Donna: The only thing I have on them is that George died in Fenwick, Michigan. They were married on 25 Dec 1877. They had 2 children; Lena, b: 30 Dec 1878 and Voris, b: 14 Jan 1899. Bill Forshay - San Antonio, TX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donna Stark <donnaStarkKy@fewpb.net> wrote: Were these people in Kentucky? The name Forshee is one that was in my hometown in the 1850's to 1870's. I do not have anything on these folks, but quite a few years ago I did some research for a family on the Forshees. Do you know where the family lived.Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Forshay" To: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > Donna: > > Do you have anything on a Eva Marion Van Voorhies, b: abt 1855 > married to George FORSHEE, b: 18 Dec 1852, married 25 Dec 1877? > > Bill Forshay - San Antonio, TX > > Donna Stark wrote: This will be one > interpretation! One of my families is the Van Voorhees. It > is known that the family was from in front of the town of Hees (pronounced > Haas-with the H almost silent) thus, the name Van (in front) of the town > of > Hees-Van Voorhees > > Donna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > > >> My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may >> be >> wrong: >> >> 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where >> residence was long-established. >> >> 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may >> not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short >> residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the >> departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging >> to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. >> >> I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm >> responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if >> you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are >> interested, please speak up. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: THJ >> Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records >> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com >> >>> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >>> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >>> meaning >>> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >>> >>> Terry HJ >>> >>> >>> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >>> states the >>> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >>> Uyt >>> >N. Nederlt" >>> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >>> Engelt" etc. >>> > >>> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >>> Uyt is not >>> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to friends. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

Bill; I found in my "The Van voorhees Family in America", 7th & 8th generation, vol. 2; Eva Marion VanVoorhis (Albert7, William6, John 5, Albert 4, William3, Albert2, Steven1): b.20 Jul 1857 Fenwick, Montcalm Co., MI; m. George Forshu (sic), son of Henry Forshu and Eliza Jane Tibbetts, 25 Dec 1877. George Forshu, b. 19 Dec 1852 Two children: i. Lena Forshu; b. 30 Dec 1878; m. Ward B. Hoople 14 Jun 1905 ii. Voris Forshu; b. 14 Jan 1899 Hope this helps. Now you can look up census records. Pat in spokane ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Forshay" <billforshay@yahoo.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > Donna: > > Do you have anything on a Eva Marion Van Voorhies, b: abt 1855 > married to George FORSHEE, b: 18 Dec 1852, married 25 Dec 1877? > > Bill Forshay - San Antonio, TX > > Donna Stark <donnaStarkKy@fewpb.net> wrote: This will be one > interpretation! One of my families is the Van Voorhees. It > is known that the family was from in front of the town of Hees (pronounced > Haas-with the H almost silent) thus, the name Van (in front) of the town > of > Hees-Van Voorhees > > Donna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > > >> My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may >> be >> wrong: >> >> 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where >> residence was long-established. >> >> 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may >> not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short >> residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the >> departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging >> to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. >> >> I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm >> responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if >> you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are >> interested, please speak up. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: THJ >> Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records >> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com >> >>> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >>> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >>> meaning >>> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >>> >>> Terry HJ >>> >>> >>> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >>> states the >>> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >>> Uyt >>> >N. Nederlt" >>> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >>> Engelt" etc. >>> > >>> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >>> Uyt is not >>> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to friends. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hello, I am still looking for a female named Perkins Lambert b. about 1747, she married in Manhattan in 1768 to Johannes Brouwer (aka John Brower) b. 1747. Marriage records states both are of New York (City). Johannes Brouwer b. 1747, s/o Johannes Brouwer b. 1712 (m. Susanna Druljet b. 1710 , baptised at French Church), s/o Jacob Brouwer b. 1684 (m. Pieternella De La Montagne b. 1683, d/o Jean), s/o Jacobus Brouwer b. 1655 d. 1707 (m. Anneke Bogardus, d/o Willem, s/o Rev. Everardus Bogardus and Anneke Jans), s/o Adam Brouwer b. 1620, the immigrant who arrived in Manhattan in 1642, and married in 1645 to Magdalena Verdon, d/o Jacob. If you notice, Magdalena, Pieternella, and Susanna are of FRENCH ancestry. Could this be a 'pattern' in that Perkins Lambert is perhaps also of French ancestry? Lambert is a French surname found in London and Manhattan records in the New Netherland time period. I have never been able to find any family which Perkins Lambert fits into. Was the Lambert name derived from her father's first name? Was the PERKINS name given to her because of a Perkins-Lambert marriage at some point? Or was Perkins not a surname, but was the name perhaps some other name which 'morphed' into Perkins. For example: was it Perkes; Perckes; Pickens? Was this a FRENCH name? John Brower and Perkins Lambert baptised some children in Manhattan from 1769 thru 1776. I searched for Perkins Lambert as a baptismal sponsor for other BROWER-Brouwer babies but did not find her anywhere. The children were: Susanna b. 1769 (named for paternal grandmother); John b. 1770 (named for paternal grandfather); Robert b. 1772 ( this might be the maternal grandfather, because there is no ROBERT used by this Brouwer family line); Jacob b. 1774 (named for paternal Great Uncle, or paternal great grandfather); Susanna b. 1776 (named for the prior daughter who died). Susanna Brower m. 1800 David Ostrum. There is a record of a later child, named Thomas Brower. Thomas is a name rarely used by the Brouwer family line, this might be a clue from the maternal side. I already understand the BROUWER side of the family, but lack any indentification of this Perkins Lambert. Would love to hear from anyone who might know Perkins Lambert Brouwer. Best regards, Lilly Martin

Hi to all, Interesting developments regarding the Mol family, and thanks to Dorothy, Howard and Liz for their contributions. Here is another conundrum that occurs to me regarding the birth order of Huybert and Hendrick, sons of Lambert Huybertszen Mol. We don't know when Lambert Huybertsen Mol returned to The Netherlands; nor do we know if he went first to Aernhem or Amsterdam. Therefore, a marriage record to Trijn Pieters would help to determine the birth order of sons Huybert and Hendrick. Clearly, he was living in Amsterdam in 1637, for Hendrick was baptized there in that year. However, if he married Trijn Pieters in Aernhem prior to that date (say 1633), then Huybert might have been baptized 1634/1635 in Aernhem, rather than 1639. If he married Trijn Pieters in Amsterdam say 1636, the reverse might be more appropriate: i.e. Huybert was baptized in Aernhem circa 1639. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that Huybert came first (named after the paternal grandfather), but we may never know for sure. The records for Aernhem do not appear to have survived from that time period, or at least are not on-line. http://geneaknowhow.net/digi/resources.html Click on Gelderland-internet for a listing of the Digital Resources. Regards, Pam Sears

Thanks Howard and Dorothy. Really nice, Howard. > Strange; CDROM version of the 1st ed. has 1626 as his arrival. Perhaps not so strange. Maybe the first edition had information extracted from NY papers that were lost in the fire. But resources in the form of documents exist in the Netherlands, and should be explored more fully. There is a website which discusses Lambert Huybertsz Moll and his family --parents as well as children. Among the mass of ideas presented there are references to documents which can be found in archives of Amersfoort, ca 1618 to the 1630's. http://www.euronet.nl/users/warnar/lambertmoll.html One of these documents was quoted as saying: "Immers, op 8 januari 1631 wordt een Lambert Huybertsz Moll, scheepstimmerman en boer op Long Eylandt genoemd, in wie wij wel een zoon van dit echtpaar mogen herkennen." --which was translated as: "For, on Jan 8th, 1631, a certain Lambert Huybertsz Moll, shipcarpenter and farmer on Long Island (Eylandt) is mentioned and recognized as a son of this couple." I mainly agree with the translation, but add that 'echtpaar' means 'married couple.' The married couple referred to was Hubert Lambertsz Moll and Geertgen Cornelisdr. (van Schaick) from Amersfoort. I think the website author meant that the above quote came from an article in "Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie", Deel 50, 1996. pages 168,176. The article must refer to records extracted from the municipal archive at Amersfoort, 1 april 1624, nr. AT002b007, nr AT002b012, GA Amersfoort, Rechterlijk Archief 436, deel 15, deel 16. This article could/should probably be ordered and explored. Looks like there must also be a later notarial document concerning Lambert Huybertsz Moll's residence on Long Island, containing the date of January 1631, which can also be obtained. Whether the date, " 8 januari 1631" has been adjusted from 1630, or needs to be adjusted to 1632, should also be explored. The original would probably have a notation showing the date as Old Style or New Style. No comment on the identity of the wives. But laying out a scenario plausible to me, I would speculate that Lambert Huybertsz Moll's first wife died in New Netherland, and that he returned to Patria with the first two children. It would stand to reason that in the 1630's, the few women in New Netherland were already married. Then from the records that Howard found, it looks as if Lambert Moll remained in Holland long enough to find a second wife, and to have a son bapt in 1637 in Amsterdam, and one bapt.1639 at Aernhem. Then he decided to return to NN by 1641. > In Riker's 1999 Directory, Lambert Huybertszen Mol's date of arrival > indeed was given as 1641 befoire it was corrected. Sounds as if this is his second entry. Was Lambert Huybertszen Moll accompanying persons he knew? The Couwenhovens maybe? > Since Marretje was being married in NN, it seems strange to me for her origin to be stated as Uyt N. Nederl't. How can you be 'out of' the place you are now in? Now "Uyt" is being taken too literally. I read it as indicating Marritje Lamberts had been born in New Netherland, but born in a place which had not been a settlement per se, not named as a "town" at that early time in NN history. Also, she probably had a reporting problem due to mixed memories of her early life in several different locations. Thus "Uyt" indicates the general region of origin, rather than the "van" pinpointing one specific location. What interesting activities of the early settlers. It would be even more interesting to order copies of the original documents from Amersfoort. Those would probably firm up the body of information about Lambert Huybertszen Moll and family. Best wishes, Liz J

Hi all, From: "Dorothy Koenig" <dkoenig@lmi.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:10 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marretje Lamberts "uyt Nieuw Nederlandt" > Dear Ethel, In 2004 David M. Riker published a supplementary volume > to his original 4-volume compendium, "Genealogical and Biographical > Directory to Persons in New Netherland, 1613-1674". It is my belief > that the additions and corrections in the 2004 Supplement were vetted > by Henry Hoff. > > The revised listing for Lambert Huybertszen Mol says that he possibly > came from Arnhem in Gelderland and that he arrived in New Amsterdam > in 1626. This would be just two years after the first settlers > arrived in "de Eeendracht" in the spring of 1624. Riker says that > Lambert married about 1626 in New Netherland Tryn Pieters, widow of > Cornelis Tijsoon van Woggelem. All 6 Mol children are listed as > having been born in New Netherland: My first reaction to Ethel's first message was that N. Nederl't probably should be just Nederl't -- since there are a few errors in these marr. records. But now with Dorothy's message I decided to look further. Here is the children's origin info as shown in their marriage records. Marr. date in ( ). > 1626 Reyer > 1628 Marretje (1646) Uyt N. Nederl't > 1638 Huybert (1662) Van Aernhem > 1640 Hendrick (1660) Van Amsterd. > 1642 Abraham > 1648 Geertje Since the Amsterdam bap. records are now online I decided to look for Hendrick here: http://gemeentearchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/genealogie/doopregisters/zoek/index.nl.html Since I thought Lambert wasn't a very common name I searched for father with a forename of Lambert, son with a forename of Hendrick and years 1626 to 1640. I found him. Lambert Huibertsz and Trijn Pieters bap. son Hendrick on 5 July 1637 in the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam. So, now we might want to switch the order of Huybert and Hendrick: 1626 Reyer 1628 Marretje (1646) Uyt N. Nederl't 1637 Hendrick (1660) Van Amsterd. 1639 Huybert (1662) Van Aernhem 1642 Abraham 1648 Geertje Now that is quite a gap between Marretje and Hendrick. But we now have Hendrick's bap. and since Marretje marr. in 1646 she could not be born much later than 1628. I would bet Lambert had 2 wives. And that Trijn Pieters was the second. _If_ he was in NN in 1626, it appears he went back to The Netherlands. And then returned to NN about 1640 or 1641. Since Marretje was being married in NN, it seems strange to me for her origin to be stated as Uyt N. Nederl't. How can you be 'out of' the place you are now in? That seems a thin reed on which to hang the idea he was in NN in 1626-1628. Maybe you should next 'cherchez la femme', ie. look more into Tryn Pieters. Was she really the wid. of Cornelis Tijsoon? Can either of them be placed in NN in 1626? There were mighty few people known to be there then. Tijsoon looks to me like the kind of spelling I'd expect in The Netherlands. My gut feel is that in NN, he'd be more likely shown as Tyson. Of course, a search for a marriage between Lambert and Tryn in Amsterdam in the 1635 to 1636 timeframe would be a great idea, too. Unfortuntately, I don't think those are on-line. I looked for more children of Lambert in Amsterdam and didn't find any. I don't know if Aernham records are online or not. > These years are "approximate". > > In Riker's 1999 Directory, Lambert Huybertszen Mol's date of arrival > indeed was given as 1641 befoire it was corrected. Strange; CDROM version of the 1st ed. has 1626 as his arrival. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Hi Dorothy, The plot thickens. Per your email, David M Riker wrote in 2004 that Lambert [Moll] married about 1626 in New Netherland Tryn Pieters, widow of Cornelis Tijsoon van Woggelem. Did he include records proving Moll was in NA before 29 July 1641 when Moll purchased property on Long Island or is the marriage date "about 1626 in New Netherland" based on his daughters marriage record on 7 May 1646 that said she was "Uyt N.Nederlt" which I disagree with. I found one reference to Tryn Pieters. “Lambert Moll en Tryn Pieters syn huysv”. were members of the New Amsterdam DCh since the year 1649. [NYGBR 1878 V9:45] It is not known if Tryn Pieters is the mother of any or all of Lambert Molls children. David M Riker also wrote: "All 6 Mol children are listed as having been born in New Netherland: 1626 Reyer, 1628 Marretje, 1638 Huybert, 1640 Hendrick, 1642 Abraham, and 1648 Geertje. These years are "approximate". The marriage records of sons Hendrick and Huybert prove the statement born in New Netherland wrong. "Hendrick Lambertszen Mol, j.m. Van Amsterd., en Catharÿn Ringsfort, j.d. Van Sandwich, in oudt Engelt." Banns: 20 Nov 1660. New Amsterdam DRCh. [NYDC 1:26] "Huybert Lambertszen Moll, j.m. Van Aernhem, en Jannetje Willems, j.d. Van Meppel" Marriage banns: 9 July 1662. New Amsterdam DRCh. [NYDC 1:27] Lambert Huybertszen Moll had two children baptized in New Amsterdam. No mother named. *Child: Abraham. Parent: Lambert Huybertsz. Bp: 23 March 1642. Wits: Jan Shuker, Schoenm.; Gerrit Wolfertszen, Christine Hunnen, Hester Jans. New Amsterdam DRCh. [NYDC 2:13] *Child: Geertje. Parent: Lambert Huybertszen Moll. Bp: 6 Sept 1648. No mother named. Witnesses: Pieter Wolfertszen, Aeltje Pilms. New Amsterdam DRCh. [NYDC 2:25] Best Regards, Ethel ======================================= In a message dated 3/15/2007 dkoenig@LMI.net writes: Dear Ethel, In 2004 David M. Riker published a supplementary volume to his original 4-volume compendium, "Genealogical and Biographical Directory to Persons in New Netherland, 1613-1674". It is my belief that the additions and corrections in the 2004 Supplement were vetted by Henry Hoff. The revised listing for Lambert Huybertszen Mol says that he possibly came from Arnhem in Gelderland and that he arrived in New Amsterdam in 1626. This would be just two years after the first settlers arrived in "de Eeendracht" in the spring of 1624. Riker says that Lambert married about 1626 in New Netherland Tryn Pieters, widow of Cornelis Tijsoon van Woggelem. All 6 Mol children are listed as having been born in New Netherland: 1626 Reyer 1628 Marretje 1638 Huybert 1640 Hendrick 1642 Abraham 1648 Geertje These years are "approximate". In Riker's 1999 Directory, Lambert Huybertszen Mol's date of arrival indeed was given as 1641 befoire it was corrected. Dorothy > >Thank you listers for answering my question. As usual, an answer raises >more questions. > >Lambert Huybertsz Moll emigrated to New Amsterdam with four known children, >Marretje, Ryyer, Hendrick and Huybert. Lambert arrived in New Amsterdam >shortly before 29 July 1641 when he purchased a house and plantation on Long >Island from Cornelis Jacobsen Stille. Register of Provincial Secretary >1638-1642. [NYHM:Dutch Vol.1:340] > >On 7 May 1646, the marriage banns of his daughter Marretje to Gerrit >Hendricksz Blauvelt were recorded in the New Amsterdam DRCh. "Gerrit >Hendrickszen, j.m. Van Deventer, en Marie Lamberts, j.d. Uyt >N.Nederlt" Banns: 7 May >1646 [NYDC 1:14] Lambert Moll was not in this country early >enough to have >a daughter born here about 1628 so I thought this was an error in the >church records and should read she was born in the Netherlands and >not born in New >Netherlands. Thanks to all your replies, I went back to the drawing board. > >Please note. He is a Van and she is an Uyt. Is Gerrit from [possibly >born] Deventer? Is Marie from [the area of ]New Netherland? Is >the marriage >record correct? > >Regards, >Ethel > >========================= >Original message 3-15-07 >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually states the >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" Uyt N. N >ederlt" >"Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt Engelt" etc. > >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but Uyt is not >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. > >Ethel > > > > > > > >************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. > Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. > >------------------------------- >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 ------------------------------- 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 ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Waar kommt uit U? Ik kommt uit van New York. Bob ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Were these people in Kentucky? The name Forshee is one that was in my hometown in the 1850's to 1870's. I do not have anything on these folks, but quite a few years ago I did some research for a family on the Forshees. Do you know where the family lived.Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Forshay" <billforshay@yahoo.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > Donna: > > Do you have anything on a Eva Marion Van Voorhies, b: abt 1855 > married to George FORSHEE, b: 18 Dec 1852, married 25 Dec 1877? > > Bill Forshay - San Antonio, TX > > Donna Stark <donnaStarkKy@fewpb.net> wrote: This will be one > interpretation! One of my families is the Van Voorhees. It > is known that the family was from in front of the town of Hees (pronounced > Haas-with the H almost silent) thus, the name Van (in front) of the town > of > Hees-Van Voorhees > > Donna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > > >> My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may >> be >> wrong: >> >> 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where >> residence was long-established. >> >> 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may >> not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short >> residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the >> departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging >> to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. >> >> I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm >> responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if >> you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are >> interested, please speak up. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: THJ >> Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records >> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com >> >>> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >>> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >>> meaning >>> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >>> >>> Terry HJ >>> >>> >>> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >>> states the >>> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >>> Uyt >>> >N. Nederlt" >>> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >>> Engelt" etc. >>> > >>> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >>> Uyt is not >>> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to friends. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > >

???? I didn't write any of this. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: <KVLiddle@aol.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Conveyancing in Colonial New York > > In a message dated 3/15/2007 6:56:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > pchrist1@nycap.rr.com writes: > > >> Leslie asked for a legal scholar. Sorry to disappoint, but we'll see if >> a >> layman can help here. >> >> My questions are: >> >> 1. Once a patent had been granted for land in Albany County in 1684 and >> a >> portion of that land hand been occupied by the Patentees, Why would that >> patent need to be reconfirmed and apparently reissued to the same >> Patentees >> in 1708? >> ----- >> I think the owners must have perceived some defect in the prior patent >> that >> they hoped to resolve. The other possibility, given the year, was that >> it >> may have been a Dutch patent that needed re-confirmation from the >> British >> colonial government. >> >>>From what little I have seen it seems safe to say that many patents had >> poorly defined borders. For instance, suppose two patents that describe >> boundaries as measured inland for ten miles from the Hudson River, >> further >> supppose that those two patents are separated only by a much smaller >> patent >> and that the