Versions of this descent for Jan Dircks (Van Arnhem) are scattered all over the Internet now. I haven't been able to figure out who first promulgated it. There are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to know where to begin. Here are the two big ones. though: When you look at the early Van Arnhems one thing jumps out: While lots of people stand as "getuygen" (roughly godparents) at the baptism of Jan Dircks and Sara Theunis' children, they never return the favor. Not once. It's unprecedented in the groups of people with whom they associated. I think the explanation lies in what godparents were at a baptism for in the first place. Technically they were guarantors that if the parents died they themselves would make sure the child was brought up within the "body" and doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church. However, to make such a guarantee the godparent had to be part of that body himself (or herself). I can find no other way to explain the absence of Jan and Sara as godparents other than to suppose they were not themselves members of the RDC and so barred from being godparents. Assuming this is correct, then the Jan Dirckzen baptized in Arnhem Oct. 13, 1640, can't be "our" Jan Dircks because that man by his very baptism was clearly part of the body of the DRC. I would also argue that the seeming military bacground of the 1640 man that Linda finds so appealing is another reason to suspect this isn't, in fact, "our" Jan Dircks. Assuming for the contrary for a moment we bump up against the demonstrable fact that our Jan Dircks stayed in New York after the Dutch surrendered it to the Brits and became a farmer for the rest of his known life. The terms of New Amsterdam's surrender contained a hidden incentive for common soldiers to stay put. Although not specifically stated, doing so would, in effect, abrogate his contract with the West India Company. More to the point, he could escape any liens against that contract which in the case of most Dutch dogfaces were both common and crushing. Jan Dircks' observed behavior (again) is more consistent with an impoverished kid who became a soldier out of desperation than with the hypothezied scion of a professional family. --pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Schwenn" <schwel@comcast.net> To: <vannorman@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 5:34 PM Subject: [VANNORMAN] Dirk Jansz >I received the information below from Janice Walters in about 2006. I have > not followed up on any of it and only send it on today because of all the > current interest. I have NOT documented this information, but have found > duplication of names on other Ancestry.com trees, including Susan > Claggett's. Of special interest to me is the addition that he was an > officer > in the military, suggesting to me that soldiering was in the family. > Another researcher wrote that Dirk was "an officer under William II, > Prince > of Oranje, Count of Nassau," perhaps an example of redundant error...or > fact? > > *Individual Report for Dirk Jansz Van Arnhem VA* > > > *Individual Summary:* > > *Dirk Jansz Van Arnhem VA* > > > > > > Sex: > > Male > > > Father: > > Jan Derryckssen > > > Mother: > > Gerriken Beecken > > > > > > *Individual Facts:* > > > > > > > Birth: > > Abt. 1615 in Arnhem, Gelderland, Holland > > > Reference ID: > > 33 > > > Death: > > Arnhem, Gelderland, Holland > > > Military Service: > > officer under General Count von Nassau > > > > > > *Shared Facts:* > > *Magdalena Jans* > > > > > > Marriage: > > 22 Apr 1638 in Arnhem, Gelderland, Holland > > > Reference ID: > > 1692 > > > Children: > > Dirrecxken Van Arnhem VA > > > > Jan Dirckszen Van Arnhem VA > > > > Joris Van Arnhem VA > > > > Hendrik Van Arnhem VA > > > > Marricken Van Arnhem VA > > > > *Notes:* > > > Person Notes: [jwlaters62[1] VN1.FTW] > > > Was an officer under General County Von Nassau. > > > Was a soldier with Rembrandt's brother, Saloman, who was the subject in > "Man in a Golden Helmet". > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > VANNORMAN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >