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

I had posted in this thread about a mention of Lambert Huyberts and Huybert Lamberts MOLL, quoted from an article written in Dutch. Upon further reflection, I would like to revise one of my comments now. I wrote: > ...There is a website which discusses > Lambert Huybertsz Moll and his family --parents as well as children. > Among the mass of ideas presented there is a reference to some > documents which can be found in archives of Amersfoort, ca 1618 to the > 1630's. > > 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... I still mostly agree with this translation, except I had failed to notice the modifier in here, "mogen" which means 'may,' 'might.' So the sentence would be more accurately translated: BECAUSE [[of whatever preceded this sentence]] on Jan 8th, 1631, ONE Lambert Huybertsz Moll, shipcarpenter and farmer on Long Island (Eylandt) is mentioned, IN WHOM WE MAY WELL recognize a son of this couple." In English this is a little awkward but is now more accurate. This does not change the concept that Hubert Lambertsz Moll and Geertgen Cornelisdr are thought to be the parents of Lambert Huyberts Moll, but the writer is hedging the bet just a little. If the author had been 100% certain, s/he would have said that Lambert Huybertsz Moll "IS en zoon van dit echtpaar." And so I wanted to make this clarification. Also someone inquired about my use of a family name "van Schaick" in connection with Hubert Lambertsz Moll's wife, Geertgen Cornelisdr. I hadn't filtered that out either --that notion came from the online article. I have no information which either supports or disproves this family name in connection with Geertgen Cornelisdr. So I am just correcting the archives here too. That's all for now, Liz J