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 >