Can we agree on disambiguating the three Ariaantjen Oosterhou(d)ts of Kingston?

Question

There's a history of profile notes expressing consternation that a profile for Ariaantjen Osterhout (spelling may vary) of Kingston, New York, or thereabouts, has the wrong dates or the wrong husband.

I believe I've figured out the problem. There were three women of this name, very close together in age.

The three baptisms are:

1. Aryaantie, daughter of Teunis Oosterhout and Aryaantie Roos, baptized 29 September 1706
2. Ariaantjen, daughter of Pieter Jans Oosterhoud and Heyltjen Schut, baptized 3 February 1712
3. Ariaantjen, daughter of Gysbert Oosterhout and Marretjen Bogaart,baptized 9 March 1712

Their three marriages are:

1. Harmen Roosekrans and Ariaantjen Oosterhout, 29 April 1725
2. Jan de Wit  and Ariaantjen Oosterhoud, 26 September 1731.
3. Jonathan DuBois and Ariaantjen Oosterhout, 16 August 1732

I think Ariaantjen #1 is the only one who was old enough to marry in 1725, so she is marriage #1. This woman is represented by https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Oosterhout-12. The husband  is currently also assigned to Osterhout-62, but she (Osterhout-62) was too young.

If the keepers of the records at Kingston made an attempt to use slightly different spellings to distinguish the two girls baptized in 1712, then Ariaantjen #2 is (spelled Oosterhoud at baptism, profile Oosterhoudt-3) is the same one who married Jan de Wit in 1731 (marriage #2), but I haven't researched these families to determine whether other sources (such as wills) and other available biographical details (such as place names in the marriage record, names of witnesses at their children's baptisms) support that. What do the profile managers know about this?

By the same logic used for Ariaantjen #2, I'm guessing that Ariaantjen #3 is the one who married Jan de Wit Jonathan Du Bois in 1732. She's represented by https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Osterhout-62 (which profile currently has Rosekrans as spouse) and Osterhoudt-3 (which has de Wit as spouse). What do the profile managers know about this?

Comments

To figure out how they all were related I think if we add some churchrecords to their profiles might be handy ?

---

I put marriage records for some of these people in the husband's profile, but not the wife's profile, because associating a woman with a wrong husband has been a source of confusion that has prevented progress in the past.

---

I'm adding churchrecords, mostly baptisms and baptisms they were witnessing, to the profiles of both, so to these men and the Ariaantjes Oosterhouts they are now connected to. It hopefully makes all relationships and who their parents, brothers or sisters were more clear

2. Jan de Wit and Ariaantjen Oosterhoud, married 26 September 1731 it was the first marriage for both, looks like she was perhaps a sister or at least somehow related to a Marytje Oosterhout (not sure if it is this one who married Lodewijk Plank (no profile for Lodewijk ?) .

 If ...this is the Marytje Oosterhout who married Lodewijk Plank, we now have her as sister of 

1. Ariaantje Oosterhout  who married Harmen Roosekrans 29 April 1725 for them this also was their first marriage

3. Jonathan du Bois and Ariaantje Oosterhout, for them this (1732) also was their first marriage 

---

Yes, all three of the marriages were the first marriage for both bride and groom.

---

I notice that the Ancestral Curios website is the source of some records that have been added to these profiles. I'm leery of that site as a source, because some of their "transcriptions" of records have been edited to include names or name spellings that aren't in the original source. I don't know how much they edited the Kingston baptism records, but I see that their Kingston marriage records omit some of the information that is in Hoes.

---

They say they have been correcting errors in earlier transcribed ones or something like it (will have to look, what it says exactly), but I can add the 'original' ones as well of course.

Wondering if there are original ones though, because many of them if not all were transcribed or translated from the original sources if I understand it correct. So they all probably will have some misspellings or names spelled slightly different from how they were written in the original sources ?

I added them from Ancestral Curios because they have a search function, so you will see for example all Oosterhout baptisms /marriages from all the different archives and places at one page. If I have a bit more time I'll add the original sources as well . I could add a note to the source they have 'corrected' or changed things, so the names might be different in the original ones if you like ?

---

I went through several church record books and found a couple more children and many witness/sponsor entries for https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Oosterhout-12.  It looks like she and her husband Herman Rosenkranz moved near Machackemeck/Minisink. Any reason to think I'm following the wrong couple? Or is it ok at this point to add the info and sources?

---

Hi, Bea. The Ancestral Curios site is a great resource. Unfortunately, the site owner's committing to making improvements to the records consists primarily of practices like adding "the established surnames adopted by the early families" (that's a quotation from the website) to records that originally included only a patronym. As a result, we can't trust his transcriptions.

The "primary" sources for most New Netherland records are actually also [mostly] transcriptions. For Kingston, the source is the 1891 book by Roswell Randall Hoes, which is available free in a number of formats on various Internet sites. For many of the other New Netherland churches, there are transcriptions by the Holland Society of New York. The Ancestral Curios site has reproduced many of these transcribed records online, so it is a good place to find records, but because the records may have been "corrected," I believe we need to go back to the earlier transcripts.

---

Alex, if you are finding Harmen Rosenkrans and Ariaantje Oosterhout together in the records, I have no doubt that you are looking at the right person.

As I imagine you are already aware, a large contingent of people from the Kingston area settled in Machackemeck/Minisink, and many of their church events continued to be recorded by the Kingston church long after they had settled at Minisink.

---

It's of course ok to add some info and sources Alex we can sure use some help ;)

I already added a direct link to the profile of the Roswell source for Harmen and his wife

---

I added the children, but didn't make profiles for them yet. I can't figure out how to combine footnotes for the same source, so if someone could help me out with that, I'd appreciate it.

I think several of the baptisms they witnessed are for their brothers & sisters and children. I don't quite know how you plan on continuing with https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Oosterhout-12, so I'll just leave that problem for later.

---

For repeated sources you add:

<ref name="Children">Source: citation of the source [URL name of the source or what it is for] </ref> 

for the "" behind name = ""  you have to hold shift and press the '' (otherwise it won't work) If you hold shift it will add four comma's in the middle of the four comma's,  you place the  'name' , this can be anything, so it can be just 'Source' or anything you prefer . 

For all other things where this same source is used for you can just copy and paste <ref name="Children"> and end it with a slash 

<ref name="Children"/> 

You can of course also just copy and paste this 

<ref name="">Source:  </ref>  or the one I added already to the profile and just change the name and source and stuff ;) 

And before saving just always check in preview if everything looks ok .

---

ahum.. it's also explained here Repeated Sources  only there it's not mentioned you have to hold shift and the comma button 

---

Alex, as profile manager you don't need anyone's permission to edit. The project is there to help out, not to monopolize the profile.

I got involved here because I stumbled upon a confusing situation. The Oosterhout-12 isn't going to need any merges or other major changes, but I think there is a merge pending for one of the other Ariaantjens.

---

Woohoo great job Alex, thank you so much !

Answer 1

Yay! Pat Wardell's Early Bergen County Families at http://njgsbc.org/files/BCFamilies/BCFam-Oosterhout.pdf (top of page 5) quotes a will that resolves the question of the two girls born in 1712.

The will of Abram Oosterhout (found in Collections of the NY Historical Society, not in Anjou's collection of Ulster County wills), a son of Pieter Jans Oosterhout and Hyltje Schut, named his brothers and sisters as heirs, including "Ariantie, wife of Jonathan Du Bois." So his sister Ariaantjen #2 (Oosterhoudt-3) married Jonathan du Bois and Ariaantjen #3 married Jan de Wit. And the only one of the 4 profiles that needs to be disconnected from any of its family members is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Osterhout-62 

Answer 2

If I get this correct the husbands of these women 'perhaps' are the ones that are different ones or 'perhaps' ''mixed up'' and connected now to 'perhaps' the wrong Ariaantje's ?  I noticed the parents for the different Ariaentjes now are all set as uncertain, so I guess we are going to look for sources and which one married the daughter of whom exactly and are going to correct he parents and Bio's or something for the different Ariaantjes to prevent mixing up the families, so the husbands and children they now are attached to ?

I'll look for some sources ;)

Comments

Bea, the histories of these profiles include descendants saying that the parents, dates, or spouse of a particular profile are wrong, because they know that Ariaantje had different parents, or a different husband, or was too young to marry on a particular date. That's led to lots of uncertain qualifiers -- because people seemed to have assumed there was only one woman with this name.

I'm hoping that the members who expressed strong views can provide their information to help connect the women to the right husbands. The births and marriages of these families are mostly documented in the Hoes book of Kingston church records, but descendants may have used wills and other sources that can elucidate relationships.

---

Do you mean the Church records are incorrect ? of course it would be wonderful if members had more info like wills and would add them to make things more clear, so if someone has something please add it to the profiles, all help is appreciated !

---

I glanced at their church record transcripts in the NJGSBC files and hooboy, none of them had nearly enough children. It's no wonder they've all been confused.

PS I marked the parents unclear just to make it easier to see that there was confusion, though all three couples definitely baptized daughter Adria*ntje. :>

---

Bea: I have no reason to question the church records, but church records aren't the only type of genealogical evidence -- and the lists of witnesses in the records of the baptisms of these three couples' children won't explicitly identify the babies' grandparents. Also, since all of these Ariaantjes were related, the same people (or people with identical names) might have witnessed baptisms for more than one of these couples. Wills and deeds could provide much stronger evidence of which married Ariaantje came from which set of parents.

---

Yes I understand and yup .. wills really are a great source, was looking for some now, but these wills are also quite distracting ...pfff..lot to read and seeing soo many familiar names (profiles), it's very hard to concentrate and keep searching for or adding things to just one family or person :P

---

I know what you mean, Bea. When perusing sources, it's way easy to get diverted by the discovery of an interesting bit of information about someone else whose name we recognize. But that's not always bad -- I only discovered that two Ariaantje Oosterhouts were baptized in 1712 because I was skimming whole pages in the Kingston records.

---

No it's a great thing, and genealogy and solving things just takes time and a lot of reading and searching...I think this one's solved now ? Congrats and thanks for starting this Ellen always great to have things correct and as accurate as possible.

Will add some better sources and wills (if I find any) for these families as well of course :)

---

these books are becoming like a family Bible to me now

Answer 3

I know this is answering to an old post, but it concerns one of my ancestors, Arianntje Oosterhout, Who married Harmon Rosekrans. This particular Ariana was the daughter of Arien Roosa and Maria Pels. The reason I'm answering this is about 15 years ago I joined the Holland Society of New York, using my line through JJVO, which included Ariaantje. There was a problem proving that she was the daughter of Arien Roosa and Maria  Pels, because she was not listed in probate records or church records. As I was doing my application, a member of the NYG&B published an article in the NYG&B Record which proved all the children of Arien and Maria, using land records. I have it somewhere but I have been unable to find my copy, but it was NYG&B Record vol. 137, pages 31 through 39. The title of the article is "Proving the Nine Children of Arie Aldertsz Roosa of Kingston, Ulster County."

Comments

Your Ariaantje Oosterhout who married Harmen Rosekrans, is in WikiTree as https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Oosterhout-12. Thanks for pointing out the article in NYGBR.

The profile for her mother, Ariaantje Roosa, is https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Roos-980 . I see that her profile needs improvements: it relies heavily on "somebody's family tree" and does not so much as mention that NYGBR article that established her connection to her parents. When I looked up that article in the NYGBR online (on the NYGBS website), I found that there was an "Additions and Corrections" article two years later (in 2008) in NYGBR Vol. 139 (pages 305-308), but that 2008 article did not change any conclusions regarding Ariaantje.

---

Thank you! I was hoping someone would have access to the NYG&B. I had just seen the article listed above and remembered the source I had used and proving my line.