Clarification, which child would be my ancestors child?

+6 votes

I have found two baptismal records from 1705 for Femmechijen Alberts both baptized in Diever (Drenthe), Both have fathers listed as Albert Roelefs and mother listed as Dieltjen/Deeltjen Geerts or Hofmans

My Dieltjen does use the name Hofmans, however her father is named Geert thus she also uses her patronym from time to time. The problem is both these records are about a month apart, only last I heard it takes more than a month for a child to be born. I have searched for other Dieltjen's however in this small hamlet I haven't found any others married to Albert Roelefs.

I have them both linked below.

Thanks in Advanced,


15 April 1705

15 mei 1705

in The Tree House by Sytze Brouwer G2G6 Mach 1 (18.5k points)

4 Answers

+10 votes

These are clearly two separate entries in the original baptismal record, so not just an artifact of duplicate transcription.

But the baptismal records also indicate the two kids were born in different places. The first Femmechijen was born to Albert Roelefs and Deeltijen Hofmans in Leggel (local designation for the hamlet of Leggeloo just northeast of Diever, see English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia).

The second Femmechijen was born to a different Albert Roelefs and Deeltijen Geerts in Witthelte (now Wittelte, a hamlet just south of Diever, see English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia).

So which of these two small hamlets was your ancestor from?

by Anonymous Geschwind G2G6 Mach 8 (81.9k points)
+8 votes

I tried to see if a possible marriage/burial could help, but no luck.

What I did:

I always prefer to search at the archive, not at a collector website like OpenArch.

At (or wiewaswie) they keep the records uptodate with possible name changes.


Diever, 5-4-1705, Collectie Xerokopieen DTOB, boek 34 (doop- en trouwboek, 1676-1829), pagina 028
Gedoopt: Femmechijen, geboren te Leggel, gedoopt op 5-4-1705, dochter van Albert Roelefs en Deeltijen Hofmans.


Diever, 15-5-1705, Collectie Xerokopieen DTOB, boek 34 (doop- en trouwboek, 1676-1829), pagina 028
Gedoopt: Femmechijen, geboren te Witthelte, gedoopt op 15-5-1705, dochter van Albert Roelefs en Dieltijen Geerts.

You can search for spelling variations (verwant aan). But I could not find a clear record. Maybe you have some more information to use?

by Michel Vorenhout G2G6 Pilot (222k points)
+6 votes
I decided to explore the family further.  There was only one Albert Roelefs baptized at the right time - in 1676 in Leggelo to to Roelef Alberts and Femmeijen.  There was also only one Deeltijen / Dieltijen baptized at the right time - in 1677 in Wittelhe to Geert Hofs (a variant of Hofmans) and Grietijen Gerreke.  Albert and Dieltijen also baptized Geert in 1706 and Jantijen in 1708, both in Leggelo.  All of this would seem to indicate that both the 1705 records refer to the same Femmechjen Alberts.  And yet - I double checked a scan of the the original document - both baptisms are listed on the same document, 6 entries apart.  

I've seen a baby's baptism be double documented before, but never on the same list and never more than a month apart (although I believe I've seen them documented a few weeks apart before).  I've uncovered several mistakes in original documents (first name and patronymic switched around, wrong patronymic used, etc.) - perhaps this is indicative of some kind of mistake as in the wrong parents listed in one of them?  I've seen that before, sometimes caught and corrected and sometimes not.  But even then - it's curious that they were from father's home village in one entry (along with both siblings' records) and from mother's home village in the other... I'm not sure what to think.  

No marriage records for Diever from this time period seem to have survived.  Perhaps that's worth checking into.  Also any tax records from the early 1700's may give a clue as to whether there was one or two Albert Roelefs in the Diever area at the time.
by Bertram Sluys G2G6 Mach 3 (30.8k points)
I don't know if it's the case here but sometimes, when a child was born and the family was afraid the child would die before it was officially baptized, they could  baptize it themselves ("lekedoop") to be sure the child would go to heaven and not to the "vagevuur" which would happen if it would die unbaptized. Later on, if the child survived, it would be properly baptized in  church.
That's much more plausible than any of the scenarios I can come up with.
+3 votes
I love you all for helping Sytze! Thank you!
by Astrid Spaargaren G2G6 Pilot (242k points)

Related questions

+8 votes
3 answers
100 views asked Nov 12, 2017 in The Tree House by Sytze Brouwer G2G6 Mach 1 (18.5k points)
+7 votes
1 answer
68 views asked Aug 9, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Sytze Brouwer G2G6 Mach 1 (18.5k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
126 views asked Jul 10, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Abm van Helsdingen G2G6 Mach 4 (46.2k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
379 views asked Aug 19, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Jana Shea G2G6 Mach 2 (27.1k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
2 answers
108 views asked Mar 14, 2019 in The Tree House by Peter van Munster G2G4 (4.7k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright