Dear List, Circa 1750, the Saratoga Patent in Albany County, New York (now Saratoga and Washington Counties) was partitioned a second time. A plat of the Second Grand Division of the Saratoga Patent shows the patentees and their holdings to be as follows: R. L. - Great Lotts No. 1, 9, 20, 28, 34, 42 & 43. [Robert Livingston, the Nephew] J.S. - Great Lotts No. 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 17, 27, 33, 41 & 44 [Johannes Schuyler (1668-1747), grandfather of General Philip Schuyler (1733-1804)] J.J.B. - Great Lotts No. 4, 12, 18, 25, 31 (Jan Jans Bleecker) D. W. - Great Lotts No. 5, 13, 21, 22, 35, 39, & 46 [Dirk Wessles Ten Broeck (1686-1750/51), the father of Abraham Ten Broeck (1734-1810) C. V. D. - Great Lotts No. 6, 14, 15, 24, 30, 38, & 47 [Cornelius Van Dyck] J. S. & R. L. - Great Lotts No. 7, 8, [Johannes Schuyler and Robert Livingston] P.S & R. L - Great Lotts No. 19, 23, 29, 37, 48 (P_______ Schuyler and Robert Livingston) P.S. - Great Lotts No. 26, 32, 40, & 45 (P__________ Schuyler) J.B. - Great Lotts No. 36 & 49 (Probably Jan Jans Bleecker) Does anyone know enough about the Schuylers to tell me who the P. Schuyler listed on the platt might have been? General Philip Schuyler (1733-1804) would not yet have attained is majority in 1750. So I am inclined to suspect that he is not the P. Schuyler named on the plat. Additionally, when General Schuyler died in 1804, he died seized of all but two of the Great Lotts which his grandfather, Johannes Schuyler, possessed. There are several men named Peter and a couple of other men named Philip on the Schuyler family tree who might be the P. Schuyler on the plat. However, I do not have enough data to make that determination. Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help. Leslie Potter Glen Mills, PA

I have received group sheets from other researchers which have stated "chr. Kingston Reformed Dutch Church" on them. >From the recent discussion, what is the acceptable or most used term for listing baptisms at early Reformed Dutch churches on family group sheets? "bp. RDC Kingston" - would that work? Or is there some other terminology and abbreviation to use? I want to be correct and consistent on my group sheets for listing the baptism and the church where baptized. Helen

Helen, It is generally not acceptable to abbreviate any type of place names in genealogy. If you abbreviate then it is very possible that 100 years from now someone will be questioning what it meant. I am sure you have seen many posts asking what does such and such mean. It is always best to write it fully so there are no mistakes as to the meaning. As for using the term christening vs. baptism, since I am not familiar with all the various religions other than Lutheran I use christening for all religions other than Lutheran where I use baptism (I am Lutheran). Regards, Jan B. > -----Original Message----- > From: dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dutch-colonies- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Helen Graves > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:48 PM > To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Baptism correct term Reformed Dutch Chruch > > I have received group sheets from other researchers which have stated "chr. > Kingston Reformed Dutch Church" on them. > > >From the recent discussion, what is the acceptable or most used term for > listing baptisms at early Reformed Dutch churches on family group sheets? > > "bp. RDC Kingston" - would that work? Or is there some other terminology and > abbreviation to use? > > I want to be correct and consistent on my group sheets for listing the > baptism and the church where baptized. > > Helen > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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