Could there be a familial connection or might these two profiles be duplicates?

Question

Could there be a familial connection between Hendrik Bernhardus Heymans (1755 - bef. 1799) (born [probably] in 1755 in Doesburg, Netherlands and immigrated to the Dutch Cape Colony 23-11-1789) and Hendrik Bernard Heymans (bef. 1763) or are they duplicates?

I had to reconstruct the mangled bio (new "boiler plate" format) of http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Heymans-144 but as far as the baptism (and marriage and death) it is a guess (because as concerns to this data, no "sources" except for a death certificate of a child in 1877 were imported with the GEDCOM).

Comments

Hendrik's profile says: "Husband of Silvia (van die Kaap) van der Schyff — married [date unknown] in Not married"

There's nothing on WikiTree that requires the father and mother of a person to be married. Marriages and parent-child relationships are recorded separately.

There can be some confusion about this because WikiTree enables you to create a marriage and a parent-child relationship at the same time. For example, if you are adding a mother and there is an existing father, the form will have a checkbox that says "X is the spouse of Y's father." Make sure this box is unchecked.

If a marriage has incorrectly been recorded, click to the edit page of one of the spouses. Look in the right column under Edit Family for the spouses section. Then click "[add/remove a spouse]".

Source: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Unmarried_parents

---

Peter WikiTree [the verdict] is still out on that issue ... see: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/233548/in-a-bind-about-relationships ... and especially the remarks of Steven, Bea and Jillaine.

I beg of you not to go and remove those concubinal relationships because that would wreak havoc in our project.

---

Thanks Peter, I think what you mean is you agree this is a good option and quoted the text from the help page and added the link, just trying to help and show what the guidelines for these situations are now eeh.:) 

And @Philip maybe we should add something about communicating before editing to this help page about Unmarried parents to make sure that it of course is not a good idea to remove relationships for profiles if you're not the manager or member of the project if these related profiles are part of a project ? 

---

Thanks Bea and Peter. Simply said it was also agreed to show non-marital relations the same way as marital relations, and not only via the biography. On many of these profiles there are still research being done, also in collaboration with other parties outside of WikiTree. I removed the "not married" from the "place of marriage". Now it just shows them as having been married (even though one can be certain that they were not, it is not an option to check the box "uncertain"). Also the other box right to the bottom, is meant for living people only (in divorce cases for example). I'm dead scared that correction officers will become finnicky and start removing relationships that are still being research merely because of "form". When that happens we will lose years of work and the research - much of what still has to be done - will become untenable. This is the first phase - the second phase will be the DNA. So until we can prove or disprove (confident etc.) child-parent relationships, the following is in many cases not even relevant: "There's nothing on WikiTree that requires the father and mother of a person to be married. Marriages and parent-child relationships are recorded separately. There can be some confusion about this because WikiTree enables you to create a marriage and a parent-child relationship at the same time. For example, if you are adding a mother and there is an existing father, the form will have a checkbox that says "X is the spouse of Y's father." Make sure this box is unchecked." It might only be confusing to those outside of a project - those working within this project are well versed on how the child-parent relationships work and knows where the "add/remove" edit functions are and how they work. Under no circumstannces is it wise to allow correction officers to merely remove relationships, even if they are "Unknown".

---

I understand your concerns and fear Philip and many members were concerned about this, so for correction officers and all members that are using and working with the database error links to try and correct things, there of course are some rules/guidelines :

Code of conduct when fixing database errors

---

Hi Philip,

Please notice I have no intention on changing the profile, but WikiTree recommends an unmarried couple should not have "married" in the profile.

Kind regards, Peter

---

Peter, again, see: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/233548/in-a-bind-about-relationships ... and especially the remarks of Steven, Bea and Jillaine.

See this example and this example of just how complicated things can get. Only this morning I merged a profile of which a secondary source (well-known but also proven faulty in the past) claims the person remained unmarried, yet he had a "life partner" and they had children. All of which sitll has to be corroborated with collated facts and sources. There are thousands of profiles in this project alone of which marriage [if any] dates and or places are [still] unavailble. We are still working on it, profiles do not come finished and complete and I am very sure that WikiTree does not require that they do. This website (only one of many but probably the most exemplary) is very instrumental in supplying us with information; It is not a "finished" project, but a work in progress. As is our project. And we need the space to do the research in. Which equals Time with as little interference as possible from unnecessary and unvalidated editing.

---

WikiTree 'recommends' an unmarried couple should not have "married" in the profile. I agree with you (and Bea) WikiTree has a shortcoming in this.

For now WikiTree only has the status "Married". I think it would be better to change this to "Relationship", with an option "Married" and others.

---

Yes it would make things more clear for sure, I suggest for now adding the words not married-relationship to the place field probably will at least make things more clear immediately, if they are showing up as possible errors .

Answer 1

Would this VOC record for Hendrik Bernhart Heijmans help fill in some gaps and hammer out a timeline?

Given the enlistment date he could have been on the ZEEDUIN when she arrived at the cape on 1 Jan 1784, departing for Batavia on 20 Jul 1784. On her return from Batavia in 1785 the Zeeduin is reportedly wrecked in the Indian Ocean

Perhaps the VOC records of the Zeeduin available from the National Archives of Indonesia (ANRI) (account needed to view records - not sure if it is free or pay) might have more details (

Comments

I also noticed that one of the records already cited on the profile [www.GaHetNa.nl > VOC: Opvarenden (Scheepssoldijboeken).] mentions Hendrik Heijman as 'van Wesel'... given how close Wesel is to both Venlo and Nijmegen it might be a good place to consider looking for other possible siblings.

---

Wonderful ... thanks so much Rob! We have merged the two profiles for now (there is a great story around this if it proves to be the same person); as soon as Louis has enough time he'll expand the family with information you and Jan provided ... and we can fill in the "gaps" ...:-)

---

I tossed together a rough profile for Hendrik Heijmans (husband of Metje Beukers) then orphaned it so it can be adopted by a more appropriate manager. Apologies in advance for any typos or other errors and I hope it is more of a help than a hindrance.

 

---

Thanks Rob!

---

Much aprreciated!

Answer 2

 

It is very likely these are duplicates. There is a marriage of parents 
Metjen Beukers en Hendrik Heijmans, proclaimed November 12, 1762 marriage November 28:

"Netherlands, Gelderland Province, Church Records, 1405-1966," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-32991-14432-46?cc=2038506 : 22 August 2014), Nederlands Hervormde > Doesburg > Trouwen 1751-1816 Overlijden, Begraven 1800-1811 > image 109 of 500; Gelders Archives, Arnhem.

He was "Tamboer in het eerste bataljon Orange Gelderland" ("Drummer in the first battalion Orange Gelderland"), she "having lived lately in Amsterdam".

There are two more baptisms of this couple to be found in Breda, 1770 and 1773.

Comments

Thanks Jan!