Winkle Van Bogart

On the road to find Humphry Bogart’s kin, Metje Van Winkle, I found this man:

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

He bought land from the Indians. His kin married Hendrick Brevoort and lived in the house above. We are talking about one of the greatest real estate deals in New York State.

Sydney Morris sold our creative family history to an outsider and bid ‘The Caretaker’ to author a book, and make a movie. I am kin to Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, and perhaps, Humphry Bogart. In December of 2015 I began my historic fictional novel ‘Anatomy of a Rogue Wave’ in which Lauren and Humphry appear. It now occurs to me my beloved sister is amongst the Angelic Muses that are dictating to me. I would discover Henry Brevoort two year later. This is beyond uncanny

Jon Presco

Copyright 2017

A document described as the oldest surviving land deed for Long Island
land was auctioned Wednesday for $156,000 in Manhattan.

The deed, signed by Dutch Colonial Gov. Wouter von Twiller at “Eylandt
Manhatans” on June 6, 1636, confirms the purchase of 3,600 acres from
the Lenape Indians. The land is known as Keskachauge, and constitutes a
large portion of present day Brooklyn.

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

lon11

‘Anatomy of a Rogue Wave’

Don Roscoe and Humphrey Bogart had many things in common, the foremost being, they owned yachts that were far superior to Jack London’s wreck ‘The Snark’. On the San Francisco Bay, one could see Don’s yacht ‘Bohemian Roe’ racing Bogies Boat ‘Santana’ past Alcatraz Island. Every other boat owner looked on in awe. From the Berkeley Hills you could make out this incredible sight that American Intellectuals titled ‘The Zenith of Western Culture’. This infuriated the Swells in Los Angeles, and other Hollywood Stars who were befuddled. The Kennedy family took note, and shrugged their shoulders.

“Why aren’t we the Capitol of Western Culture?” they asked over and over again, to no avail.

https://rosamondpress.com/2017/07/28/anatomy-of-a-rogue-wave-with-tower/

https://rosamondpress.com/2015/12/15/don-the-juan-roscoe/

Born September 4, 1782, Mary Catherine was the daughter of Robert DeNavarre and Archange Marsac (Mary Louise). She was the niece of General Alexander Macomb and a lineal descendant of the Duke of Vendome, the brother of King Henry IV of France.

 

Children of Maria Van Couwenhoven and Hendrick Brevoort

Jan Jacobszen Van Wickelen16
|         |         |
|         |     __Evert Janszen Van Wickelen16
|         |    |    |
|         |    |    |__Tielcke Gerrits16
|         |    |
|         |__Metje Van Winkle9,16

Styntje (Cynthia) Vandenbergh formerly Bogart aka Rapalje

Born in Bushwick, Kings, New Yorkmap

Ancestors ancestors

[sibling(s) unknown]
Wife of Abraham Jeromus Rapelje — married in Bushwick, Kings, New Yorkmap
Wife of Richard VandenBergh — married in New Yorkmap

Descendants descendants

Died in New Yorkmap

http://www.burrcook.com/history/rapalje.htm

 

Margietje Aertse Bogart formerly Vanderbilt

Born about 1725 in Brooklyn, Kings, New Yorkmap

Ancestors ancestors

Daughter of Aert (van de Bilt) van der Bilt and Seytje Pieterse (Stryker) Vanderbilt

Sister of Lammetje Vanderbilt and Hilletje (Vanderbilt) Martense

Wife of Abraham Bogart — married [date unknown] [location unknown]

Descendants descendants

Mother of Styntje (Bogart) Vandenbergh

Died 18 Dec 1802 in Brooklyn, Kings, New Yorkmap

Jeronimus Rapalje

M, #1053, b. circa 1696, d. 1775

Jeronimus Rapalje|b. circa 1696\nd. 1775|p11.htm#i1053|Teunis Rapelje|b. 5 May 1671|p185.htm#i18427|Sarah Dirckse Van Vechten|b. 8 Jan 1675\nd. 30 Mar 1741|p185.htm#i18428|Jeronimus Rapelje|b. 27 Jun 1643|p13.htm#i1266|Annetje T. Nyssen|b. 18 Feb 1646|p13.htm#i1267|||||||

Jeronimus Rapalje was born circa 1696 at New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. He was the son of Teunis Rapelje and Sarah Dirckse Van Vechten. Jeronimus married Altie Van Arsdale, daughter of Cornelius Symonse Van Arsdalen and Marike Dirckse Ammerman, on 19-Sep-1719. Jeronimus Rapalje died in 1775.
He was also known as Jeromus Rapalje.

