later that day. The couple could marry any time after the last anns, and most probably did marry shortly thereafter. But without some ind of actual record, such as a family bible or register, the exact arriage date may remain impossible to pin down. Use a perpetual calendar to find the correct nearest Sunday. At some point in the New Amsterdam church records, they ceased recording he announcement date, and started using the actual marriage date in the ecords instead. I don't remember what year that was, but there was a iscussion about this several years ago on the list here. Use the Advanced earch here: [3]http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 I don't find much of a problem with a date of intention versus an actual arriage date. If this is a concern, then it might be easily resolved by tating in your Sources box that the date you have was the date of the arriage intention. For the Amsterdam marriages (and those in Leiden and so orth) often I just use a parenthetical comment, 'Ondertrouw', after the itation (such as SAA DTB 433:34). Or I know this anyway, because I ranscribed the record of marriage intention, and in this case, the ranscription of the ondertrouw is placed in the Notes section for one or oth parties of the marrying couple. Liz J On 9 January 2013 21:09, <[4]nancyterhune@optonline.net> wrote: Cor, Thank you! I appreciate your reply and am very grateful for your information. We should all register it and apply it to our documentation. Speaking for myself, and in the progression of my research, I considered it of the most importance to have distinguished marriage dates from first dates of banns and to specify them in my research as different. I see, however, that I'd misled myself: at least in the Reformed Church there are three essential marriage-related dates: registration of intent, then first announcement of banns (actually not specified), then marriage. Succession of first to second to third Sunday banns pronouncements can be reasonably assumed, historically. According to what you've provided - of which I have no doubt - we should look at the registration dates on a historic calendar (by day of the week), identify the closest following Sunday and extend the banns process from there. Yes? This is of greatest importance: Who can clarify this for all, definitively? We're lucky if we can make a dent in the marriage vs. banns debate - step in to claim the reality field. How do we change the idea of the entire context? The digital age of genealogy is a fill-in-the-blanks affair, and its degree of detail is beyond what we're talking about here. Really: what to do? N ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DU[5]TCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DU[6]TCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:iris.gates@gmail.com 2. mailto:dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com 3. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 4. mailto:nancyterhune@optonline.net 5. mailto:TCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com 6. mailto:TCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com

It's just me interjecting my naive and unscholarly opinion here, but I suppose one inference of finding evidence of ancestors following the banns procedure would be that the parties were fairly religious in the RDC and were rules-followers, not ones to shake things up. If no banns are found where they would be expected to be in spite of diligent searching, some inferences could be made that the parties had left the RDC and aligned themselves with a faith that does not have a process of speaking/ publishing banns; or maybe that they have removed to someplace else, at least for the period when the banns would be made; or that they were iconoclasts and had dropped out of religion altogether. Which brings to mind this question: was there a civil alternative in colonial New Netherlands for marriage? Or for the non-religious Dutch, was marriage one of those few times they absolutely had to step into a church? Positive information is always great to have, but many people fail to realize that there just might be value in negative information. ________________________________ > From: "llvk2@aol.com" <llvk2@aol.com> > > . . .Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate. . .[2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research?. . . > ==================================================================

This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a ‘ date ‘ I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of one’s ‘ family history ‘. The ‘ general sense of wellbeing, contentment ‘ at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of one’s ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you ‘ know ‘ the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course ‘each to their own ‘ .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the ‘ ultimate aim ‘ . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? Laurence van Kleek This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a ‘ date ‘ I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of one’s ‘ family history ‘. The ‘ general sense of wellbeing, contentment ‘ at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of one’s ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you ‘ know ‘ the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course ‘each to their own ‘ .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the ‘ ultimate aim ‘ . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? Laurence van Kleek -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:03 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) I don't know about clarifying this definitively, but there might be further onsiderations. Couples were eligible to marry after reading of the 3rd and ast banns, on the third consecitive Sunday. But that doesn't mean they arried later that day. The couple could marry any time after the last anns, and most probably did marry shortly thereafter. But without some ind of actual record, such as a family bible or register, the exact arriage date may remain impossible to pin down. Use a perpetual calendar to find the correct nearest Sunday. At some point in the New Amsterdam church records, they ceased recording he announcement date, and started using the actual marriage date in the ecords instead. I don't remember what year that was, but there was a iscussion about this several years ago on the list here. Use the Advanced earch here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 I don't find much of a problem with a date of intention versus an actual arriage date. If this is a concern, then it might be easily resolved by tating in your Sources box that the date you have was the date of the arriage intention. For the Amsterdam marriages (and those in Leiden and so orth) often I just use a parenthetical comment, 'Ondertrouw', after the itation (such as SAA DTB 433:34). Or I know this anyway, because I ranscribed the record of marriage intention, and in this case, the ranscription of the ondertrouw is placed in the Notes section for one or oth parties of the marrying couple. Liz J On 9 January 2013 21:09, <nancyterhune@optonline.net> wrote: Cor, Thank you! I appreciate your reply and am very grateful for your information. We should all register it and apply it to our documentation. Speaking for myself, and in the progression of my research, I considered it of the most importance to have distinguished marriage dates from first dates of banns and to specify them in my research as different. I see, however, that I'd misled myself: at least in the Reformed Church there are three essential marriage-related dates: registration of intent, then first announcement of banns (actually not specified), then marriage. Succession of first to second to third Sunday banns pronouncements can be reasonably assumed, historically. According to what you've provided - of which I have no doubt - we should look at the registration dates on a historic calendar (by day of the week), identify the closest following Sunday and extend the banns process from there. Yes? This is of greatest importance: Who can clarify this for all, definitively? We're lucky if we can make a dent in the marriage vs. banns debate - step in to claim the reality field. How do we change the idea of the entire context? The digital age of genealogy is a fill-in-the-blanks affair, and its degree of detail is beyond what we're talking about here. Really: what to do? N ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Cor, Thank you!  I appreciate your reply and am very grateful for your information. We should all register it and apply it to our documentation. Speaking for myself, and in the progression of my research, I considered it of the most importance to have distinguished marriage dates from first dates of banns and to specify them in my research as different.  I see, however, that I'd misled myself: at least in the Reformed Church there are three essential marriage-related dates: registration of intent, then first announcement of banns (actually not specified), then marriage.  Succession of first to second to third Sunday banns pronouncements can be reasonably assumed, historically. According to what you've provided - of which I have no doubt - we should look at the registration dates on a historic calendar (by day of the week), identify the closest following Sunday and extend the banns process from there.  Yes? This is of greatest importance:  Who can clarify this for all, definitively?  We're lucky if we can make a dent in the marriage vs. banns debate - step in to claim the reality field.  How do we change the idea of the entire context?  The digital age of genealogy is a fill-in-the-blanks affair, and its degree of detail is beyond what we're talking about here.  Really:  what to do? N ----- Original Message ----- From: cor snabel Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:13 pm Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > Nancy & list > > On 9 January 2013 19:53, wrote: > > The early (17th-early 18th c.) church records of the NY and NJ > congregations usually record, unless otherwise specified, the > "registration" - registration of intent to marry - of a couple. > > > > Too many confuse these dates with dates of marriage. We know that. > > > > My question is: Am I correct in believing that the > registration of marriage intent does not equate to the date of > the first pronouncement of the banns? They're no doubt not far > off, but I don't believe that that means they're the same. > > > > Can anyone clarify this? > > I can speak for the rules in Amsterdam and I know the DRC in New > Netherland had to follow the same rules. > The registrations of the marriage intentions were during the > week and > the pronouncements were made in church on the three following Sundays. > In some marriage intentions you can read a note in the margin, that > they had to bring in the consent of the father before the first > pronouncement. > > So you are right, they're not the same. > > Regards > Cor Snabel > The Netherlands > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH- > COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >