Jacob was born in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, where he was baptized in the Oude Kerk (Old Church, Reformed) on 2 February 1649, recorded as the child of Claes Jacobsz and Lijsbet Stevens.[1]
As a child he immigrated to New Netherland with his parents, who were in Beverwijck (later to become Albany, New York) by 1660.[2]
He left Beverwijck (Albany) for the city of New Amsterdam, where, as Jacob Claeszen, he was married to Annetje van der Grist in the Reformed Dutch Church of New Orange on 29 September 1674. [3] They had registered banns on 26 August 1674.[4]
Now known as Jacob Groesbeck, he and Annetje (also called Anna) lived in Manhattan, New York City, for many years. In 1710, they moved with his wife's family and purchased land adjoining that of his brothers-in-law.
They were the parents of 5 daughters: Rebecca, Elizabeth, Leah, Rachel and Johanna.
Jacob is named in the will of his father, Claes Jacobs Groesbeck of Albany, New York, written in 1707 and proven at probate in 1713.[5]
Doop(Akte)datum: 02-02-1649 Plaats: Amsterdam Soort akte: Doop Bijzonderheden: Kerk: Oude Kerk Kind Jacob Vader Claes Jacobsz, Moeder Lijsbet Stevens [1]
Marriage
1674. Ingeschreven den 26 Aug, Getrouwt den 29 Sept. Jacob Claeszen, j.m. Van Amsterd. en Annetje Van der Grist, j.d. Van N. Nederlt. [New York].[4]
Research Notes
Jacob's Dutch last name at birth was Claeszen, the patronymic last name recorded for him at his marriage. [7] Later, he took the surname Groesbeck, also used by his father, when Dutch-based patronymic naming lost popularity after Dutch-run Nieuw Amsterdam became the English colony of New York.
Wells & Scott Genealogy Tree says:
•ID: I101012
•Name: Jacob Classen Groesbeck
•Sex: M
•Birth: 2 FEB 1648/49 in Albany [Beverwijck], New York
•Death: in Bensalem Township, Bucks Co., Pennsylvania
Father: Nicholas Jacobse Groesbeck b: 1623 in Breda, Brabant, Netherlands
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Jacob by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known yDNA or mtDNA test-takers in his direct paternal or maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Jacob:
Tanya, we require primary sources for any changes for pre-1700 profiles. If you have a primary source, feel free to post about it on her profile. It sounds like you are just looking at someone's family tree, which isn't a reliable source.
Thank for the link, Mark. Although the tree is not an original source and is difficult to read, the original source is FamilySearch, which is considered to be an original source:
Donna, FamilySearch is not a source, much less an "original source." FamilySearch is a website that hosts electronic content that was given to, or otherwise obtained or developed by, FamilySearch or the LDS Church, from a diverse variety of sources (governments, churches, authors, publishers, LDS volunteers, and myriad individual people). Some of the genealogical content found at FamilySearch is considered to be primary source material, but there is also a great deal of genealogical content that does not fall in that category, including some outright garbage. We need to judge the reliability of source material based on the origin of the item, not where we found it.
This particular item is a user-contributed family tree that does not cite its sources, and should be treated as such
In my opinion, trees like that one are best regarded as entertaining artwork that may (much like an unsourced Ancestry Family Tree) contain clues to be pursued in research, but should not be regarded as good sources or as valid information.
I've observed that sometimes folks assume that a document that was created by hand is more authentic than one that appears in print, but that's not true. We always need to consider who created the document and where they got their information. Also is it sometimes assumed that something written in (say) 1881 about events in (say) 1681 is more reliable than something written today because it was closer in time to the actual events. That is not a good assumption -- any more than it would be reasonable to assume that simply because I am alive in 2023 I have good information about my own ancestral family's events in 1823. We need to consider where the information came from, and seek primary records, or at least reliable transcripts of primary records (transcripts are often the best sources we have for New Netherland).
The transcript of his marriage record, as published by the New-York Genealogical and Biographical Society in 1890, clearly indicates that he was born in Amsterdam (in the the Netherlands) and his marriage to Annetje van der Grist (who was born in New Netherland) was the first marriage for both Jacob and Annetje. His father was named Claes Jacobsz (consistent with the name "Claus Jacob" on that family tree), but it looks like the family tree skipped over a generation or two to make "Claus" the father of Rachel (as that tree appears to indicate), and I don't see any indication that the family was "van Rotterdam" (from Rotterdam).
edited by Tanya Lowry
https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/598532-a-chart-showing-the-ancestors-and-descendants-of-nicholas-a-marcellus-of-amsterdam-n-y-and-john-n-marselus-of-schenectady-n-y
This particular item is a user-contributed family tree that does not cite its sources, and should be treated as such
For more information on reliable sources for WikiTree profiles like this one, see New Netherland Settlers Project Reliable Sources, the various pages linked from that page (such as Primary Sources for New Netherland) and other pages in Category:Reliable Sources for Pre-1700 Profiles.
I've observed that sometimes folks assume that a document that was created by hand is more authentic than one that appears in print, but that's not true. We always need to consider who created the document and where they got their information. Also is it sometimes assumed that something written in (say) 1881 about events in (say) 1681 is more reliable than something written today because it was closer in time to the actual events. That is not a good assumption -- any more than it would be reasonable to assume that simply because I am alive in 2023 I have good information about my own ancestral family's events in 1823. We need to consider where the information came from, and seek primary records, or at least reliable transcripts of primary records (transcripts are often the best sources we have for New Netherland).
BTW: The New York church marriage records cited are one of our best sources for New Netherland and early New York, and they are online at FREE websites. See this page and the Collections of the New-York Genealogical and Biographical Society page for details on finding them and citing them.