Child of Jeronimus Rapalje and Altie Van Arsdale

https://www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/history-and-heritage/dutch_americans/humphrey-bogart/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nnnotables/zhubo.html

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~conover/connet/connet-o/p11.htm

http://www.brownstoner.com/history/brooklyn-history-flatbush-mansion-kouwenhoven-kings-highway/

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Dutch-Colonies/2007-11/1193950162

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

Wolphert Gerretse (1 May 1579 – 1662), also known as Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven and Wolfert Gerritsen Van Couwenhoven, was an original patentee, director of bouweries (farms), and a founder of the New Netherlands colony;[1] founder of the first European settlement on Long Island, New Amersfoort,[2] and a Schepen of New Amsterdam in 1654. “He played an active role in laying the foundations of the communities of Manhattan, Albany, Rensselaer, and Brooklyn.”[3]

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~conover/connet/connet-o/p11.htm

Maria Van Couwenhoven was baptized on 2-Apr-1679 at Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, New York County, New York. She was the daughter of Johannes Jacobse Van Kouwenhoven and Saartje Frans. Maria married Hendrick Brevoort, son of Jan Hendrickson Brevoort and Annatie Bastianns Ellisen, on 26-Aug-1699 at Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, New York County, New York; 1st marriage Hendrick.
Maria Van Couwenhoven was also known as Maria Covenhoven. She was also known as Maria Van Kouwenhoven. She was also known as Maryken Van Kouwenhoven.

Children of Maria Van Couwenhoven and Hendrick Brevoort

Drive along Kings Highway today near Avenue D, and you’ll pass low-rise apartment blocks and bustling commercial strips. But 380 years ago the land looked far different — it was a flat, rural wilderness.

It was 1636 when Dutch immigrant Wolphert Gerritsen van Couwenhoven bought the land from local American Indians and co-founded the settlement of New Amersfort. Couwenhoven used the land as his second farm — his first was on a little island called Manhattan.

Over the decades, the Couwenhoven family grew and changed the spelling to Kouwenhoven. But they continued living at a little homestead on the Long Island farm.

In September of 1838, Wolphert’s great-great-great-great-great-grandson Cornelius Bergen Kouwenhoven got married and decided to build his wife a throughly up-to-date home. According to Brooklyn Genealogy:

A document described as the oldest surviving land deed for Long Island
land was auctioned Wednesday for $156,000 in Manhattan.

The deed, signed by Dutch Colonial Gov. Wouter von Twiller at “Eylandt
Manhatans” on June 6, 1636, confirms the purchase of 3,600 acres from
the Lenape Indians. The land is known as Keskachauge, and constitutes a
large portion of present day Brooklyn.

The winning bid was more than three times predicted, and for almost four
times the opening bid of $40,000.

“It is without question one of the oldest Dutch documents in private
hands,” said Jeremy Markowitz, head of Americana sales at Bloomsbury
Auctions, a Manhattan auction house where the sale took place. “It is
the first deed for land on Long Island.”

Markowitz describes the deed as one of the earliest examples of private
land ownership in the colony controlled by the Dutch West India Company.

“It is amazing it survived, being over 370 years old and preceding the
first private land ownership in Manhattan.”

Markowitz said the deed was signed a dozen years after the founding of
the Dutch colony by von Twiller, the successor to the first and better
known governor, Peter Minuit.

“We know from the records of the Dutch West India Company who received
land deeds,” Markowitz said. “There are only about a dozen land deeds
that preceded this one” and they are for tracts north or south of
present day New York City.

The 13-by-18-inch document, written in ink in Dutch, confirms the
purchase of the land in the Flatlands section of Brooklyn from the
Indians by Wolfert Gerritsz van Couwenhoven and Andries Hudde.

The auction catalog carries a price estimate of $50,000 to $75,000 but
auction organizer Markowitz said that range was very conservative and
there has been a lot of interest from institutions and private collectors.

On the reverse side, there is a reaffirmation of the original
transaction in 1658 and signature of another more famous governor, Peter
Stuyvesant, who amended it to say the sole owner of the property was
Kouwenhoven. The endorsement was a result of the proclamation by the
Dutch West India Company in 1652 that annulled all private land
purchases and took all the land back

“It came from a private collector,” Markowitz said. It has been
auctioned several times after being held by the Kouwenhoven family for
centuries.

The document has minor soiling and a small hole affecting two words
where the deed is dated. The text reads:

“We, director and council of New Netherland, residing on the island of
Manhattan at Fort Amsterdam ? herewith testify and declare, that today,
date underwritten, before us personally appeared Tenkirau, Ketaun,
Ararikan, Awackouw, Warinckehinck, Wappittawackenis, Ehettin, as owners;
Penhawis, Kakappeteno being present as chiefs of the district, ? have
transferred, ceded, surrendered and conveyed as lawful, true and free
possession, as they therewith transfer, cede, surrender and convey to
and for the behalf of Andries Hudde and Wolphert Gerritsz the
westernmost of the flats called Keskateuw belonging to them on the
island called Suan Hacky between the bay of the North river and the East
River of New Netherland?”

According to Markowitz, on June 6, 1636, Wolfert Gerretse Van
Kouwenhoven and Andries Hudde purchased jointly the 3,600 acres. The
same day Jacobus Van Corlear bought an adjoining tract, and 10 days
later a third was purchased.

Together, these three tracts in present day Brooklyn constituted an area
called ‘Castuteeuw,’ ‘Kestateuw’ and ‘Casteteuw.'” The name is thought
to be derived from the Lenape word for “where grass is cut.”

The catalog notes “the sale of these lots was a significant event and
constitutes among the earliest examples of private land ownership in New
Netherland. At the time, it was highly unusual for land to be owned by
anyone except the Dutch West India Company.” And most land was leased
rather than sold.

Colonial records show the first private purchase of land in the colony
of New Netherland occurred in 1629, in present day Delaware. The 1636
purchases collectively are the seventh purchase of land in New
Netherland, and the third in the present state of New York. The first
private land sale on the island of Manhattan was recorded two years later.

Corlear purchased the land for speculation but Gerritsz van Kouwenhoven
settled on the westernmost of the three plots and constructed a dwelling
and laid out a plantation that eventually became the settlement and town
of Flatlands. The pioneer called his estate Achterveldt and his dwelling
stood near the junction of Kouwenhoven Place and Flatbush Avenue.

Humphrey Deforest (Humphrey) Bogart  [1899-1957]

Stage and Screen Performer

Humphrey Bogart, one of the greatest screen actors of the twentieth century, was born in New York City on January 23, 1899. His parental home and his upbringing were upper crust New York. His father, Belmont DeForest Bogart [1865], was a prosperous New York surgeon, and his mother, Maud Humphrey, was an illustrator and artist.

Bogart’s parents were able to send him to first-rate schools such as Trinity School in New York City and Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, where he prepared for medical school.

Bogart was from solid Dutch American background. His ancestral grandparents were firmly rooted in seventeenth century New Amsterdam and New Netherland dating back ten generations. They were:

Teunis Gijsbertse Bogaert and Sara Rapalje [1625]. Sara was the first European girl born in New Netherland.Gijsbert Teunisse Bogaert [1668] and Jannetje Simonse Van Arsdale.Gijsbert Bogaert [1697] and Marretje Bergen.Jacob Bogaert [1723] and Ann Stryker.Gilbert Bogaert [1748] and Metje Brokaw.Jacob Bogaert [1772] and Mary Brokaw.Peter Brokaw Bogaert [1793].Adam Welty Bogart [1829].Belmont DeForest Bogart [1865] and Maud Humphrey.Humphrey Bogart [1899-1957].

Humphrey Bogart never completed his pre-med education at Phillips Academy because of failing grades. In 1918 he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Following his naval discharge in the early twenties, a family friend who was a theatrical producer, hired him as an office assistant. Bogart worked himself up to the position of stage manager, and began getting small roles in stage plays. Throughout the twenties he continued to do stage work and became a non-renowned stage actor. During the thirties Bogart was in his first feature film entitled, “The Devil with Woman”. The film was a forgettable failure.

Bogart’s first theatrical success came in the mid-thirties. He had the lead in “The Petrified Forest”, a stage play which in 1936 was turned into a film with Bogart as the lead actor. Bette Davis was his co-star. It was a smash hit and provided the impetus for Bogart’s future acting career.

Bogart’s subsequent acting career encompassed numerous top films during the last twenty years of his life. Although there were other films in between, his next smash hit was “High Sierra” in 1940 with Ida Lupino as co-star and John Huston as director. In that same year “The Maltese Falcon”, directed by John Huston, also came out. In 1942 “Across the Pacific”, a war drama also directed by John Huston was produced.