shoreline curves slightly, it's not hard to see that those >> two >> perpendicular boundaries might intersect further inland. >> >> 2. In 1743, why did the proprietors of the Saratoga Patent (descendants >> of >> the original patentees) have to petition the legislature for permission >> to >> subdivide the undeveloped lands within the Saratoga Patent, which the >> aforementioned proprietors held as tenants in common. >> ---- >> Pure speculation on my part here. Did they HAVE to petition or did they >> want >> to petition? Did the owners seek to gain a more easily transferable >> title? >> Or did the colony have an interest in seeing that is wasn't called in >> later >> to adjudicate issues, that is, that it was providing equal pro > > > land was sometimes purchased by a "corporation" of several individuals, > who > then developed part of it, and held the rest in common. (It took about 10 > years to wrest a 10 acre farm from the wilderness) Each partner held > shares, > and that determined the amount of land he was entitled to. If part of the > land > was not developed within a certain period of time, the government could > take > it back and sell it to someone else, and they often did particularly in > the > late 17th century early 18th. This happened with Harrison's Purchase in > Westchester County. By confirming the patent, it shows the settlers > learned > their lesson. best wishes, Kris Liddle > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Thank you listers for answering my question. As usual, an answer raises more questions. Lambert Huybertsz Moll emigrated to New Amsterdam with four known children, Marretje, Ryyer, Hendrick and Huybert. Lambert arrived in New Amsterdam shortly before 29 July 1641 when he purchased a house and plantation on Long Island from Cornelis Jacobsen Stille. Register of Provincial Secretary 1638-1642. [NYHM:Dutch Vol.1:340] On 7 May 1646, the marriage banns of his daughter Marretje to Gerrit Hendricksz Blauvelt were recorded in the New Amsterdam DRCh. "Gerrit Hendrickszen, j.m. Van Deventer, en Marie Lamberts, j.d. Uyt N.Nederlt" Banns: 7 May 1646 [NYDC 1:14] Lambert Moll was not in this country early enough to have a daughter born here about 1628 so I thought this was an error in the church records and should read she was born in the Netherlands and not born in New Netherlands. Thanks to all your replies, I went back to the drawing board. Please note. He is a Van and she is an Uyt. Is Gerrit from [possibly born] Deventer? Is Marie from [the area of ]New Netherland? Is the marriage record correct? Regards, Ethel ========================= Original message 3-15-07 In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually states the bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" Uyt N. N ederlt" "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt Engelt" etc. I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but Uyt is not listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. Ethel ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Dear Ethel, In 2004 David M. Riker published a supplementary volume to his original 4-volume compendium, "Genealogical and Biographical Directory to Persons in New Netherland, 1613-1674". It is my belief that the additions and corrections in the 2004 Supplement were vetted by Henry Hoff. The revised listing for Lambert Huybertszen Mol says that he possibly came from Arnhem in Gelderland and that he arrived in New Amsterdam in 1626. This would be just two years after the first settlers arrived in "de Eeendracht" in the spring of 1624. Riker says that Lambert married about 1626 in New Netherland Tryn Pieters, widow of Cornelis Tijsoon van Woggelem. All 6 Mol children are listed as having been born in New Netherland: 1626 Reyer 1628 Marretje 1638 Huybert 1640 Hendrick 1642 Abraham 1648 Geertje These years are "approximate". In Riker's 1999 Directory, Lambert Huybertszen Mol's date of arrival indeed was given as 1641 befoire it was corrected. Dorothy > >Thank you listers for answering my question. As usual, an answer raises >more questions. > >Lambert Huybertsz Moll emigrated to New Amsterdam with four known children, >Marretje, Ryyer, Hendrick and Huybert. Lambert arrived in New Amsterdam >shortly before 29 July 1641 when he purchased a house and plantation on Long >Island from Cornelis Jacobsen Stille. Register of Provincial Secretary >1638-1642. [NYHM:Dutch Vol.1:340] > >On 7 May 1646, the marriage banns of his daughter Marretje to Gerrit >Hendricksz Blauvelt were recorded in the New Amsterdam DRCh. "Gerrit >Hendrickszen, j.m. Van Deventer, en Marie Lamberts, j.d. Uyt >N.Nederlt" Banns: 7 May >1646 [NYDC 1:14] Lambert Moll was not in this country early >enough to have >a daughter born here about 1628 so I thought this was an error in the >church records and should read she was born in the Netherlands and >not born in New >Netherlands. Thanks to all your replies, I went back to the drawing board. > >Please note. He is a Van and she is an Uyt. Is Gerrit from [possibly >born] Deventer? Is Marie from [the area of ]New Netherland? Is >the marriage >record correct? > >Regards, >Ethel > >========================= >Original message 3-15-07 >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually states the >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" Uyt N. N >ederlt" >"Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt Engelt" etc. > >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but Uyt is not >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. > >Ethel > > > > > > > >************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. > Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. > >------------------------------- >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 Sandra, From: "Sandra VanOrman" <sandra_vanorman@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:58 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Locating Baptismal Records > Hello All, > > I'm trying to locate the baptismal record of my great great grandfather, Daniel Dudley VanOrnam. He was born in Chesterfield, Essex co. New York 20 Sept 1808. I am assuming he was baptized in a Dutch Reform Church, as was his father, Peter VanOrnum, who was born and christened in Schaghticoke, New York. in 1776. > > I've checked the internet to see if there is a Dutch Reform Church in Chesterfield, but no luck. Does anyone know if there is such a church there, or in a surrounding area? I'm stumped! According to French's Gazetteer (pub. 1860), the town of Chesterfield was formed in 1802 from Willsborough. The first church was Congregational. In 1860 there were 5 chruches: Free Will Baptist Methodist Episcopal Presbyterian Protestant Episcopal Roman Catholic By far the largest village in the town of Chesterfield (in 1860) was Keeseville. It had 5 churches. So, I'd guess that all the churches in Chesterfield then may have been in Keeseville. The first church in the town of Willsborough was also Congregational. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Donna: Do you have anything on a Eva Marion Van Voorhies, b: abt 1855 married to George FORSHEE, b: 18 Dec 1852, married 25 Dec 1877? Bill Forshay - San Antonio, TX Donna Stark <donnaStarkKy@fewpb.net> wrote: This will be one interpretation! One of my families is the Van Voorhees. It is known that the family was from in front of the town of Hees (pronounced Haas-with the H almost silent) thus, the name Van (in front) of the town of Hees-Van Voorhees Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may be > wrong: > > 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where > residence was long-established. > > 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may > not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short > residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the > departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging > to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. > > I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm > responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if > you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are > interested, please speak up. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: THJ > Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > >> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >> meaning >> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >> >> Terry HJ >> >> >> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >> states the >> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >> Uyt >> >N. Nederlt" >> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >> Engelt" etc. >> > >> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >> Uyt is not >> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may be wrong: 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where residence was long-established. 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are interested, please speak up. ----- Original Message ----- From: THJ Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also > 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in > meaning > between 'uit' and 'van' if any. > > Terry HJ > > > >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually > states the > >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" > Uyt > >N. Nederlt" > > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt > Engelt" etc. > > > >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but > Uyt is not > >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in meaning between 'uit' and 'van' if any. Terry HJ >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually states the >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" Uyt >N. Nederlt" > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt Engelt" etc. > >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but Uyt is not >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean.

