New Netherland Settlers WikiTree

As is true of the great majority of colonial Americans of the 1600s who have living descendants, there are other WikiTree profiles for your de Groots, and WikiTree had some solid sources for the information in these profiles. I have merged at least one duplicate profile from your family line, and I have proposed a couple more merges.

There were multiple de Groot or Groot families in New Netherland, and I believe that your immigrant ancestor in the de Groot line is not Staats de Groot. Staats de Groot had only one son, and he was not Johannes. Rather, it looks to me like your earliest immigrant ancestor may be Jacob (Pieterszen) de Groot (abt.1628-).

See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:New_Netherland_Settlers_Project_Reliable_Sources and the other pages linked from that page for information on some of the sources we use to research New Netherland people. Most of this material is in English, and much of it is free.

In any event, the G2G about this profile at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1399846/magdalena-ulster-york-mother-george-delong-multiple-families that was started several hours before this message was posted is a far better location for consolidated discussion of the genealogical issues about the individual and family.

These people are in the New Netherland project because they lived in New Netherland territory during the right time period, but they are not in the group that the project focuses on. It looks like these were English people, very possibly from New England (I have some early New England ancestors named Burge) who lived in a non-Dutch community in Hempstead. There may be some clues in New England sources, and these people might be recorded in Quaker records.

In case you are not already aware of them, you might appreciate knowing about the WikiTree collection of Source pages that are designed to help in citing a source -- and also providing background information about the source, along with information on where to find it. The Source page for the book you refer to is Space: Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, Ulster County, New York.

In the book Hoog-duytsland (and its various spellings) is almost always identified parenthetically as Germany, and I have no reason to doubt that. Hoog is a Dutch word that means "high" and "Duitsland" is the Dutch language name for Germany (see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duitsland ) -- note that the word is very similar to the German language name "Deutschland." Thus Hoog-duitsland could be read as High Germany. "High" refers here to elevation of the land. If you remember much geography, you probably remember that the Netherlands is a very low-lying region ("Nether" means low), and Germany is mostly uphill from the Netherlands. In centuries past, English speakers often referred to the people of the Netherlands as Low Dutch (in German this would be Niederdeutsch; in Dutch I guess it would be something like Neder-Duytsch) and used the term High Dutch for the people of what is now Germany. Many German (Palatine) migrants were settled in work camps along the Hudson River (West Camp was in Ulster County and East Camp was across the river) in 1710, and the name Hoog-duytsland first appears in the Kingston marriage records in 1712 (marriages 284 and 285 on page 526) when young men of the New Netherland community started marrying young women from the Palatine camps. This could make a great story to tell!

The information you saw regarding the highlands beyond Albany likely used a word something like Hoog-landt, which would be Dutch for "highland." :-)

1732 Aug 12, marriage of Johannes Maks Velde, single, born in Hoogduyts-land [Germany], and Margriet Hendriks, single, born under the durisdiction of Menner van Livengstont [Livingston Manor]. Both resind in Ulters [Ulster] Co. Banns registerd 1732 Aug 27 [sic].

What stood out to me was the name "Maks Velde", a variation of the name "Maxfield" and "Maxwell" that I had seen before in Dutch Records. Being a name of Scottish origin is what made me question the accuracy of the translation for "Hoogsduyts-land"

On further baptism records the name was given as 1733 Jun 17, Joh. Maks Velten 1736 Jan 1, Johannes Velten 1738 Jan 22, Johannes Velde 1740 Jan 13, Johannes Velten 1743 Sep 11, Johan Max Velde 1746 Feb 23, Johannes Velter 1748 Nov 20, Johan Maximilian Velde 1752 Jan 12, Johannes Velde 1754 Sep 15, Johan Maximilian Velde

Do you think that term could have represented Germantown, NY which was in close proximity to the bride's place of origin, that being "Livinston Manor"?

Again, that you for your comments!

Jim Maxwell

Before I say anything else, I feel it urgently important to advise you his LNAB should not be Maxwell. WikiTree naming conventions (see Help:Name Fields) tell us to "use their conventions, not ours," and call people by the name(s) they were known by during their lifetime. WikiTree should record him with the names he actually was recorded with. I have not researched him (other than looking at some of the church records), but I have yet to see any contemporary documentation supporting Maxwell as his name, much less his original name. It is not clear that he fits within the scope of the New Netherland Settlers project, but because he lived in the New Netherland area and had his life events recorded in New Netherland churches, I think the project-specific naming conventions are very appropriate to apply.

Your notion that this was a Scotsman named Maxwell or Maxfield is interesting. There were Scotsmen in the New Netherland population at this time, and their names were spelled in diverse ways in the church records. However, I have to say that the most straightforward interpretation of the available evidence indicates that he was born in Germany before 1710 with a baptismal name something like Johan Maximilian (consistent with German naming in that time period) and a family name of Veldt (or similar), arrived in New York in 1710, and settled originally in East Camp (the original name of what was later called Germantown) or West Camp. Some of the evidence I see:

• The marriage record says he was born in Germany. I do not know when the area now called Germantown got that name (the online sources suggest that it was called that by 1775), but it seems unlikely that it had that name as early as 1732, and although the Dutch domines who created the church records did make mistakes sometimes, most of them were well-educated in Europe and I cannot imagine that they would have confused Germany with the settlement along the river.
• The three [transcribed] church records that have Maks or Max in them do not clearly indicate whether this was part of his given name or part of his last name. You have assumed that they are part of the last name, but they also could be part of his given name.
• There are two records that call him Johan Maximilian Velde. In that construction, I think most of us would recognize Maximilian as a middle name or part of a given name.
• Eight of the 13 records have only two names for him, with the second name being Velde, Velter, Velten, or similar. This makes me think that he told the domines that this was his name.
• The domines were Dutch-language speakers who recorded names phonetically, using Dutch spelling. If they had heard Maxwell spoken by an English or Scottish speaker, they probably would have generated a variety of seemingly bizarre spellings, but they would not have rendered a spoken W as a V.
• The witnesses to the baptisms of his children include several people who are identifiable as of German (Palatine) origin or probably of German origin, including the names Valk, Volland, Dennemarker, Krans, and Kreller.

I have not checked for the name Velden (or similar spellings) in the records of Palatines in East Camp and West Camp, but that is where I would look for clues to the origins of this man.

I am sending a private message to you, so it should get to your email. Respond here if you don't get it.

Some comments to leave here, so others can see:

1. The Nathaniel you created is a duplicate, so these two profiles will need to be merged:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Kuykendaal-15

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_Kuykendaal-15

2. I added a link to the transcription of the baptismal record on Kuykendaal-15, so assuming it is correctly transcribed, "Kuykendaal" should remain as the spelling of the Last Name at Birth (LNAB).

3. If you look at the comments far down on the older profile (the first link above), you'll see that someone asked if George is the son of Nathaniel. No good answer was given, and a compiled genealogy was linked which does not list a son George. Those authored works, especially ones like that from over 100 years ago, are often unreliable. So George very well might have been his son. But before a merger can happen, the current children need to be confirmed, meaning that we will need to find solid evidence that George was Nathaniel's son.

4. After sorting out the children on the two profiles, the death date will need to be sorted out. The current Nathaniel has 1769, which is maybe dubious since, for instance, that authored work says he was having children in the 1770s. But a reliable source will need to be found and placed on his profile.

It does look like the profiles are the same person. In an instance like this, where both profiles have individual human members as managers, I think it is best to give the human members a chance to evaluate the proposed merge.

It is nice to hear from you. I have contacted the human profile managers and asked that they have a look and see if they think that the proposed merger is appropriate. Have a very wonderful day, Marion

Thank you for your suggestion to have the human members evaluate the proposed merger between Stillwell-204 and Stillwell-395. So far Dale Dart and Ronald Rideout have approved.

Thank you for your prompt comment. I just finished responding to your Comment to Chase Ashley and added sources to support William Walton, husband of Mary Santford [Santvoort], who is the son of Capt. Thomas Walton of England and Mary Lawrence, daughter of Capt. Thomas Lawrence of Newtown, Long Island, New York, who was a wealthy landowner there. I provided two sources in my Comment, one by Annette (Townsend) Phillips on the Walton and Roosevelt families (the book is dedicated to Sara Delano Roosevelt and believe she ant the authors may have been friends), the other is Gary Boyd Roberts' most recent work (2018) on the Royal Descent of 900 Ancestor. I have other resources that link William Walton with Thomas and Mary (Lawrence) Walton; extensive background on William Walton and his brother Thomas, with additional linkages to the Santvoorts, Beekmans and Dutch Church. As to your comment about not correctly understanding the purpose of the New Netherland Project, I apologize for what came across as ignorance. I do fully understand the intent of this project. I made the comment because of the conflated information about the parentage of William Walton. I certainly recognize and feel it important that the New Netherlands Settlers Project be returned when the profile for William Walton be corrected with his sourced parents, Thomas and Elizabeth (Lawrence) Walton, who were of English heritage. I fully understand that William and Mary Santvoort's son (also named William) married a Beekman and this merchant family not only have Dutch heritage, but interacted with Dutch, English and Spanish merchants. I am sorry if my comment offended you. It was not intentional, I can assure you. I will be happy to help write up and fully source William Walton with additional information about his life, marriage to Mary Santvoort, children, etc. I will also write up and source his Walton/Lawrence siblings, several of whom also have primary sources and supportive information as to their Walton/Lawrence parents. Again, thank you!

The text with the discussion is on the profile of her linked spouse Thomaszen-1. It is not anything I have researched but it looks like it is not her parents that are in question but rather her spouse.

Those are my comments on Hendrick's profile and have nothing to do with the Oosterooms. We are trying to settle the relationships between Phillips and Thomas. It looks like I've got to clarify that and will do so immediately. There is additional information being verified before it is added to the profile. Unfortunately, with the FHL and NYPL closed, verification is impossible for the moment. The comment which is on her page would indicate that the relationship with the Oosteroom family is questioned. It is an extremely odd comment. Do you think her relationship with the Oosteroom family is questionable? Cari

Just my opinion, but it looks solid to me.

That Research Box template was placed on the profile nearly 3 years ago, and probably reflected the fact that the profile was almost devoid of content, that the only content that was there (born 1700 and baptized 1724) did not make a lot of sense, and possibly also that there are no known records to connect Margrietje with her parents. Boxes like that one are used to signal that the information in the profile should not be treated as validated genealogy. The language in the box is standard boilerplate, and to add confusion, I think the standard text of that box may have changed during the intervening years.

Thank you for adding/connecting the profiles for her children and for citing the Dutcher Family article. I hope that your additions of reference citations and images of book pages will be an interim step toward writing good biographies with verbose source citations.

As it happens, the Patricia Wardell notes on the Oosteroom family point out that the father connected to this woman was the only Oosteroom in the region at the time, so he can be assumed to be the progenitor of all of the later generations. That indicates that it is very reasonable to treat Margrietje as his daughter. (In later generations, however, it can be a serious challenge to distinguish between different Oosterooms with the same name.)

If you want to continue this conversation, please do it at Oosteroom-32. Thanks!

Van Dyck-3 and Van Dyck 544 were merged in 2017. The unmerged match is VanDyke-249, and being set as an unmerged match does not mean it has been rejected. It means that it has been accepted as a match but work needs to be done before the merge can be completed.