Mike, Oh...it is so tantalizing! It would make his return at close to the time of the English takeover. But if he left because of the English takeover, would he have been likely to return to the now English Colony? I found a "Jan Ariaensen" without the "van Gent" on the 1675 tax roll for Boswyck. At the same time there is a "Jean Aersen" on the Brooklyn list. Jan Ariaensen, with or without the "van Gent", is proving to be rather elusive. Thank you for the most interesting information. Someday maybe it will all tie together. Renee L. Dauven On 8/11/2013 7:19 AM, Michael Morrissey wrote: > Renee, > > One possibility is that he was the son Aryen Van Gent and Maeyken Jans. > > Jacob Teunissen de Key married Hillegond Theunis Quick. In his marriage intentions at the DRC of New Amsterdam he was said to be of Tuyl. > 1658 29 Mar; Jacob Toeniszen van Tuyl in Gelderlt; Hilletje Teunis, van N. Amsterdam > [Robert Billard's transcription, online at http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rbillard/vital_statistics.htm > > Aryen Van Gent and Maeyken Jans were married at the DRC of Tuyl > 2 Feburari 1640 (Trouwdag); Aryen van Gent, j.m. van Avesaet, Maeyken Jans, wedr van Aert Roelofse; > > They had at least 2 children baptized there: > 1 December 1640; Dirck; Arye van Gent, Maeyke Jans > 11 Mar 1644; Johannes; Aryen van Gent > > Dirck married Cornelia Florissen there and had at least 3 children baptized there: > 14 Mei 1663 (trouwdag); Dirck van Gent, J.M. "van Tuyl", Cornelia Florissen "van Hermen" > Februari 1664; Johanna Catharyn; Dirck van Gent > 17 Mei 1668; Ariaentje; Dirck van Gent > 20 Juni 1671; Adriaen; Dirck van Gent > > Johannes Van Gent may be the Jan Van Gent in the baptismal record from Tuyl below > 25 Juli 1665; Ariaentje; Jan van Gent > > If he is the same Jan Ariansen Van Gent, then his time of service was short and he returned to Tuyl. > > Tuyl records are from FHL scans of index cards of the original records, online at: > https://familysearch.org/search/image/index#uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffamilysearch.org%2Frecords%2Fwaypoint%2FM99D-H3F%3An1751338716%3Fcc%3D2038506 > > The records at the church begin in 1639. Witnesses, if recorded, do not appear on the cards. > > Hope this helps. > > Mike Morrissey > > >> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:53:38 -0700 >> From: promine@web-ster.com >> To: DUTCH-COLONIES@rootsweb.com; NEW-NETHERLAND@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jan Ariansen van Gent >> >> Does anyone on the list have a clue who the Jan Ariansen van Gent >> >> To-day, the 30th of June 1663, appeared before me, Walewyn van der >> Veen, Notary Public, etc., Albert Albertsen, living in the Village of >> New Utrecht on Long Island, who declared that he had agreed with Jan >> Ariansen van Gent, bachellor, who also appearing admitted to have >> accepted as follows: he, the said Ariaensen, agrees to serve personally >> as substitute for said Albert Albertsen as a soldier of the West India >> Company in the present war against (p. 54) the Esopus Indians, according >> to the proclamation by the Director General and Council of this Province >> of June 25th last, for which said Albertsen shall pay him, besides the >> usual pay and the booty to be found at the next harvest, or in his >> absence to his cousin Jacob Teunissen Kay, Burgher of this City, > > ------------------------------- > 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 >