This will be one interpretation! One of my families is the Van Voorhees. It is known that the family was from in front of the town of Hees (pronounced Haas-with the H almost silent) thus, the name Van (in front) of the town of Hees-Van Voorhees Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: <nancyterhune@optonline.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I may be > wrong: > > 'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, where > residence was long-established. > > 'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or may > not have been a place of long-established residence, or even short > residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from which the > departure was made. In any case it does not carry the sense of belonging > to and/or being identified for some reason with a place. > > I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm > responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, if > you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are > interested, please speak up. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: THJ > Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records > To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > >> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >> meaning >> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >> >> Terry HJ >> >> >> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >> states the >> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >> Uyt >> >N. Nederlt" >> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >> Engelt" etc. >> > >> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >> Uyt is not >> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > >

In a message dated 3/15/2007 6:56:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pchrist1@nycap.rr.com writes: > Leslie asked for a legal scholar. Sorry to disappoint, but we'll see if a > layman can help here. > > My questions are: > > 1. Once a patent had been granted for land in Albany County in 1684 and a > portion of that land hand been occupied by the Patentees, Why would that > patent need to be reconfirmed and apparently reissued to the same > Patentees > in 1708? > ----- > I think the owners must have perceived some defect in the prior patent > that > they hoped to resolve. The other possibility, given the year, was that it > may have been a Dutch patent that needed re-confirmation from the British > colonial government. > >>From what little I have seen it seems safe to say that many patents had > poorly defined borders. For instance, suppose two patents that describe > boundaries as measured inland for ten miles from the Hudson River, further > supppose that those two patents are separated only by a much smaller > patent > and that the shoreline curves slightly, it's not hard to see that those > two > perpendicular boundaries might intersect further inland. > > 2. In 1743, why did the proprietors of the Saratoga Patent (descendants > of > the original patentees) have to petition the legislature for permission to > subdivide the undeveloped lands within the Saratoga Patent, which the > aforementioned proprietors held as tenants in common. > ---- > Pure speculation on my part here. Did they HAVE to petition or did they > want > to petition? Did the owners seek to gain a more easily transferable title? > Or did the colony have an interest in seeing that is wasn't called in > later > to adjudicate issues, that is, that it was providing equal pro land was sometimes purchased by a "corporation" of several individuals, who then developed part of it, and held the rest in common. (It took about 10 years to wrest a 10 acre farm from the wilderness) Each partner held shares, and that determined the amount of land he was entitled to. If part of the land was not developed within a certain period of time, the government could take it back and sell it to someone else, and they often did particularly in the late 17th century early 18th. This happened with Harrison's Purchase in Westchester County. By confirming the patent, it shows the settlers learned their lesson. best wishes, Kris Liddle <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Dear Ethel, What Nancy says is true. If I were in The Netherlands today and someone asked me where I am from, I could say that I am UIT (pronounced like the Canadian version of "out") the United States, but I am "van" San Francisco. Dorothy >My reading of the difference between 'uit' and 'van' is this, and I >may be wrong: > >'van' = from, as in hometown, homeland; a place, if not birthplace, >where residence was long-established. > >'uit' = 'out of' a place, having departed from a place, that may or >may not have been a place of long-established residence, or even >short residence. It could have been a brief stopping place, from >which the departure was made. In any case it does not carry the >sense of belonging to and/or being identified for some reason with a >place. > >I have a 1720s Dutch-English dictionary in the archive for which I'm >responsible. It may help - don't know. I am not there now. Ethel, >if you'll remind me off-list, I'll check it for you. If others are >interested, please speak up. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: THJ >Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 am >Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Meaning of 'Uyt' in the marriage records >To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > >> In modern Nederlands the spelling is 'uit' and means also >> 'from'. However, I'm not sure of the shade of difference in >> meaning >> between 'uit' and 'van' if any. >> >> Terry HJ >> >> >> >In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually >> states the >> >bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" >> Uyt >> >N. Nederlt" >> > "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt >> Engelt" etc. >> > >> >I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but >> Uyt is not >> >listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > >------------------------------- >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

In the New Amsterdam Dutch Church marriage records, it usually states the bride and groom are either "Uyt" or "Van". "Van N.Yorke" Uyt N. Nederlt" "Van Aernhem in Gelderlt" "Uyt Noordt Holldt" "Uyt Engelt" etc. I checked my Dutch-English dictionary and Van means from, but Uyt is not listed in the dictionary. What does Uyt mean. Ethel <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.