Should the LNAB be the baptism record or the signature? [closed]

Question

I was under the impression that WikiTree policy is to generally take the earliest spelling of the LNAB as that from the earliest record that can be found in that person's specific life. In many cases it will be the baptism record, and if not available marriage records. At times also signatures, but never when the others are available.

What should the spelling for this profile of the famous Jeremias van Renselaer - https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Rensselaer-136 be? See the comment boxes: his LNAB has been correctly transcribed (there is also an image thereof) as spelled with 1 "s" ... though there seems to be an issue with his signature that looks as if has 2 "s"'s ...

If the policy is now that we take whatever fits us best and let go of the standard, I fear that we are in for a lot more discussion.

Comments

As stated in the profile comments, I see a double s in both cases. van Rensselaer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremias_van_Rensselaer

Stacks of Jeremias' correspondence were translated by a native Dutch speaker, A.J.F. van Laer, who was among the first to decode many of the New Netherland documents, written in archaic Dutch. I believe him when he says that Jeremias' signed his own name with a double s. https://www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/research/online-publications/correspondence-of-jeremias-van-rensselaer/

I think the real question is, what are projects allowed to define as naming conventions? The titular question is a secondary to that.

For example, the New Netherland Settlers project needs to do things a certain way that both the Dutch Roots and Cape of Good Hope projects disagree with, in regards to settlers of New Netherland.

 

---

Transcribed by the Amsterdam Stadsarchief (city archive) itself (see link to full image of baptism):

kind: Jeremias

doopdatum: 16-05-1632 kerk: Nieuwe Kerk godsdienst: Hervormd vader: [van] Renselaer, Kiliaen moeder: [van] Welij, Anna bronverwijzing: DTB 41, p.192 Archief van de Burgerlijke Stand: doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken van Amsterdam (retroacta van de Burgerlijke Stand) Doopregister: NL-SAA-24709206

---

There is no question at all that those two are double 's'.

---

Carrie,

In Amsterdam seven baptisms of children of Kiliaen and Anna are recorded:

• In all cases the Dutch archivists transcribed the last name with one 's'
• The documents confirm these transcriptions as correct, with the possible exception of Jeremias's record

Bea has supplied evidence of the historical use (in the Netherlands) of Renselaer.

 

In view of this the LNAB of all Dutch born Renselaers must be "van Renselaer".  If any of these or their descendants go by variants of thatr name in New Netherland, by all means use that variant either as CLN for Dutch born or LNAB for non-Dutch born.

 

In general the naming convention (if any) defined for the place of birth should be respected.

---

LNAB = LNA B I R T H. Never at LNA S(Last Name at Signature).

---

To nuance my answer (Carrie you re not wrong! You re doing great! Really Bow....... I would not be able to be a Leader at Any.......... But at some point we need to communicate! :))

 

--------------------------

 

I do not think this needs to be a long discussion.I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I do say I do not like people stepping in her not knowing. 

Too many answers/comments, 80% will not be read. 

First: Carrie is a great leader. Obvious there is a miscommunication that needs to be solved. So thank you Phillip for starting this threat. As Carrie still says made up patronymics should not be added to LNAB. Patronyms are never made up by the most active at the D_R_P. (Dutch Roots Project), as the know how it works.  For me it means she is right, made up patronyms should not be added.  But patronyms are not made up and many patronyms can not been shown at sources as it JUST WORKS that way at the Netherlands till around 1811. (See Joop van Belzen's  comment)

WikiTree policy as I take/understand it.

LNAB =LN @ BIRTH

if not available............. find next source to LNAB (marriage etc.)

NAME CONVENTION RULES: rules at country of birth. If name evolves, it is at the next generation at the country born. 

 

So if Jan or Piet has a LNAB grrrrbr. and it is changed later to VanderBild......... His FNAB is still: grrrrbr.  We have to live with that. Even if he signs at his wedding with Piet VanderBild............ His LNAB STAYS:grrrrbr! :/

So if a LNAB is spelled with ae and one is signing at his marriage with aa it still is ae at LNAB.

 

Patronyms are never made up. We can not source them. It is just how it works from the start of time till around 1811 as Napoleon demanded the Dutch to take a Last Name. Even if you ve seen it before or not. It is just how it worked but for notables and nobilities who had a proper LNAB. 

This discussion is just about to save work of many great WikiTreeers and leaders, very/ accurate /active etc WIkiTreeers that do not like to see all their time and work going down. I am sure Carrie who stand up for the NNS profiles just needs some help on how the Dutch patronyms work and how general/normal/common it was/is besides a small part of many notables and nobilities with a lnab sailed to the New Netherlands. 

 

Lot of blood shed over the years. Let s make peace and solve this. 

Carrie we need to be on the same line. We do not like anything added "made_up" to WikiTree.  Please first stay to LNAB.......... as I think you do. Patronyms are NEVER made up by the Dutch Rooters........ Be sure we know  you re just protecting the NNS profiles. 

WikiTree thank yous and love from the Netherlands, 

 

A. 

---

Transcribing can be very difficult even for experienced archivists. And mistakes are made. That is the reason that when it comes to important work, many times two or more transcribers have to decide a spelling. And in Dutch from around 1600 the one moment a letter looks like an "e" and the next it is a "n" or something else. It also all depends on where in the word the particular letters are. The meaning of a letter also depends therefore to a certain degree on the context within the word, and the context within the sentence.

In the case of this profile, the archivists were correct. So Jeremias must have his lnab changed and to '''van Renselaer''' 'with one "s'" ... and protected as such.

The LNAB of his brother Johan had actually been transcribed incorrectly by people at the city archives (not all are equally experienced; there is a shortage of experienced transcribers, and even with transcribing one can make typo's), and has been now corrected. His brother Jehan Baptista still needs his lnab changed to one with 1 "s" as can be read on the transcription image. The lnab of his sister Leonora also needs to be changed to '"Renslaer''' as can be read on the baptism image. Again his sister Susanna had her name incorrectly transcribed by the city archives itself, but luckily it has been correctly protected. The lnab of his brother Richardus also needs to be protected with one "s" and not two as is now the case. And of course Jeremias himself still needs his lanb protected with one "s" and not two, as is still the case.

Validating LNsAB in the New Netherlands project is difficult for many reasons. One is that many records were lost (church fires for example), and what remained was treated with some contempt by the British and even ended up in the Tower of London for a while before being shipped off to the US again in later centuries. Few notary archives remain. In general, what remains in archives today in the Netherland is only a fraction of what ever existed. Much has been lost by fires, (the city of Middelburg in the Netherlands, is just one of the many European cities that lost it's entire archive through bombardment). In Amsterdam alone there are about 8 km of notary records that still remain to be scanned and transcribed. Only 2% has been digitized and can be found online.

Anyhow what I mean to say is that we understand how difficult validating those records can be in the context of Nieuw Amsterdam. I take it for granted (though I had to work hard to get where I am now language wise) that I can read English and Dutch as well as some other languages to a greater or lesser extent. I know that for many WikiTreers not speaking a second or third language, it must be a challenge.

But that's what WikiTree also stands for - collaboration en G2G deliberation. We are all in this enterprise together, for better and for worse. And of course as in any marriage ... communication is the key.

---

Thank you Philip for this G2G question it was needed and probably should have been done earlier to make sure everyone was aware of and fully understood what the exact change of Policy of the New Netherland Settlers was and what it would or could mean for the deeper ancestors who were born and baptized in the Netherlands (or other parts of the World), because the guidelines at the project pages unfortunately were not really clear about it. 

It before said and this didn't look to any of us as a major change: if there was a Birth or baptism record that was going to be used to determine the LNAB for them and only if that was not available the name how it appears in the first church record in New Netherland was going to be used. 

And thank you Carrie for putting up with us and taking the time to answer.. as said earlier we all really respect and love you, so this really is not to make you feel bad, we just and that's the most important for projects who are working so close together like ours, need to have things clear .

We all have been working very hard for years now to make sure all backward projected and wrong or in fact current last names were corrected (added to the correct fields), and for the Dutch and others even more important, to make sure patronymics were finally and officially accepted as LNAB at WikiTree (They all had either a backward projected or Unknown for LNAB earlier,) 

So the only thing we ask, and I think it's really a small favour we ask of you, is to, if there's no urgent need, add current last names to the current naming field if there was a or multiple baptism or other records that clearly show the name of the parent(s) also and if the parents are correct, so if you could just give us this little ? 

We really don't have a problem with a patronymic that's in a different spelling, but giving them current last names for us and I think you will understand why, is a quite different thing, especially if they can be added to the current last name . (this is the slippery slope I'm worried about, at the moment and because I know you are protecting and making sure the patronymics are in there somewhere, but someone else in perhaps a few years might think different and not see or understand the importance of the old patronymics or farm names etc. or how hard it was to get them accepted as LNAB here and decides to again change project Policies and have them all removed..)

I think all is clear now so here's one more time for everyone, this is how the New Netherland Settlers Project now would like to/is working ..

The method in question, the one that is conflict with the way Dutch Roots (and others) handles LNAB, is very simple:

If a New Netherland settler was baptized without a surname, the first surname (which might be a patronymic) that appears in church records is used for their LNAB. Any assumed patronymics are added to the first name field. 

I think that's very clear, so thank you Carrie :D

---

This thread, which started out with the Dutch Roots insistence that the record for Jeremias doesn't have a double s in it, or that it does but that it doesn't matter, then became a disagreement between myself and 5 Dutch Roots folks (which has actually been an ongoing discussion since at least December).

The people represented by the profiles in question are the New Netherland Settlers born in the Netherlands. They are part of the co-founders of America, our progenitors - the most important people in the New Netherland Settlers project. And you guys want to change their LNABs.

To tally up the suggestions made in the thread so far by the Dutch Roots for the LNAB of those baptized in the Netherlands:

* Philip says follow the baptism record to the letter (or character, like a cross), though that letter is in dispute, and the Amsterdam Stadsarchief index is always right
* Jan Terink says that since the majority of the van Rensselaers are transcribed as van Renselaer, they should all be spelled the same, as van Renselaer
* Astrid says LNAB is the last name at birth and should never be made up, but patronymics have no source, they just are
* Bea says (assuming, from edits) a LNAB should be a patronymic if baptized by a father that had one, and it is the first name of the father at the baptism + s
* Joop says a patronymic cannot just be the father's name + s, that it must be what appears in records

Somehow my leadership became a part of the discussion. What.

And the criticism of me is that I'm not communicating (listening) ((or agreeing?)).

And now it seems as if it is being suggested that all of the New Netherland Settlers born in the Netherlands are to have all patronymics as LNAB? Or that their names won't be determined until a baptism record is found? Would the LNAB be "Unknown" until a baptism record is located? What is the suggestion for processing duplicates until the baptism record is located?

It feels like this would be going backwards for the New Netherland Settlers project because the project had finally found a way to simplify the process of determining a LNAB that could be backed up with sources and easily checked for anyone needing to merge them. That's not even considering descendants needing to find their profiles. Or attempting to prevent duplicates altogether.

As I've suggested in the past, a technical solution to this dispute would be to add a patronymic field (that would be protected with PPP along with the LNAB). Unfortunately that's a lot to ask for and there probably aren't enough cultures that used patronymics to justify it.

---

Hi Carrie, I explicitly said that the stadarchives are not always correct. In this family alone, at least two baptism images were not totally correctly transcribed. But it stands to reason that in the most cases the archives would be correct. I cannot transcribe or read old German texts. I leave it to those who can. But I can transcribe old Dutch texts.

I also did not say ''follow to the letter'', but take and PPP that ''what is written and can be interpreted by a majority of those who do know how to decipher old spelling'' ...

---

We are not saying anywhere you are not communicating, listening or agreeing, this 'misunderstandings' all started because of a change of policy or approach, that apparently just was not clearly explained in the guidelines, and we are now just trying to make sure it is clear for everyone.

If Projects with so many active project members are working as close together as ours do and share these deeper ancestors, this also means that we all should at least try to come to some sort of agreement if one of the projects is changing policies and if that change perhaps affects profiles that are Historically just as significant or important to be able to trace them back for the other project also.

So all we ask is if we could all agree to make sure the earliest New Netherland Settlers if they for sure and proven by a baptism, birth and perhaps other records were born in the Netherlands,  if there are no really early church records available and only a record where the person is mentioned with a later last name, they according the baptism record for sure were not born with, to add that last name to the current name field, that's all and this way we all can be happy and all is solved.

So we are not at all against you or the new policy Carrie, but I hope you understand what we are trying to explain also,  for us it is the same and it also feel like moving backwards if people for sure born with a patronymic are going to end up with a LNAB that could go to the current name field just as well. (So if they are going to end up with what in fact is a current last name for LNAB instead of just the patronymic if they were born and the parents, proven by the baptism, did not have a family name, but used a patronymic )

Patronymics based on a baptism record are not ''assumed,'' there just was not much consistency in the way how people or clerks wrote the names or the patronymics, so as we all know a patronymic could be one time Jans or Janss, the next Jansz , Janszen, Jansen , Janssen or Jansse or whatever, and it also could be slightly different depending on time, area or place what ending was used,  so to try and ''prove'' the exact and most correct spelling is probably and also never going to work and might be totally incorrect if the transcriber made a mistake.

So perhaps it's a better idea to just compare all the earliest records that can be found, including the baptism record, and use for LNAB the one that based on all those records seems most correct or 'consistent' ?

---

So, we must protect the patronymic but there is no consistency in how to spell the patronymic. This is unlike Sweden, where patronymics are always spelled nearly the same (this is known because they have censuses that go back to the 17th century) - there's no consistency in the Netherlands.

---

haha no there was no consistency anywhere, not in the Netherlands and not in the New Netherland, but yes just like the Sweden ones, they can be traced back (also because of the naming tradition) really far, it often also depends on the time or place where these people were born or baptized, if the ending was an s or ss or sz or if the dr was added also for the girls, really early ones also included the whole word, so '''soen''', '''soon''' or '''doghter''',  so that's why I think to look at all churchrecords including the baptism records is probably a much better way to determine a patronymic if you feel it needs to be ''corrected'' and or proven by other records.

So the time and place of Birth/Baptism  could be of influence also to what patronymic was used or where they were born with and this is something we also look at when we determine a patronymic, so for us it's not only based on the record but the place and time also..

In Friesland the earlier records often have dr or zn added to them, while in other areas (South Netherlands) sometimes the even harder to understand multiple generation patronymics were more common. 

But overall from what I have seen from the Church records in New Netherland they (if the parents were correct and did not use an alias or translated version of their name)) are not so different in spelling compared to the original baptism records (how the name of the father was spelled). So that's why for us that's not such a problem..it's the preservation of the name of the father (or mother if father was Unknown) what makes protecting them important. 

Or in the case of the van Renselaer family the preservation of the original and earliest versions, because they have been leading genealogists and researchers to the Renseler loan (Abbey) where they probably were coming from. 

Treating profiles different because they were rich and famous, in genealogy I think is never a good reason to not give a person the correct LNAB, so the version or way as it was written in the record.

I think everyone (descendants) could be proud of that name no matter how it was written and happy that because those earlier versions were preserved so well by the clerks, (something we also are trying to do), we still can trace hem back so far and to the Renseler loan (abbey) in the Nijkerk Putten area. Just imagine what a tragedy it would have been if someone would have decided to rewrite those churchbooks and had changed them all to the modern versions... ;)

---

Bea, my apologies, in looking at your tree to get a better idea of what you guys are asking of the New Netherland Settlers project, I noticed that profiles of the same time frame are set up the same way that the New Netherland Settlers project naming conventions are currently written:

So I think that there's something getting lost in the translation, and that the New Netherland Settlers project naming conventions will work for all of the projects that collaborate on the New Netherland settler profiles (Dutch Roots, US Presidents, Notables, * ):

Patronymics that aren't recorded prior to a marriage record can go in the first name field. If there is no surname at a baptism, then the surname (or patronymic used as a surname) that first appears in church records will be the LNAB.

If this wording isn't perfectly clear, please let me know.

As to the second issue, when the spelling of an actual scanned record is in dispute, it should be voted on by g2g, because the more eyes there are, the more likely we all are to find the right answer. Then instead of an argument between 1 person and 5 others, we're collaborating and all of Wikitree is working together towards making a better Wiki...tree.

The only thing I'm not sure about is what to do about the signature issue. How can a firsthand, primary source not override everything else?

Times are tough right now on this side of the pond; if only everyone else knew what we know: we're all cousins.

* Puritan Great Migration and Huguenot Migration are different - both are historical settler projects that predate New Netherland when there is crossover, so NNS follows their conventions for emigrants of their projects. Edit: Forgot to mention the New Sweden project. 

---

Thanks for trying to solve this Carrie, it's really appreciated and ooh my ..Iieew really..my tree !? (shame on me ) It's unfortunately not the best example and lacks a lot of attention because of all projects and stuff I'm also working on Carrie . The East Netherland part of it is also not such a great example, because these people often were referred to or used for last names the farm or area names, very complicated to figure out what to use for LNAB really aweful, but a bit similar to the van Renselaer and other families from that part of the Netherlands. 

But well looking at the NNS convention and guidelines now, I think I figured out what is causing the misunderstandings, it now says if people were born without a surname.. This is the major difference between our way of thinking and this new NNS Policy. Reading it I get the feeling you are not thinking about patronymics as a last name, so to understand what we all are meaning and talking about, you should try to change how you probably think of or about patronymics, because I assume that is the major reason and difference and is probably causing why we are now having these misunderstandings.

For us and this is what took us all years to finally get this accepted and added as WikiTree Policy, and why it feels like a major set back, is that we think about patronymics like this:

no one was born without a surname if they used the very common and widely spread, known and accepted patronymic system/tradition, so how we all look at and think about this is: if someone was born without what I guess for you only counts as a surname like van Gelre or whatever, the patronymic was the surname they were born or baptized with.

So for us all Dutch, Germans, Swedish or others that used a patronymic naming system it's like this: 

People were not born as Unknowns or without a LNAB, their officially by us accepted last names and how they were known and what they most likely would use during their early lives for us is the patronymic (or earliest version of a last name), before they had to or out of free will to make it easier to distinguish one from the other, started to use or had to adopt a for them new ' last name'.

So for example: We have a child born as Jan Pieters (or Pietersz, or whatever, depending on time place etc.) ..His parents emigrated to the New Netherland and of course took their children with them. The communities were growing, and with so many similar names it of course might happen, this Jan Pieters after emigration decided to adopt or was by others described and eventually himself also, with what looks to be a last name like Kip, Smit, van den Berg or whatever, this was not always perse because Jan wanted or had to adopt a last name, but it often just happened or was done to distinguish for example Jan Pieters from his neigbour or other people in the area or town, that were also named Jan Pieters.

Anyway for us, and this is how we have have worked for years now, this later and new last name, would be the current last name if he, according the baptism record was born without it and should not replace the patronymic (or earlier version of the last name), but these all should be added to the current last name field. 

Reason: easy and and logic for everyone. He was born with the patronymic for LNAB, the later adopted or sometimes used one, just like the later spellings or ways how they signed their names later in life themselves, those all are current names and should be added to the current name fields, which logically and of course might not always have been the names they were born with.And I think it explains why so many say a LNAB= a LNAB, not the later one.. 

As I mentioned earlier in general and if the parents were correct and did not use translated versions of their names or an alias, in the New Netherland Church records, they all as could be expected based on the earliest birth/baptism records they also still had the patronymics, so no problem there, the only problem would be if the later last name that perhaps was only used to distinguish someone from a neighbour with a similar name, is now going to replace the Patronymic which was the actual LNAB . 

Have to go to our daughter now and will be out for the day, but will check in again as soon as I'm back Carrie. 

---

I mean, Bea, keep in mind I've been working on this project for like a month less than you. Make no mistake, I do understand patronymics. But they are not surnames or family names, not until they were frozen. They are a very unique name. "Last Name" does not translate well because it is assumed we know what a last name is supposed to be from our own point of view, which can conflict with other points of view.

"...the difference between surname and patronymic is that surname is a name that indicates to which family a person belongs, normally following that person’s given name(s) in western culture, and preceding it in eastern while patronymic is name acquired from one's father's, grandfather's or earlier male ancestor's first name some cultures use a patronymic where other cultures use a surname or family name; other cultures (like russia) use both a patronymic and a surname." http://wikidiff.com/surname/patronymic

The Netherlands and New Netherland were very different, and it's no wonder that you guys are disturbed by the use of surnames, because surnames weren't forced in the Netherlands until the 19th century. In New Netherland, many families assumed surnames immediately, based on whatever they wanted it to be based on, and for some families they even changed their minds about what surname to use. (My own family used Quackenbos/ch in the Netherlands as well as Bontetas; then used Bont initially in New Netherland, finally settling back on Quackenbos/ch) On top of that, the English forced the end of the patronymics in New Netherland (New York, et al.) way back in 1687, 124 years before the Netherlands proper. In transitional periods, children could baptized by a father using a patronymic, but the family had taken a surname by the time the child was an adult, so we'll never know what their patronymic was truly supposed to be. To confuse things further, some families held out. But every family was  different. To add another gotcha, some people were referred to by a toponymic or a nickname in addition to other names they used.

For all of these reasons and many more, the struggle to put the people of New Netherland in any sort of index form has been ongoing for more than 150 years. New Netherland settlers are, however, united by the church records. Their names are known through the church records. Modern sources are coming around to the idea that following the church records is the way to go.

The real problem with patronymics and the Netherlands is that there is no standardization of patronymic form; they can vary wildly. That's where it gets weird because one cannot know what that form will be, unlike other patronymic cultures. The issue is that when a Netherlands baptism record is found for New Netherland Settlers, their LNAB entry is being changed to "father's first name + s", because, obviously, there is no way to know how the patronymic should be spelled.

Let's revist Gerrit Jansz (van Wicklen). There was no surname recorded for his father at Gerrit's baptism.

The issue is that Gerrit's LNAB was changed to "Jenties" based on this record, but his father's name isn't even spelled Jentie in the record, it is Jentit. Further, as can see be seen from the sources in his entry in The Brouwer Genealogy Database http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brouwergenealogydata/p426.htm#i108810 neither Jentie nor Jentit are every recorded as a name associated with Gerrit. This is why "Jenties" belongs alongside his first name, and not as his LNAB.

So you're seeing this as a cultural point of view: that hardly anyone was born in the Netherlands with a surname so they should all have patronymics in the LNAB field.

I'm seeing this from a practical point of view:

* Due to the unique conditions, even when a baptism record is found, we do not know how a patronymic was spelled without seeing it in writing, so it cannot be used for an index, which happens to be the LNAB field

* Many of the New Netherland folks that emigrated from the Netherlands left before records began

* We do not know the exact place of origin for most of the New Netherlanders

* The NNS project has a ton of duplicates that must constantly be merged, and to avoid the name being constantly changed, that name should be based on sources, a name that we can all see and read, as these folks have a ton of descendants

As the patronymic is acceptable in the first name field, the solution, the bridge between the two places, is to use the person's "surname" as it first appears in records, the most reliable records of New Nethereland being the church records, as they were preserved through transcription early on by folks with great skill (in most cases, the outliers being noted as such).

Using the name that first appears in records is in harmony with genealogical standards.

I recognize that you guys have put a lot into this and you cannot possibly imagine how much that work has been appreciated by everyone. The problem is that some of the names that have been accepted prior to changes made last March were not based on sources and must be let go. In my experience though, they are a tiny fraction of the New Netherland settler profiles.

These changes and discussions have been going on for a while but the changes probably seem sudden due to the recent additions of the Needs modifiers and the Database Doctors project, both forcing a lot of changes.

---

I am sorry...... this is where it all started............ 

Yes Carrie this patronym should not be added at the LNAB as a last name is known, or? The last name is a anthroponymism. But we do have a Last name at birth but LATER. 

Children were named at The Netherlands in row..... first to paternal grandparents than to maternal grandparent, than to aunts uncles or important friends. ( you know of course). Makes many names look alike. Patronyms used to make clear who was who. Last Names were added at common people after about 1811. 

Last names added at ariving at the NNS where nicknames to distinguish who was who. Sometimes referring to ancestors, sometimes to place they used to live or lived now, sometimes to profession and more............... 

But as this child was born there wasn't a family name. Just a patronym. And the patronym is discusable. :) 

 

The name of the father I S!!! Jentie............ I am sure about that even without looking at birth records as I think Bea added it and she will never-ever without being sure add anything -------the last letter you assume as a "t" is an "e" as I posted before on the profile of Gerrit Jenties. Showing at another baptism (looking like written by the same clergyman)  "e" again looking like "t" but a at a closer look you will see the difference....... I know Dutch writings are hard to read. I read the same as you at the first time.......... But: 

At the baptism of Gerrit Jentie his fathersname looks like Jentit. I saw that too........ BUT>>>>>>>>>>> Showed this other  baptism of a child of Jentie to compare 'e' s and "t"'s  

Is gedoopt het kind van Jenti"t" Jipp"t"rs. Jentit Jipptrs? 

Not ever having seen that name is not a proof.

Jentie looks again like Jentit. I agree!!!!!! I read it that way! 

Next line Jenties patronym Jippers, is written as Jipptrs. Jipptrs is impossable.......... no sense....... that name is defo Jippers......... so that "t" is an "e". Now please compare the "t"  at Jippers with the last letter in Jentie. Looking like "t" but the strike is different. Hope you see the little differences. 

Carrie I think I do understand you, but mabey I do not. If so I am sorry as I like us to agree and like us to handle things as much as we can the same way (at Dutch born's). And I like this to be solved. You and Bea are on the right track. Thank you both for all time you take!

 

Now seeing this again I think we have a point we need to discuss again. This is about handling and policy. I tried to say that. Yes I believe in LNAB is LNA BIRTH. Posted somewhere I am inclined to use the signature of the person but it is NOT the LNA Birth!!! Even it looks more accurate. As Bea said the LNAB brings us back to the parents..... 

I am very sorry I might have given you the idea it was about you personal and mabye about your leadership. I just tried to confirm it the other way, it has nothing to do with that. I am soo sorry if you took it that way as it is N O T. I said you re just a wonderful leader. Doing so much reat work here. Please do not take it personal please?

 

I think it is just a miscommunication about patronyms put at the right box of persons born at the Netherlands. And I even think we re on the same line! Although you doubt the Jenties :D 

But we have a problem on sourced patronyms............ We take them for granted as it just worked that way but only use them as LNAB if we DO NOT have a LNAB different. I think you re saying the same. Or am I wrong? 

 

 At the Dutch Name convention we add patronyms at the First Name Field  after the FNAB if a last name is known!!!!!!!!! But if not....... they are till other way is shown..... used as LNAB. 

 

Yeh the Dutch were not consequent at writing. I am sorry......... it makes things hard............ But we re talking about 400 years ago. Magical they could  write. Let's make luv................. 

Besides I agree of course with you that unsourced patronyms/patronymics should not be added at LNAB's but patronyms are hardly sourced................ Again it just worked that way at the Netherlands for 99% of the population (not noble). Only Nobles or Nobilities or immigrants (most immigrants were Nobles or Nobility's from France or Belgium) had a Last name. 

I do not like to stir up more. I just hope this helps to solve and get our noses the same direction. 

 

Thank you all for reading, 

 

A. 

 

---

Carrie, I promised myself not to get drawn into another lengthy discussion on this subject with you, but you force my hand {proverbially speaking}. This statement has so much unintentionally (I hope) wrong with it:

* "The Netherlands and New Netherland were very different [...] "

Yes, they were. And no, they weren't. New Netherland was just one of the many colonies that different European countries who were powerful enough, created in the growing global expansion of trade and territory of that time. Bea already stated correctly that the whole world was becoming a rather chaotic melting pot with many people on the move for differennt but similar reasons. People and goods had to be administrated, so also people with patronymns (or not) had to be administrated. People such as my already mentioned own progenitor, who had no baptism image / record and who also had a patronym. And he was not from New Netherland. In the ship's record (click to see larger image) he was simply administrated as "Geelis Andriesz ... Veenewoude'' (which was not even his home town but the nearest biggest place to the hamlet that he really came from):

There are other names as of sailors (employees) on the same ship that came from other European countries, such as Lippstad in the then Holy Roman Empire [currently in Germany]. And this is one of the thousands of ships that crossed the seas over the past 500 years, carrying people to different parts of the globe.

For many different reasons surnames evolved. Patronymics is one part of the story.

* it's no wonder that you guys are disturbed by the use of surnames, because surnames weren't forced in the Netherlands until the 19th century."

That "we guys" (who ever that may be) are "disturbed" by the use of surnames, is a false assumption. Why would you say that? Why should I be disturbed my the use of my current surname ''van der Walt'' (only when I see it backwardly projected into the middle ages when no such surname existed by secondary sources and Internet algorithms, I do get upset yes). I cannot imagine that Bea is "disturbed" by the use of her own surname either.

Napoleon invaded much of Europe, Everywhere he went he brought the new metric system, and new administration. Including the registration of names. Which simply meant that he brought the church records into the town centres to be centrally administered. And to make the administration easier, he enforced the application of family names (we call them surnames now), creating the final surmise of the already waning patronymic system. He simply modernised it (1811; in 1776 the American Revolution sparked the French Revolution in 1789 which in turm paved the way for the harmonisation of European measurements and other forms of administration which was then spread into Europe by Napoleon).

The stance that there is a causal relationship between this event and our supposed "disturbance" redarding the use of surnames, is not evident to put it mildly.

Regarding your other remarks on the evolvement of surnames in New Netherland, as well as the multiple creation of duplicates (which is definitely a wider WikiTree problem and not a problem that the New Netherland project is running up against) - yes ... in many instances you are correct. But on this one: Jentit - I have looked at this baptism image closely and only [speaking for myself now] I do see the child's name Gerrit, and the Father's name Jentit. So the child's surname should patronymically be Jentsz, Jenties or Jentse. In-project deliberation could determine that further. Current name = van Wicklen (if it is the one most frequently used for this person in the records) and other variations in the aka-field.

* So you're seeing this as a cultural point of view: that hardly anyone was born in the Netherlands with a surname so they should all have patronymics in the LNAB field.

This is not what Bea or we are saying - to the contrary ... another assumption ... where there are patronymics involved (and it certainly is not only in the Netherlands, but European wide), each profile and each LNAB should be individually researched. And indexes do exist: http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/surname_index.htm Take Albert Barends Gildenhuisz as an example. In WikiTree we still also have not validated his toponymic yet. Because he is a progenitor and until we will come to the validation of his name when all of his descendants have had their names validated in WikiTree, we will now (temporarily) PPP his LNAB until such time (inluding his the profiles of his parents) that we have more time to sufficiently research that.

The profile of his son  is an example of the many issues we have in common with the New Netherland Project though. Whilst the father was born in Germany, the son was baptised in the Netherlands before going to the Cape Colony. So the birth record reads:

Baptismal record for Arent Barentsz

Event Date: 24 April 1672

Event Place: The Netherlands

Father's Name: Albert Barentsz

Mother's Name: Margarita Hoeffnagels

Witnesses: Grietje Cornelisdr and Henrik Barentsdr

Source: Robertson, Delia.The First Fifty Years Project http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/ Page: Arent Gildenhuysen.

So the lnab was protected as Alberts: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Albertsz-10 - the toponymn becoming the current name: Arent Gildenhuijzen formerly Albertsz aka Gildenhuysen, Gildenhuys, Gildenhuisz (bef. 1672 - bef. 1722).

* As the patronymic is acceptable in the first name field, the solution, the bridge between the two places, is to use the person's "surname" as it first appears in records, the most reliable records of New Nethereland being the church records, as they were preserved through transcription early on by folks with great skill (in most cases, the outliers being noted as such).

Yes - if no other records exist, the most reliable should be recorded - but in the current name field - and not the LNAB - field.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Albertsz-10 - the toponymn (or any other name more frequently used when a New Netherland profile) becoming the current name: Arent Gildenhuijzen formerly Albertsz aka Gildenhuysen, Gildenhuys, Gildenhuisz (bef. 1672 - bef. 1722).

---

Futhermore:

* As the patronymic is acceptable in the first name field, the solution, the bridge between the two places, is to use the person's "surname" as it first appears in records, the most reliable records of New Nethereland being the church records, as they were preserved through transcription early on by folks with great skill (in most cases, the outliers being noted as such). Using the name that first appears in records is in harmony with genealogical standards. [...] The problem is that some of the names that have been accepted prior to changes made last March were not based on sources and must be let go.

Can you give examples? If you are not collating data and sources (and through that process of collation validating profiles), merely changing (in this case "names" changed prior to certain agreements made prior to March 2016 and with no sources provided) means that you are also merely improvising. Then there is something that needs better processing in in this project.

I searched on van Winkel* and only this one profile came out: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/VanWinkelen-1 Also searching on Van Winckelen gave zero results. Searching on van Wicklen turned up 10 results. Some of them dubious. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/VanWicklen-1 though protected almost certainly had a patronomic. And of course a profile such as https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Wicklen-5 will need some time and research to sort out, because this person either has a conflated profile or a patronymic. Because it is clear as Bea commented on the profile, that there is something amiss here.

---

Philip, many of your examples are relating to the Cape, which is not like New Netherland. It's true they were not the same and should not be treated as such. '...waiting to validate a toponymic' has absolutely nothing to do with New Netherland. I'm sorry it is not believed that New Netherlanders used surnames. Most of these "nicknames" have stuck with the descendants for 400 years. It doesn't matter though if we follow the names recorded in the persons lifetime, names that can be proved and sourced.

"Carrie, I promised myself not to get drawn into another lengthy discussion on this subject with you, but you force my hand {proverbially speaking}."

"The stance that there is a causal relationship between this event and our supposed "disturbance" redarding the use of surnames, is not evident to put it mildly."

Cool.

* As the patronymic is acceptable in the first name field, the solution, the bridge between the two places, is to use the person's "surname" as it first appears in records, the most reliable records of New Nethereland being the church records, as they were preserved through transcription early on by folks with great skill (in most cases, the outliers being noted as such).

"Yes - if no other records exist, the most reliable should be recorded - but in the current name field - and not the LNAB - field."

Then the suggestion is the the LNAB should be... Unknown... if there are no prior records?

Here are just a few examples (of many) that don't work using a one-size-fits-all method:

Take for example Gerrit van Sweringen https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Swearingen-14 one of Robin and I's shared ancestors. His parents and origin are uncertain. He never appeared with a patronymic.

And then there is Lambert van Valkenburg https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Valckenburg-3 who never appeared with a patronymic. The attached parents have been previously assumed but an article by Hoff in the NYGBR suggests that they are completely different people. Edit: My mistake, Hoff's parents have been attached and marked as uncertain. Yay progress.

Or even back to Gerrit Jansz (van Wicklen). If we didn't know who his father was, if it wasn't for that one Orphan's court record or Harry Macy's article, under the proposed methods, his LNAB would be made Jansz. And then we wouldn't even be looking for the right father based on the the patronymic that would serve as his indexed name. On the other hand, using Wickles, the first surname (or name that appeared after his first name) recorded for him in records leads to his actual church records and sources, where people have done so much work on his family already.

"If you are not collating data and sources (and through that process of collation validating profiles), merely changing (in this case "names" changed prior to certain agreements made prior to March 2016 and with no sources provided) means that you are also merely improvising. Then there is something that needs better processing in in this project. "

Of course data and sources are being collated. The LNAB is now based on a provable source, church records created in the person's time. That's the difference from the old names, actually. I'm hearing from members and former leaders of the NNS that I'm doing fine, so don't worry about the NNS.

"Some of them dubious. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/VanWicklen-1 though protected almost certainly had a patronomic."

This discussion has been about folks born in the Netherlands. That person was born in the Province of New York, formed in 1674 (edit: actually 1664, at the sacking), and after surnames were forced in 1687. Her name is recorded as "Zijtje van Wiklen" in her marriage record. This is where the New Netherland Settlers project is being misunderstood.

---

Carrie. New Netherland was not unique. It was a colony as many other colonies.

That is what I'm trying to make clear.

The problems (currently, today in WikiTree) that you are having with names (first, married, protected, current) in this project, are the same that we all face. We also face duplication. We all have to validate. You keep on insisting on the uniqueness of New Netherland as a colony, yet every example I give to show how we deal with the same issues of people being born in their countries of birth and in their new countries of settlement, and their children, are dismissed by you.

Your opinion is quite clearly made up. "We" do not understand New Netherland (though it was the first project I worked on after joining way back in 2014): "Many projects have their own naming conventions. New Netherland is extremely hard to understand - that's why I keep saying it's the New Netherland Settlers project's problem" (your words).

"We" do not understand surnames and according to you are blinded by patronymics to such an extend that we are disturbed by them. (referring to other sections of this G2G).

"We" do not understand the history of the time. "We" do not understand the importance of some of the profiles (quoting you now: "As the most documented folks in New Netherland [...] They're essentially our royals." and ''Also the family has a whole county named after them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rensselaer_County,_New_York Before that it was Rensselaerswijck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor_of_Rensselaerswyck"

Carrie, this is not me DWWA. I'm not angry, just puzzled and at a loss how to go on further. Because everything we say or give just seem to make you stick more to your guns regarding the Dutch that we are supposedly not understanding Nieuw Amsterdam. I have mailed you personally. It has not helped. Also numerous examples have not helped. And poor Jeremias (whose Rensselearswijck we apparantly do not understand) now has to go through eternity with a defaced profile.

You just have to be in the right, which is also ok I guess only every time we think to understand your "right" - you disagree and state how special your circumstances are. Again - I try and understand (getting the passion and understanding the needs for individual projects to - within boundaries - to have more or less different approaches) and you push as away. And if I may add - at times insultingly so.

I did find working on the New Netherland profiles in the past dfficult, but that was because of the bad merges, conflation, badly edited "sources" and incomprehensible gedcom debris, general lack of primary validatory sources and abundance of incorrect and falsifying secondary sources.

I guess that I'm now totally incapable of working on those profiles, even though I happened to help validate the LNAB of Jeremias and at least 5 of his siblings, in a fashion that supported earlier research (for which you have not even thanked me though it cost 5 hours of work - though it was indirect work related to researching another issue that both Bea and I struggled with - the VanDycke - family).

I guess that I'm out. You can remove my badge Carrie, as leader of the project. You are "right". I am obviously too un-informed and desturbed to be working under your leadership in that project.

---

Carrie we really don't ask much, so the thing about if Jentie was Jentit or Jentie is only distracting us from what I think we should now concentrate on, what's important for all of us and our members and Wiki Tree is that we really need  to try to come to an agreement about how we determine the most accurate LNAB and current last names for the earliest Dutch emigrants and try to make sure it's an agreement which is acceptable for everyone and both projects, not just one and this because we have to share them and they are important for everyone and all descendants and because it is also our task to make sure the earliest versions of the names are preserved protected and not ever lost or going to vanish. 

So what we proposed already and this is really all we ask, is to, for the Dutch ancestors combine both, just as we always did in the past and if there are no early later records from after emigration (which in fact always and if we would be really strict about it, all are in fact current versions of the first and last names or patronymics no matter where they were born !) or if there was just one later record for someone from after emigration where not the patronymic someone was born with, but only what looks like a last name is mentioned, is to add that last name to the current name field and not make it a LNAB.

Just one later record from after emigration to determine a LNAB is not accurate or prove either, because it only tells us this person at some point in his or her life (and perhaps only sometimes or at just this one occasion ?) used a last name, an earlier or next later record of the same person perhaps would show the patronymic again, because many times people at one event were registered with a patronymic and the next event with perhaps a sort of last name and later again with just a patronymic, which is also what's making things and finding parents so hard, no consistency, so it's no prove at all this last name was always and also before this one record used by this person for last name. A baptism record is the only original and Primary record showing if someone was born with a patronymic or with a different type of last name like a farm name for example). So if there is just one later record and if that only was one from after he emigration, it is also and just as much just an assumed last name that for sure not should replace a patronymic if the person was born with a patronymic according the baptism record. 

Knowing how hard it was for those people they were forced to adopt a last name, is also a very good reason to think twice about it before giving these people again a current last name for LNAB they probably would never have taken or adopted if they were not forced by others to do so. And is besides the Historical importance of preserving the correct and earliest versions of patronymics and names, also why for us it feels so wrong to now try and force us to change their patronymics they were born with into again a last name as if they were born with it and as if it was their own choice to adopt one. 

For most it really was not their choice and they really were not happy they were forced to get registered with one, and they were pretty stubborn (guess perhaps we still are :P) and holding on to the use of these patronymics and heir naming tradition for as long as they could, they were fighting for their rights,culture, traditions and patronymics and some were even punished or went to prison sometimes just because they refused to get registered with or adopt a last name and still kept using only their patronymics and their Dutch naming system. 

Besides that, it is not correct or accurate at all and really has nothing to do with accurate genealogy to, only because it makes merging them easier (???), ignore all the earliest Primary and original records from the place(s) or Countries where these people were born and especially not their Birth or Baptism records or to make it sound or look as if these are not Primary original records and as if they are not valid or accurate. 

Basing a LNAB (Last name at Birth) only on records from after the emigration and ignoring all info and records from the Countries or places where these people were born is not accurate and is the slippery slope where we came from in the first place and which for many families that were imported here already had caused their original names were already lost and already were vanished and ancestors or their baptism or other records could not be traced back and probably were never found, if we would not know anything about these families or genealogy or the Dutch naming traditions and patronymics.  

So using only the first and last names or patronymics and records from after the emigration, if, like it looks now, this means we are going to just ignore the earliest primary and all the original ones from the places where these people were born, is not accurate at all and a really bad idea, for not just one but various reasons:

1. The inconsistency in writing, (not just in the Netherlands, but all over the world this was the case !) so the inconsistency in how people /clerks wrote not just names, patronymics/last names but about everything those days. There just was no such thing as a consistent or standardized spelling as we know and have and are used to nowadays..

2. After the emigration names sometimes were 'translated', changed or ''modernized'' for all kinds of reasons. 

1. To be distinguished from others with the same names
2. Because their names were hard to pronounce
3. Because they were refugees or had committed a crime somewhere else, so sometimes they had their own personal reasons to chose different names (new identity or alias) to make sure no one could trace or find them or sometimes they did perhaps to just really make a fresh start.
4. Because they didn't like their names themselves and decided to use a different one, etc. etc.

So basing names on only records from after emigrations no matter where they went or were coming from, is probably the least accurate way to use for deciding the most accurate LNAB for a person 

So these I think are reasons enough to make clear why we say that for us (the Dutch Roots Project) and for Dutch Profiles it is not accurate and not acceptable to give someone who was for sure born with a patronymic and in the Netherlands, (again) a last name they were not born with for LNAB if this last name, could just as well be added to the current name field.  

Hope it helps and hope you can grant us and our by so many shared deep Dutch ancestors this one small 'favour' , because for us and our project and ancestors it is just not acceptable if in future they all perhaps end up with current (backwards projected !) names for first or last names at Birth again, if this is not accurate and only based on only a transcript of or a record from after the emigration, while their primary birth/baptism and other records of siblings or parents are clearly showing they were not born with one .. 

---

And to clarify a bit more and show we are really not basing things on just one record, Jentie Jeppes was named Jentie Jeppes not only in the Netherlands but in New Netherland also, and if you would read all info (Bio's) and look at and combine all records, you will see why and how we decided the patronymic based on time, place and multiple records, most likely was Jenties and for sure not Jentits !

So the decision for the patronymics of these children is based on a combination of first and earliest primary records of both, father and children and place (Friesland) and time. We have searched for and checked more than one early Dutch records for Jentie including all baptisms of all children to decide what patronymic, normally and if father would not have used the alias Jan Jacobs de Vries (assumed this info is correct) after emigration, could be expected. Records from the emigration and father in New Netherland also confirm his name was Jentie and not Jentit. (slightly different transcribed as Jentje or Jenteis.

The record for Gerrit is not the most clear one, but if you would have compared them all, you probably would also have come to the conclusion, it is not showing a t at the end but much more likely, just the old Dutch e that was written with the loop at the right and higher up, so the loop at the same place where we would see the line in a t, only here probably the writer used too much ink or whatever and the loop now looks like the line in a t. (see for example the churchmember record for father, which is more clear and where you can see how the e was written and how easy this could have been mistaken for a t if the loop because of perhaps to much ink was closed perhaps due to bleeding of the ink) 

---

Bea, I know, we are working on it together and trying to find a way to make everyone happy. It's a shame that so much arguing has become a part of the conversation but that doesn't mean we aren't attempting to be constructive.

Due to the inconsistency of the spelling patronymics and the fact that we often don't see the patronymic written down, it does not make sense to set them as the indexed name.

Family names were not forced on New Netherland Settlers until 1687 but they were used by many of the settlers.

It is not being suggested that only records from after emigration are considered, sorry that wasn't clear.

Let's take my own family as an example. Here is the record of my progenitor, Pieter Pieter(se?) Quackenbosh, getting married in the Netherlands prior to coming to New Netherland:

Here I am 377 years later with nearly the same family name. Pieter's patronymic is as much a part of his given name as anything else and it is a part of his profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Quackenbosch-3 It is thought that Pieter's baptism record has been located but that is not 100% certain because a Pieter that has a father with the name of Pieter is pretty common. I would not be okay with this profile being changed to have the patronymic as the LNAB.

This family name to me, as his descendant, is important to protect. If it is not protected, it can be changed to the real "backwards-projected" (anachronistic) name of Quackenbush, which appears with so many of Pieter and his descendants' duplicates and was often imported as part of gedcoms back when pre-1700 gedcoms were allowed.

If it is unlikely that a patronymic field will be added to Wikitree, then another suggestion might be to set the LNAB as "Pieterse-Quackenbosch", since that is how everything after Pieter's first name first appears in records, but it seems really silly to settle on aristocratic methods for these planters and traders.

Perhaps the middle name field, which is a type of name used by only a small fraction of the world, can be renamed to "Other" name, and then used by various cultures for their needs. Some cultures also have matrronymics for example. And then it would just be a matter of setting the box up to also be locked when a profile is PPP. That field is no longer abbreviated in some?/most? places and could be fine tuned to ensure it is treated equally.

Edit: It should be made clear that if a person did not use a surname, like the name used by their children or grandchildren, that name is not used as a LNAB or even Current Name. NNS members have been just fine with that.

---

Hi Carrie, 

Now looking at your ancestor, I think (not sure yet) but he perhaps might actually have been born or baptized with the last name Quackenbosch, I noticed some families in Leiden and other places that were already using the last name in the Netherlands,so it's still possible he was born as Pieter Pieters Quackenbosch. And it's ok also because I'm really not sure if Pieter Jans Bontetas and his wife for sure were his parents So this one is no problem and how he looks is fine for us. 

But for us patronymics are (the same as) last names if people were born with one, so these unique and original patronymics (or early farm or other) names should be preserved and  protected if they were born/baptized this way, and they have to be added to the LNAB field, not because we want things our way, but because this is WikiTree Policy for quite some years also, if Patronymics were what they were born with, for WikiTree these are considered the LNAB ! (not Unknowns and not the later adopted names which in fact all are current names !) this is what took us a lot of time and discussion to finally have accepted, so for us and our Dutch ancestors it's just not acceptable to have them all end up with a current last name they never were born with (again). This also was why the New Netherland Naming convention was made, it was the agreement we made as collaborating Projects to resolve and prevent we would get in trouble.

But... I think the real issue we are having here and what this all really is about is, you want to have the current last names protected,(your, and probably others would like this as well, so the earliest familyname(s) that were adopted). So if that's how you feel, and as explained above, for us this (or the Index) never is a reason to let someone end up with a current last name for LNAB if they were not born with it for us it's plain and simple a LNAB=a LNAB (Birth-Baptism record(s) and never LNAB=Current or worse the even later modern Last Names= is all Backward Projection and the slippery slope many of them came from in the first place and why patronymics finally were accepted and considered last names at Wikitree.

Reading what you say here, I think the solution is pretty easy, we're not even missing a naming field, the (hopefully quick and easy) solution to solve this I think is if we would ask the team if it's possible to lock the current name fields as well if it is needed, and to make sure the early versions of those for some curent last names are preserved and protected as well. 

It probably would solve many problems and disputes about this subject for many members and projects not just ours. And the best thing is we would not need a new name field (which was not possible as we all know) and this way both are preserved and protected and everyone could be really happy I think ? 

edit: We are not really strict when it comes to the ending or exact spelling of the patronymics, so if someone used and was recorded with it in the New Netherland, we are ok if later records including the Baptism record (if there is one) are compared to come to a final decision of a LNAB, if these profiles not already had their LNAB corrected in the past (because for those and because of all the inconsistency, there's no urgent need I think, to again merge them into a different version from after the emigration if only the ending or spelling was slightly different from the original record and if it could also be added to a current last name or other if, as often is seen, there were multiple different spellings.)

---

Bea, this might answer the question of Quackenbosch being a unique case. It was not.

“I’m sorry that you’re having such a hard time finding your Dutch ancestors. BTW, it’s not true that Dutch people didn’t have surnames until 1811. When surnames became hereditary differs greatly from province to province. In Friesland, most people used patronymics like you described until 1811.  In provinces like Zuid-Holland and Noord-Brabant, most people had hereditary surnames by the end of the medieval period."

Posted here https://dna-explained.com/2012/08/28/dutch-genealogy-maybe-not-so-hopeless-afterall/

Quote from Yvette Hoitink https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/about/

Best known for her Reusel-De Mierden, Noord-Brabant blog post https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/ancestors-in-reusel-de-mierden-noord-brabant/

The Quackenbosches were from Zuid-Holland.

I also feel that this supports following the names as they appear in records, as not only was New Netherland a melting pot, it was a melting pot of the provinces of the Netherlands as well.

---

Phew, now that it is clear that there were surnames in the Netherlands prior to 1811, I propose that the New Netherland Settlers project keeps doing what it has been doing for New Netherland Settlers: using the last name as it is first written in church records for LNAB, whether patronymic or family name. As is. Unless there is something obviously horribly wrong with the name that first appears in records. (It happens). If there is a patronymic in addition to the surname (like my Pieter Quackenbosch) that would be added to the first name field.

Then if a baptism record is discovered for a settler born in the Netherlands under a patronymic system, a g2g gets started that both NNS and Dutch Roots can participate in to discuss and explain what the suggested patronymic for a LNAB would be, and see if we can't get everyone to understand and agree before changes are made. This will also help with mistaken identities or disproven records as well.

If that is unacceptable, we should take this to mediation.

Folks born in New Netherland will likely have whatever appears in their marriage record for LNAB if they were born under a patronymic. This is due to the New Netherland sources, the 1664 sacking by the English, the 1687 forcing of surnames, the melting pot, the protection of the inherited surnames, and the overall complicatedness of New Netherland. Not to mention the duuuuuuuuupes. (duplicates)

---

Dear Carrie thanks for understanding how important this is for us and the help and links ;) 

And I think you perhaps didn't know or realize, that when we started the Dutch Roots Project, which was Steven's idea, just as he was the one who started the NNS project, it were both Steven and Michelle (the NNS Project Team at that time) who helped me setting it up and it was Steven who had been working on and helped me with the naming conventions for both Projects, guidelines and stuff.  So that's also why the New Netherland Settlers guidelines and the Dutch Roots ones were so similar and pretty much one and the same and is also the reason why we never had problems before and were able to collaborate and share our ancestors so well for so many years. 

And yes of course there also were families that used last names all along in the Netherlands, we also have families that way back used both patronymics + a farm/family name (so just like your ancestor Pieter Pieters Quackenbosch), so last names which sometimes for some unknown reason all of a sudden was dropped, was totally vanished from the records for some generations (so the later descendants only were using patronymics again) and after some generations we found the ''vanished'' farm/last name was used or adopted by some descendants again and finally in abt 1811 was adopted as their official (current) last name again, by the much later descendants..so the Dutch just as so many, are pretty complicated sometimes and this is also why for us the correct patronymics (last name of father or mother if a (me or) matronymic was used) are so important. 

And jeeey I think all is solved and we really don't need mediation if what you are proposing means : 

* The last name as it was written in the earliest church record, as is, so if they were born with it, the earliest record would be, if there is one, the Baptism or Birth record eeh ?

* If the Birth or Baptism record is showing their LNAB was a patronymic we are going to start a G2G and decide which would be the most accurate, correct or important one that needs to be protected, with members from both projects. (as explained earlier for us the problem isn't a slightly different ending, just the correct name of father (or mother or if it was a multiple generation patronymic the names of all ancestors mentioned in it) is important. (a multiple generation patronymic is showing the names of multiple ancestors)  

I don't think any of this means we now are going to again change or discuss the ones that already were discussed and corrected in the past eeh, thousands were already discussed, corrected and have all duplicates already merged, so it would take a few years and would be pretty exhausting to go by all those again. I think from now we'd better concentrate on all those poor families that still are in trouble, without sources and still have soo many duplicates eeh ;)  

I think the problem is solved and everything is clear for everyone again, so thank you Carrie for taking the time for and understanding the importance of this, it's really very much appreciated by all of us of course ! 

And I have adjusted things at our naming convention page a bit again now, so if you please could check if this is clear enough and ok ?

---

Ok, thanks to all for participating in this discussion, so that we could finally get some clarity on this. So now we all agree to PPP this profile with one 's', and put the Anglised surname with double 's' and capitalised suffix in the current name box ... And edit the LNsAB of the siblings according to their individual baptism records ....

Can I close this feed then?

---

Totally agree!

---

Thanks Philip, Carrie, Joop and everyone who pitched in here to try and help, I'm really happy we could finally could come to an agreement here, and that it is now clear for everyone, so I'm fine with closing this feed (if Carrie is ok with it all as well of course) 

And for Jeremias, the first New Netherland Record, even though it is not asked or needed to compare, but nothing wrong with comparing a few and some other info as well of course, it is also showing the same spelling of the name, so based on two church records I think it's pretty safe and accurate and we can all agree his Birth name really was van Renselaer. 

The earliest spelling was pretty consistent in the following order... everyone can check the Gelderland archive and the Amsterdam archive for it also: van Renseler, van Renslaer, van Renselaer, van Rensselaer,  Van Rensselaer (and of course they were all recorded on different events with different spellings). 

Killiaen van Rensselaer ones was by someone (also in one of the baptisms of his children) named Guilliaem Renselaer or something and he was making quite a fuss about it, and said (transcribed) I'm not Gilliaen Renselaer but Killiaen van Rensselaer, of course I wondered if it was because of the last name also, but discovered it most likely was only because of the wrong (French form) of his first name and perhaps the missing van in the last name, because his last name is still written after this in different ways, van Renselaer, van Rensselaer, etc.

 Why was he making such a fuss about his first name ? It could show us the importance and fuss they made about making sure the (correct, original) names of their ancestors were passed on to the next generations. He was named after his grandfather Kil(le) Jansz, but not only that, the first name Killiaen was in fact a multiple generation patronymic like first name and leads to not only his grandfather Kil(le) Jansz but also this great-grandfather Jan (maybe Johan)) 

 (Van Rensselaer Bowier manuscripts, here (right page= about the family grave for the twin brother Johan and Henrick the last name and more old family names are mentioned (old spellings) Killiaen van Renselaer is mentioned as well) and on page 579 the Guilliaen name fuss it also looks like they didn't always wrote things themselves but others (secretary/clerks) were, so I don't know and it made me wonder, is it possible these clerks were also allowed to sign letters or deeds and stuff in their name or on their behalf ? 

---

This discussion (and the related discussions on the profile) emerged during a period when I was traveling and had limited time for WikiTree, so I didn't participate at first. After that, the toxicity that I saw developing here caused me to hesitate to get involved. Now that peace finally seems to be returning, I do have a few things to say.

I suggest that we all need to go outdoors for a few minutes (it's wonderful summer in the northern hemisphere where most of us live!) and breathe some fresh air, then remind ourselves of some important principles:

• The LNAB is not the be-all and end-all of genealogy.
• The naming conventions of the New Netherland Settlers and Dutch Roots projects were created to help bring order out of chaos, not to create new chaos by fostering animosity among friends. (We are friends, aren't we?)

Some of our ancestors were rigidly doctrinaire in their religious practise, but let's not emulate them by treating WikiTree policies and project policies like scripture whose interpretation is sufficient cause to tear a community apart. Let's not forget that the purpose of a name (including an LNAB) is to identify a person. Because our ancestors often used multiple names in their lives, and multiple spellings of those names, and there will always be different opinions on the interpretation of old handwriting, to properly identify each person most of these people's profiles need to display multiple last names, of which the LNAB is only one. The WikiTree LNAB should be our reasonable best estimate of the person's last name at birth, not something to attack our colleagues about.

Now about the van Rensselaer family:

I agree with Carrie in seeing this family as having unique importance in New Netherland. Regardless of who they were in the Netherlands, in New Netherland this was a powerful family that became [in essence] feudal overlords over a large region -- and they firmly stamped the Rensselaer name on that region. The name "van Rensselaer" may have started out as an affectation, but it was most definitely the name they used for themselves. Who are we to say that they spelled it wrong?

I giggled at the suggestion that the spelling of this name was an anglicized spelling created by English people in New Netherland:

• Firstly, the van Rensselaers were established in New Netherland when it was still firmly under Dutch control (well before the English took over). In that era (and in some parts of New Netherland, this continued for decades after the English took control) it was English names that got severely altered by Dutch clerks (not the other way around).
• Secondly, the van Rensselaers were literate and keepers of records who were in control of significant elements of the colony, so (unlike most settlers) they controlled the rendering of their family name.
• And finally, "Rensselaer" is most definitely not an English spelling. English-speaking Americans have serious difficulty spelling and pronouncing this name -- and the double S is one of the elements that makes it particularly hard for Americans to spell. Please don't accuse Americans of creating this name -- it's the name and the spelling that were imposed on our country by this family. (Regarding pronunciation, the New York branch of my family -- who still lived in the region of the state that once was controlled by the Rensselaer family -- always called it "RENS-ler," but the university that was founded by a Rensselaer family member is universally called "ren-suh-LEER".)

---

We already were all outside Ellen and had already come to an agreement see above and the last message of Carrie ;) And the G2G was going to be closed when Carrie had responded I think ?

van Rensselaer -van Renselaer. No one is saying or suggesting they did not use the last name van Rensselaer I think ? We all know they did, but the question was: Should the LNAB be the (one as recorded in) the Baptism record or the signature ?

And yes I agree we all are friends and we of course don't want to be rigid and especially not rude or hurt the feelings of any of our so dear friends, as Carrie says we all are cousins eeh ! We all have been and still are spending soo many time together on making sure this part of our  WikiTree is going to be accurate and without all those aweful duups..so it's really important we all keep doing that as friends. There's already enough war going on the world and this indeed isn't worth it.

But unfortunately, we have to also keep in mind and remind ourselves, that If we are not clear or consistent ourselves and are going to use one time this and one time that to determine a LNAB or current one, other members will also notice and are perhaps going to do the same.

Very likely the next problem then will be, members noticing our inconsistency in how we are working (not according our own Project guidelines), now perhaps are not going to use correct LNAB or current ones for their deeper (Dutch) ancestors, even if it's clear and according all sources they were born and died with only patronymics, they perhaps now will decide to just import or create them all with for example the modern and backwards projected version VandenBerg for LNAB. Who's going to tell them they should work according the project guidelines if we are not working according them ourselves all the time ?

So this is really not about being rigid or to create problems it's important we keep things as clear and easy as possible for everyone and make sure we all know what guidelines are used so we all are working the same way .

Hope you had a wonderful time Ellen ? And thanks for your response !

---

Thanks Bea for summarizing (indeed - it is such lovely weather and life is especially beautiful in summer; for me personally I'm very happy and living a full life ...:-).

Would someone (a leader) now please edit the LNAB of Jeremias van Renselaer into one with a single "s", and put the version of his signature in the current name field, and aka (perhaps if known) other variants? Because that still has not happened even though the baptism image is as Bea stated obvious, as with those of his siblings.

Thanks everyone for the time and energy for input and discussion.

---

Holy cow.

Bea you suggested the thread could be closed if I was okay with it. I had not replied. It is not too late for Ellen's input. She's a project coordinator for the New Netherland Settlers project.

The van Rensselaer issue wasn't resolved in the proposed method as we didn't have a vote for what actually appears in the images. I was not the only person that saw a double S.

This is just more of what got us to this point. An opinion that Yvette Hoitink, board-certified genealogist in the Netherlands, is incorrect has now been added to the thread. This is a disagreement with an echo chamber.

My new proposal is that Dutch Roots not perform leader actions on the New Netherland Settlers project profiles because collaboration is nearly impossible and toes are getting stepped on. We have to have some boundaries. Y'all are just going to have to trust that the NNS is doing our best with LNABs. As it says in the project FAQ:

Can profiles be covered by multiple projects?

Technically, yes. The profiles covered by projects inevitably overlap. However, one project should have primary responsibility. This is important so that members know who to contact and what tag to use in G2G.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Project_FAQ#Can_profiles_be_covered_by_multiple_projects.3F

These profiles are extremely important to the New Netherland Settlers project; they are our progenitors and grandfathers and play a significant role in our country's history. In the Dutch Roots project, they are just more Dutch dudes.

I take responsibility for starting this by updating the New Netherland Settlers project Naming Conventions but it was necessary. Only a leader can change a PPP name and much discussion took place over the last seven months, but it seems that the language barrier might be too strong. Additionally, it took a single word to make someone angry today.

A roots project shouldn't really deal with descendants because that's just too many people and culture clashes are bound to happen. Maybe some day we'll all be covered by the African roots project. :)

---

Oow no no no no, let's please not start this all over again, Carrie you and me were working on trying to come to an agreement and we had one, so let's seperate things for now please, especially not because we had just come to an agreement about your proposal Carrie . And it was this :

 I propose that the New Netherland Settlers project keeps doing what it has been doing for New Netherland Settlers: using the last name as it is first written in church records for LNAB, whether patronymic or family name. As is. Unless there is something obviously horribly wrong with the name that first appears in records. (It happens). If there is a patronymic in addition to the surname (like my Pieter Quackenbosch) that would be added to the first name field.

Then if a baptism record is discovered for a settler born in the Netherlands under a patronymic system, a g2g gets started that both NNS and Dutch Roots can participate in to discuss and explain what the suggested patronymic for a LNAB would be, and see if we can't get everyone to understand and agree before changes are made. This will also help with mistaken identities or disproven records as well.

If that is unacceptable, we should take this to mediation.

We all accepted the proposal and I asked if you could check our convention page to see if it was added clear enough there for everyone as well, that was all. 

This LNAB is a separate thing or discussion and for all LNAB goes, if there's a disagreement about one or a record we can start a G2G for it, so I think it's wiser to start a new G2G for this last name, it really isn't worth it ..

And I think perhaps this fuss about this LNAB is even more reason why Roots Projects are the ones that should deal and take care of the proper LNAB for these deep ancestors, for all of us they are important and we really all understand how you feel about these people and how important they were and that the Rensselaerswijck was named after this family perhaps is the only and real reason why you want to have that as LNAB for them.

But it perhaps also is showing how sometimes genealogy and accuracy and rules or guidelines we always apply for others are no longer applied bend a little or adjusted or changed, if it means or is showing some people actually were born and recorded with a LNAB we don't want them to have ? And isn't this why we agreed to use the Birth or Baptism and perhaps other records to decide what's the most accurate LNAB for a person ? Is a one s LNAB if they were  born with it really making this person less important if using the current one for LNAB in fact is making the profile less accurate ?

Most of our Dutch ancestors were imported with current names, we finally managed to have patronymics and correct versions of last names accepted, and now only because of this one name, we all are all of a sudden no longer able to collaborate as we did before ?

---

Bea, I found this added to the thread:

I saw your post of ...... hmm can t  find it back so fast ........ that fine female genealogist helping online. She is doing great things. Read some before in time at here site. Most important thing I recall was people adding "Holland" to place of birth ending up in Noord-Brabant or so, as there is a village named Holland,:D Our Country is named The Netherlands. But in former times a part of the Netherlands WAS called Holland (the West Part). 

But saying most of the Dutch had a Last Name is overdone. I think it is the other way around before 1811.

In addition to Ellen being ignored and what Philip is said in the "closing statement", I've come to the conclusion that the only solution of the bigger problem is for the Dutch Roots to not perform leader actions on New Netherland Settler project profiles. Discussion is fine, collaboration is fine, but not physically changing protected parts of the profile. Agreement by force only makes things worse.

The project FAQ says that one project should have primary responsibility. The New Netherland Settlers project should be the lead on the New Netherland settler's profiles.

Of course there are exceptions, like Isaac Allerton for example. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Allerton-3

People are mad, Bea. Feelings have been hurt. We have to have boundaries, as talking to the moon and back isn't accomplishing much.

---

I Quote, 

Thanks Bea for summarizing (indeed - it is such lovely weather and life is especially beautiful in summer; for me personally I'm very happy and living a full life ...:-).

Would someone (a leader) now please edit the LNAB of Jeremias van Renselaer into one with a single "s", and put the version of his signature in the current name field, and aka (perhaps if known) other variants? Because that still has not happened even though the baptism image is as Bea stated obvious, as with those of his siblings.

Thanks everyone for the time and energy for input and discussion.

Philip van der Walt

 

Do not count on it Philip, the NNS Project with its leader is the boss of this profile and makes her own rules. The fact that the person was born in another country is not important for determining the LNAB, please note the key field in the WikiTree database, and has to be ignored. Also the general agreed rules about the LNAB are not important for NNS owned profiles. NNS decided that!

---

Carrie,

Just for the record. Early in this thread I tried to contibute with a factual, compact comment, not pointing fingers, not referring to all kinds of examples or conventions previously agreed on. Only to be grossly misquoted by you. That got me angry so I applied DWWA. I did not and will not participate anymore in this thread (or any other) until the time has come things can be discussed in a factual, analytical way, weighing pros and cons of possible solutions in a businesslike  way.

 

Answer 1

I can add a lot of documents that show the name as van Renseler, van Renslaer, van Renselaer but I won't because I don't think we should bicker about the names and we really don't need to. 

What I am missing a bit in all the commotion about the LNAB is something that's also very important about a correct and using the most original version of the last names or patronymics, the earliest versions of the LNAB have in the past and still can lead us to the correct parents or ancestors. 

By using the traditional naming system in the Netherlands (and other Countries) to name their children after the grandparents or family members (ancestors), our Dutch ancestors were making very very sure and quite a fuss about the names of their ancestors to make sure their names were all passed on for many generations and..in other areas like Gelderland and Overijssel the farm,Abbey or area names were added and later used for last name to show in a similar way, they were proud of the place/farm/area they were coming from and made sure it was passed down and showing in their family names also. So if we look at some names and have a farm list we can determine very easy where the person or family originally was from. 

The van Rensselaer name comes from het Renseler goed or the Renseler Abbey or loan, now we're in te luxury position there was done a whole lot of research and many records were added and found already, so it's very clear who their parents were and where they were from originally, but...originally they all started without surnames, they used patronymics, later sometimes they would add van Renseler, probably to show where they were from, which later varied from van Renseler, to van Renslaer, van Renselaer and the latest and perhaps more English version was van Rensselaer.  

So we often will joke and say what's in a name, but for the Dutch and many others, there can be a whole lot in a name, so that's I think one of the most important reasons for making sure the earliest versions are preserved and protected, to make sure they don't get lost ... nowadays many names in online genealogies are modernized or standardized (backwards projection) and if we can make sure they never are lost and preserved here by protecting them, isn't that a more valid reason to make sure the earliest version gets protection and the later version is added to the current name field if the parents are certain ?

Answer 2

I have seen the same record with two different spellings from time periods as recent as the 1800s.  Honesty our ancestors were not obsessed with accuracy like we are. Spelling was just not something they cared about.  So I would simply add the alternate spelling in the other last name field and you have notes about it in the bio so you are done.  I would not worry about it.

Comments

Thanks Laura, but this is about WikiTree policy and the protection of profiles and having some form of standard. Which is as I understood per profile (not per name or per generation) the first available proof of that spelling to be taken as the name to be protected - this is for projects in general very important because of the massive amount of duplicates created in the past with variant names.

So it is something to be concerned about ("worry" is not the word I would use here).

---

If your concern is to protect it via a project then the project members should settle on a recommended spelling and go with it.  You have made a valid argument.  I guess I just don't see a bunch of people going in and changing spelling of profiles with the kind of documentation you have on this.  

The policy is clear and you have documented what you believe is correct.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Project_Protection  here is the policy for getting project protection.  If the Project leaders agree you should not have an issue.

---

Thanks Laura. The profile has already been PPP'd. I myself am also a research coordinator and understand how project protection works.

Thanks for taking the time to read the comments though.

---

I guess I do not understand what you are trying to do with this posting.  It sounded like you were concerned about the validity of the name and if people would be changing it... that is how I read your post.  Baptismal record spellings are not necessarily correct and if not signed by a parent they become even more suspect.  What is listed seems fine within the scope of pre-1700s naming conventions.  Since we do not see the full document but a snippet I was answering based on my experience with old records including this time period.

---

The link to the full document is provided both in the text of the bio (footnote) and in the source of "snippet" in the comment box of the photo itself.

My my aim at this posting is to get clarity on the policy of name protection - baptism (if possible) or a signature (which is not the signature of his father but of himself on another document during his adult life time).

Answer 3

The definition of the LNAB in practice seems to be very flexible. Certainly individual projects vary it.

"The Puritan Great Migration (PGM) Project guidelines state a profile's last name at birth field should *always* use the name as spelled in Robert C Anderson's Great Migration Series *unless* a newer source such as a more recent TAG article can be found"  

  We all know that it might be complete serendipity as to how the name is spelled on that first document.  Many of the  wills I have transcribed spell the names totally inconsistently throughout the document. These wills may be the prime and sometimes the only original document available . Even if there is a baptism entry,  the parish clerks in small rural English parishes   may have only been  semi literate themselves . (have evidence of that one from a family member who became PC but could not sign his own name at marriage only a year before )

 There are many families where the  baptismal entries for successive siblings are spelled  differently.

If the person did not change his or her name in their lifetime. I  would have thought using their own  signature is  a better  indication of the spelling of that name (but as you say it isn't LNAB by strict definition and I am far too recent a member to have been involved in original discussions on the matter)

Answer 4

Ok I normally would say the same as Laura ''our ancestors were not obsessed with accuracy like we are. Spelling was just not something they cared about.'' So why should we eeh..

But I think what's upsetting some of our well respected members now is that it's not 'within reason' to what for them perhaps feels like undoing all the work of so many years, so to now see that without a really urgent reason, all the totally correct LNAB are again merged into what in fact are their current last names or patronymics, or the refusal to correct a LNAB in the one from the Baptism or Birth record, especially if there's not a shred of doubt about who the parents of these people were or if the first record actually is the baptism record.

For many years we all have been working together on trying to find and add records for thousands of early New Netherland (Dutch and other) ancestors, first we had to 'struggle' to make people aware those days people were not born with and did not use the last names they were imported with and explain that most of them were born with and used just these patronymics for LNAB during their lives. So it took us all quite some time to also have this accepted as WikiTree Policy and to make sure it was ok to use the names/patronymics from the Baptism/Birth records for LNAB. So I think it's logic that for many of us to no longer use them for the correct LNAB feels like saying ok thanks for all the work but..no thanks..we're now going to use the (often transcribed) and in many cases current last names from the earliest, often transcribed or translated and not original, church records for LNAB and the actual LNAB are going to be removed/changed/merged away again and added to the other last name field...

So if all of a sudden and without a G2G anouncement or something, projects are changing their entire policy about what's accepted for LNAB it's of course and logic going to upset (Project/WikiTree) members that have been working so hard for many years to find and add Birth/Baptism and many other records to correct LNAB and get all those duplicates merged and untangle mixed up families or lineages. 

So I think perhaps it's wise to stop 'bickering' about the last names and instead take a break and before changing Project Policies I really think we should first ask how our Project and WikiTree members feel about this rather drastic policy change for the New Netherland Settlers Project to no longer use the Baptism or Birth Records for their LNAB but the later names, including the ones that were not born in New Netherland, so to change last names or patronymics into ones that for some would in fact be the current last names instead of the last name they were born with,

Just as we all Projects don't own profiles or families either, Projects are a wonderful way to make it possible to share and work together on our deeper ancestors with all WikiTree members, but we need to understand and remind ourselves these deeper ancestors are not just ancestors of people born in the New Netherland or the Netherlands, but probably from people from all over the World by now, so I think it's very important to make sure all WikiTree/Project members agree and feel ok before making this pretty major change of policy ? 

Comments

This is combining all of the recent issues into one.

When I first started with the New Netherland settlers project in 2014, the LNAB for the settlers were determined in g2g threads and based on sources like family genealogy books.

When I started working on New Netherland Settlers profiles outside of my own ancestors, I added church records and suggested in comments what the last name at birth should be based on those sources.

What I saw happening at that time is profiles were being merged into a tiered set of preferences, like patronymics, then names with spaces, then names with lower cased prepositions, but these name choices weren't based on sources.

But it was my understanding that the names that appeared in church records should be used last name at birth, as they were the closest thing we could possibly get to a first hand record. I started replying to the name threads saying as much.

When I became a leader for the project early in 2016, I rewrote the naming conventions to better explain this.

Nowhere in the past 3 years did I ever see that the New Netherland Settlers project was going to use assumed patronymics for the LNAB, based on baptismal records that didn't have any surname. That just started being applied to New Netherland profiles recently. Edit: Actually I do remember discussing it a bit but it was soon made clear, and decided with another discussion, that this couldn't be done for New Netherland as profiles started changing for the worse, randomly.

This was first noticed when all of the children of Hendrick Rycken (Suydam) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rycken-33 were renamed, for unknown reasons. These children were born in New Netherland.

Then the issue became discussion when all (some?) of the children of Jelles Douwes (Fonda) were renamed, for unknown reasons. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Douwes-132

Take for example Giertje https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jelles-39  The first time she is ever recorded with a surname, in her marriage record, it's Fondaas. But she was renamed to Jelles. I've not ever seen a record of her referred to as Jelles. Couldn't that assumed patronymic be added to the first name field? It can't be proven. If a descendant comes along and declares that her LNAB should be Fonda, how can that be disputed? How can a name be made LNAB if there is no source for it?

The New Netherland Settlers were forced to take surnames in 1687, yet many don't have records before that date. Add to that the fact that New Netherland was a melting pot and only 50% Dutch.

Yes, only the transcriptions for New Netherland baptism records exist in most cases, but it is known to New Netherland researchers who transcribed them and what expertise they had. That is explained clearly on the church records page: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baptism_and_Marriage_Records_of_the_DRC_in_America#Vlacke_bos_.28Flatbush.29_f._1654

I don't understand why there should have been a g2g announcement. There has been tons of discussion about LNAB by email between you and me and Steven and Ellen. Only leaders can change the last name at birth.

I've worked really hard to ensure that people could find proper sources for these profiles https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Sources-New_Netherland_Settlers and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baptism_and_Marriage_Records_of_the_DRC_in_America and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Primary_Sources_for_New_Netherland

In the end, it is up to the New Netherland Settlers project to track these folks, sort the lines, merge the numerous duplicates, and assist folks in finding their ancestors, the co-founders of America that a good chunk of Americans descend from. Shouldn't it be up to us to determine the best LNAB?

The method in question, the one that is conflict with the way Dutch Roots handles LNAB, is very simple; if a New Netherland settler was baptized without a surname, the first surname (which might be a patronymic) that appears in church records is used for their LNAB. Any assumed patronymics are added to the first name field. That's it.

---

Thank you Carrie, for adding  some more background to this. I now realise that the original  question was really a statement and not a request for a general discussion about using a signature in preference to a scribe written baptismal or other record.

( I actually think it's a pity, that a best answer has been  selected  so soon after posting . Some people will not yet be out of their beds to see the question.)

Edit  I think we need a changes log. Unless, I'm very not thinking clearly then material within  the starred answer has been swapped out of it and into it.  It really  isn't as it was when I added the comments above.

---

Thanks for reading it, Helen!

---

Hi Helen. It was posted as a question. As written before, the decision to protect this specific profile with the spelling of the signature and not the spelling as can be seen on the baptism image, is the issue. And how that relates to the general WikiTree policy on that. In her last comment, Bea explains why the protocol as understood by other projects, is so important.

---

We all are members and have been working on the same project(s) ;) and we have corrected thousands of names into patronymics based on baptism marriage or other records if there were no Baptism/Birth records available, so this is how we have worked and collaborated together for years now.

Baptism records are primary records and I try to but I have a hard time understanding why you talk or now feel about them as if they are no valid record for a LNAB which stands for the Last Name at Birth, so not the name they used later in life, but the names they were born/baptized with ?

For most of  the examples you show there are Baptism or Birth records added and available, so if they were born with patronymics the LNAB would be a patronymic that's really not so hard to explain to anyone if there's a baptism record that shows the parents didn't use a last name, so if Grietje later adopted the name Fonda she has Fonda for current last name of course.  

But that's all not what this is about, what has caused confusion is that it still said in the project policy, if there was a birth or baptism record that would be used for the LNAB, and only if there wasn't a Baptism or Birth record the normally current or later version of how it was written in the earliest church record and within reason, was going to be used for the LNAB. And yes if there is no Baptism or Birth record and if the parents are unknown or perhaps uncertain, that's perfectly fine, but if there's a baptism or other records that show the names or patronymics and the correct spelling of the name and if the parents are certain it's not 'within reason'  to change names people received at Birth/ Baptism into the names they used later in life.

It's not meant as critic or to make you feel bad Carrie, we all love you and you're really a wonderful leader, it's just that if it seems to be confusing for or upsetting members,perhaps it's better to discuss a pretty major change like this in G2G, to make sure all members are aware and agree with it. For the Dutch Ancestors all I can say is I feel it's important the earliest versions are preserved and protected not to have it my way, but because it's important because they can lead us to the correct ancestors or farms or places/area's where they were coming from. So it's the same reason why you would like to preserve and protect the version they used in the New Netherland if the parents still might be uncertain..

---

Then perhaps the importance of a patronymic field should be stressed to  the Wikitree team. I have asked several times. A patronymic is neither a surname nor a middle name.

Using the first surname appears in a church record for someone is, in my understanding, acceptable as a last name at birth. It's the first name we know and can prove they used. This also has a lot to do with how these folks appear in sources since research began in the early 19th century. All of the macro sources for the New Netherland folks index these people by the names that they actually appear with in New Netherland records, which is the same thing being done here. If that can be added to, that's great, but it cannot be replaced.

The New Netherland Settlers project is a settler project for a melting pot society. The NNS project has to go by the sources. It cannot be assumed that a person used a patronymic if they were baptized without a surname. I don't even assume a patronymic with my Swedish ancestors, who lived in a nearly pure patronymic society. They chose their surname, which might have been a patronymic, when they were of age.

Then again, the assumed patronymics are not being ignored or rejected, they are being added to the First Name field. There is no reason to worry that the patronymics are not locked like a LNAB is because the profiles have a project profile as a profile manager.

No one should be upset because the policy has been in place for a while and there have been countless discussions about it. Only a leader can change a PPP LNAB.

The real problem appears to be communication because every time this was discussed, I walked away thinking everyone was one the same page. Then suddenly two days ago I'm getting yelled at by folks in other projects because I disagreed with changes made to a profile that belongs to a project that I lead.

---

The view that a patronym can not be used as a surname is simply wrong. In any case, for persons born in the Netherlands for 1800 and where a part of the population did not have an added surname (instead of family origin, occupation, etc.). Using the father's surname in the system of patronyms is incorrect and the children could not recognize their own last name if they could read it now. For example, father is Jan Kaasz, his son would be called Klaas Klaasz and not Klaas Jansz. That poor Klaas could not find himself back in WikiTree. An exception is when it comes to a period where the father's last name become a family name.

There is also a transition phase in which the (added) family surname is not listed in the Baptismnote but later in the record of Marriage. For example, father is Jan Klaasz de Nooijer, but in the baptismal record he is mentioned as Jan Klaasz. His son is called Klaas and thus apparently gets the surname Jansz. When Klaas Jansz marries, the last name of the Nooijer appears in his note of Marriage, so Klaas Jansz de Nooijer.

The emigrants of that time will not just be stopped using this system. Is the opinion of a project leader within his Project always the right one?

---

I'm not saying a patronymic can't be used as a surname. It's different though. I'm saying that assumed patronymics as LNAB for New Netherland Settlers profiles is wrong.

"The emigrants of that time will not just be stopped using this system."

In most cases they did stop. With strangers as neighbors, most felt the need to use a surname. That is why NNS uses what appears in records. New Netherland folks were forced to quit using a patronymic system in 1687, but every family was different. That's apparent in church records.

"Is the opinion of a project leader within his Project always the right one?"

Projects shouldn't be deciding LNAB for other projects, especially historically significant ones.

---

The whole world was a melting pot those days with all the changes in who ruled what part of the world and their different religions and all those people who fled from one part of the world to the next and some even more than once, for religious and many other reasons, the whole world was filled with refugees or immigrants that came and stayed or went to different parts of our world again, our main concern is and I think it should be for all of us, the preservation and protection of the earliest versions of the names or patronymics they were born or baptized with and for the reasons mentioned above.

The LNAB is the last name at Birth, not the current, or worse modern one we see in so many online genealogies and yes we agreed to share the earliest Dutch ancestors, the ones that emigrated to New Netherland with the NNS project, because we all and always have worked together as a team and the same way, so the LNAB for them always was taken or based on the baptism records especially if the parents were certain and correct.

So perhaps for the ones born in the Netherlands and to prevent misunderstandings or project clashes for the ones where the parents are certain and where there are multiple records for their parents and siblings, they can stay as they are now, because most already were corrected earlier and based on the baptism or Birth records, because for us it's just as important as for the New Netherland Settlers Project to have the original names preserved and protected and in it's original form, so maybe we can agree, for the ones where there's not a really and very urgent need, to not change(merge) them all again, if the later version can also and just as well be added to the current name field ?

What's worrying me a bit is if this isn't this going to be a slippery slope where in the end they all are going to end up with just the current or modern names for LNAB again and the earliest forms of the names and patronymics they were born with and the only names they used during their lives in the end all are going to vanish...

And I know and trust you will try your best to make sure this won't happen Carrie, but removing a patronymic from a first name field is something anyone can do, so f it's added there it doesn't have the same protection as when  a patronymic is added to and protected by the LNAB field which is locked.

And we are not a Project or Projects trying to decide LNAB for profiles of 'your' project ,we share a whole bunch of them and the Dutch Roots Project from the start always was added to the earliest ones as manager as well, these ancestors are Historically significant for all of us, not just for the New Netherland Settlers Project of which many of us are members also, if they were born Dutch they are Historically significant and important for our Project as well, so I think we should at least try to think of a way to make or keep everyone happy...and to prevent Projects are going to clash..which is really not needed and ashame since we all haven been collaborating so well for so many years..

---

There cannot be a slippery slope if the LNAB is sourced from records created in the person's lifetime. Especially if it is the first surname recorded for the person.

The Settlers are the whole point of the project. They are the co-founders of our entire modern country.

I never said the project was 'mine', did I?

The reason I keep mentioning that New Netherland was a melting pot and included people from all over is because we have to treat all settlers equally and that means that everyone is sourced from church records with no assumptions. For example, there are New Netherland immigrants from Sweden. Their patronymic might have Janssen but they have the last name of Janszen because that's how it appears in records.

---

The LNAB rules for NNS apply only to persons born in the New Netherlands, I suppose. For those born in the Netherlands, the rules of Dutch_roots apply to the LNAB, even though they have been emigrated.

Thats clear to Me, Thanks for the explanation.

---

I don't know how that came from what I said but I disagree with the LNAB of New Netherland immigrant profiles being changed to "father's name + s". That I disagree is the reason this discussion began.

These are the settlers, our progenitors and the most important people to the New Netherland Settlers project.

---

I agree with you. You can not assume that a patronym is formed by just putting an s behind the father's first name. How the patronym was, should be evidenced, for example, by a marriage certificate. Certainly these basic profiles need to be discussed before determining an LNAB. For us Dutch, it is relatively simple in relation to the NNS Project that has to do with immigrants from many different countries, each with their own name system. Good luck with it and much respect.

---

We do agree there, Joop! And thank you.

Answer 5

:) So there is an agreement now right? Thank you Carrie and Bea! 

 

First: Use us!!!!!!!!!!! We have a great team with a lot of experience!!!!!!! USE U S !! :) We re happy to help! 

Carrie I know it wasn t about an e or a t. But about policy. I do not mind about how names are spelled as they are spelled variously. Referents spelled as they thought it was right. After a few years a new referent came in and spelled things differently. But WIKITREE askes a L N A B!!! And I will keep to that forever untill they ask a LN @ Singing or @marriage or @death. If I do not have a LNAB I will use the next name used in time. That can be a signature................ BUT IF I HAVE A NAME AT THE BIRTH I NEED TO USE THAT., even if I don t think it is right spelled and there are many reasons why we do that this way after longer discussion then here now. 

I did mind you doubt the patronym as you never saw it before. I do see patronyms every day I ve never seen before. I do see first names of Dutch I ve never seen. So that means I will patronyms I ve never seen before. 

I am sorry I just caused this discussion and on the other half I am not sorry. I wasn t even aware there was a problem. I hope you take that as it is. We need to agree and cooperate on how to handle again. Leaders worked on agreements for years to make it work. I think many have roots at the Netherlands. And for those that have roots here,  leaders made rules and agreements  besides WikiTree or within WikiTree policy. Many people worked hard, spending hours, to get things straight on profiles that were having info that was not fitting. I think that was what this is about. 

I just hope........ that those born at the Netherlands, where ever they went will have their LN at Birth. :) Those born elsewhere are out of my expertise. I will always follow the rules at that. 

I think you ve seen me working carefully at the Van Der Werken.......... Trying to follow the NNS way I do not know. But best  way to learn is to just step in and fall into traps or on your nose as we Dutch say and tiptoeing slowly Finding one source. And one source is never enough. But one is better than nothing........ Knowing a Van Der Werken was spelled here at the Netherland as "van der Werken" but I will not change that! I know that it worked that way.But unless I have prove they were born here I will. 3:)

I am so happy you and Bea solved/worked out  things!! Profiles should have the LNAB. Anyway. :D  I am froozen to that. 

I know...... I have profiles and the LNAB do not compare to their families, signatures, and would love to change the name as signed at marriage documents. But bless WikiTree we have a box for Current Last Name and Other Last Names. 

Again patronyms are not always sourceable. Yes sometimes we see them at marriage docs. But as long if we have no last names............ and again we had not for a long time. Children named after grandparents as it was costume, just keeping them apart by their patronymic. (Grandparent having  four children, first born of their children would have first name of paternal grandfather, next child paternal grandmother, third maternal grandfather, fourth maternal grandmother. Ending up whit at least 4 children with same name after grandfather and 4 with same name as grandmorther at paternal side) They just needed them to keep them apart not knowing what a last name was so they were used to keep them apart and tg we have them as we need them to be used to work back in time.   

I saw your post of ...... hmm can t  find it back so fast ........ that fine female genealogist helping online. She is doing great things. Read some before in time at here site. Most important thing I recall was people adding "Holland" to place of birth ending up in Noord-Brabant or so, as there is a village named Holland,:D Our Country is named The Netherlands. But in former times a part of the Netherlands WAS called Holland (the West Part). 

But saying most of the Dutch had a Last Name is overdone. I think it is the other way around before 1811. We bless Napoleon for forcing our ancestries to take a last name. As said before....... yes some families had a last name. But in most cases only the Royals, the Noble and Notorious had one. Most of them not having roots at the Netherlands......... Forced to flee for religion reasons (what s new?)....... And went everywhere at Europe but also many to Amsterdam. 

Okay ....... back to rules now.......... I hardly do anything on PPP-ed profiles of the NNS. But if I think - let s just imagen -- a last name is wrong- (I would never change it!!) I have to start a G2G discussion right? That is very WikiTree-erish.

 

Carrie I see many NNS profiles coming by with no good sources. Use the Dutch Roots to get that solved. I know it s hard sometimes. Just please, think we have more expertise, we do. Here. Not at the USA. YOU DO! Use us! :)  We re just happy to put in our best knowledge. 

 

Thank you again, and bowing to the hard days. 

 

A. 

 

Phillip you can close this on my behalf.............. mabye you should wait a few days for those that needs a little time. I needed a few hours......... :) 

Answer 6

Hi Everyone,

I've been following this thread and it's nice to see so many people so passionate about their about their families. At the same time, it's disappointing to see many of the comments I've seen here. Remember to keep things respectful on WikiTree, and if you're ever feeling upset, walk away and calm down before answering.

Now that said, if any of you are still feeling upset about this conversation, please take a break! Step back from the conversation, from G2G, from WikiTree, and cool off just a bit. Things are far easier to understand, points of view easier to grasp and sympathize with when we're at our best, not when we're already on the defensive.

Carrie and Bea asked me to step in and help to settle things. Honestly, I think they've worked it out pretty well already. Both of them are amazing Leaders. I love being able to collaborate and help them with their projects. Both the Dutch Roots Project and the New Netherland Settlers Projects are also fantastic. WikiTree has far improved after NNS started sorting out the hairy messes from New Netherland and Dutch Roots started working on sourcing and improving the deeper ancestors of those families. It makes sense that they would have a lot of overlap. 

Carrie pointed out a very important point-that we cannot assume surnames based on patronymics. They may be the norm for the Netherlands for that era, but there are plenty of exceptions. Those exceptions are what make creating a guideline like this difficult and important. 

Carrie and Bea have extracted from this conversation the best approach we can hope for based on what tools WikiTree has and what we can do with people so long gone. Here's the guideline, in order for the two projects to be able to work together on overlapping profiles:

New Netherland Settlers Project will keep doing what it has been doing for New Netherland Settlers. This includes:

* Using the last name as it is first written in church records for LNAB, whether patronymic or family name, exactly as written, unless there is something blatantly wrong with the name that first appears in records. (It happens). If there is a patronymic in addition to the surname (like Carrie's Pieter Quackenbosch) that would be added to the first name field (which preserves the patronymic for all intents and purposes). 

* If a baptism record is discovered for a settler born in the Netherlands under a patronymic system, a g2g gets started that both NNS and Dutch Roots can participate in to discuss and explain what the suggested patronymic for a LNAB would be, hoping we can get most interested parties to understand and agree before changes are made. This will help with mistaken identities or disproven records as well. 

* If there is any question, any disagreement about what the LNAB should be, it needs to be discussed by both projects on G2G. Sources will dictate what name is agreed upon. A patronymic may be the best route, it may not be. But respectful discussion needs to be what decides it. 

There has been a lot of aggressive dialogue here that could have been avoided by walking away and calming down before responding. At this point, let's leave this specific discussion of van Renssalaer for at least a week to cool down, then come back to it with fresh eyes and understanding of the NNS guidelines.