Bogart’s most famous film of his career, “Casa Blanca” was produced in 1943, with Ingrid Bergman as his co-star. Many film connoisseurs, to this day, consider “Casa Blanca” to be one of the top ten films ever produced. “Casa Blanca” won the Academy’s best picture award, and Bogart was nominated for the Academy’s best actor award but did not win the Oscar. The noted actors, Peter Lorrie, Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, and Dooley Wilson, also starred in the film.

In 1945 Bogart divorced his third wife, Mayo Method, and married Lauren Bacall, with whom he would co-star in several more smash hit films. Bogart’s first film with Lauren Bacall, a top hit, was “To Have and Have Not” in 1945. His next two films with Bacall were “Big Sleep” in 1946 and “Dark Passage” in 1947. In 1947 Bogart also completed the film, “Dead Reckoning” with Liza Scott, followed in 1948 with “Key Largo”, in which Bacall was again his co-star.

The smash hit, “African Queen” followed in 1952, with Katherine Hepburn as his co-star. Bogart won his first Academy Award for best actor, the Oscar, by beating both Marlon Brando for his role in “Streetcar Named Desire” and Fred March for his role in “Death of A Salesman”. Bogart was also the main actor in “Caine Mutiny” for which he received another Academy nomination for best actor.

Bogart and Bacall had two children together. Their son, Stephen Humphrey Bogart, was born in 1949 and their daughter, Leslie Howard Bogart was born in 1952.

Bogart’s last film, “The Harder They Fall”, was made in 1956. Bogart died on January 14, 1957 from esopheagal cancer in the bedroom of his home in Hollywood’s Holmby Hills. At his funeral, his best friend John Huston described Bogart best with his statement, “He is quite irreplaceable. There will never be anybody like him”. It is a statement that reflects the thought of all those who have seen and enjoyed his many unforgettable performances.

https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-menu.php?name=3532+humphrey+bogart

https://famouskin.com/pedigree.php?name=3532+humphrey+bogart&ahnum=1

https://famouskin.com/family-tree.php?name=3532+humphrey+bogart

https://famouskin.com/family-group.php?name=3532+humphrey+bogart&ahnum=64357554

https://famouskin.com/surname-index.php?name=3532+humphrey+bogart

https://famouskin.com/family-tree.php?name=31440+elizabeth+taylor

Please Note: The family tree for Elizabeth Taylor is still in progress.

The family tree for Elizabeth Taylor is still in the early stages of research. The family tree listed here should not be considered exhaustive or authoritative. Oftentimes the family trees listed as still in progress have derived from research into famous people who have a kinship to this person. Research devoted solely to this person has either not yet taken place or it is currently in progress. As with all family trees on this website, the sources for each ancestor are listed on the family group pages so that you can personally judge the reliability of the information.

https://famouskin.com/pedigree.php?name=31440+elizabeth+taylor&ahnum=1

https://www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/history-and-heritage/dutch_americans/humphrey-bogart/

https://www.geni.com/people/Gijsbert-Bogaert-Jr/6000000004043814959

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nnnotables/zhubo.html

Humphrey Bogart’s highly-inbred New Jersey paternal ancestry includes — almost certainly — five lines of descent from the Rapalje family of Long Island, making him and Jean Margaret (Kennedy) Mitchelson quintuple 8th cousins once removed. He was also related to her in yet a fourth way through his mother’s Howland descent, not shown here. Bogart, through the Bergen family, was rather closely related to New York Governor DeWitt Clinton; and through the Brokaw family he was a fifth cousin once removed of news anchor Tom Brokaw (see note below).

Jan Jacobszen Van Wickelen16
|         |         |
|         |     __Evert Janszen Van Wickelen16
|         |    |    |
|         |    |    |__Tielcke Gerrits16
|         |    |
|         |__Metje Van Winkle9,16
|              |
|              |     __Simon Janszen Van Arsdale7,10,16
|              |    |
|              |__Metje Simons Van Arsdale17
|                   |
|                   |     __Claes Corneliszen [Van Schouwen]10
|                   |    |
|                   |__Pieterje Claes10,16
|                        |
|                        |__(__)10
|

Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven

M, #279, b. before 1 May 1579, d. between 2 Mar 1662 and 24 Jun 1662
Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven|b. before 1 May 1579\nd. between 2 Mar 1662 and 24 Jun 1662|p3.htm#i279|Gerritt Jansz Couwenhoven||p580.htm#i57982||||||||||||||||

Relationship=9th great-grandfather of David Kipp Conover Jr.

      Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven was born before 1-May-1579; when baptisms began in Amersfoort, Netherlands. He was the son of Gerritt Jansz Couwenhoven. Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven was born circa 1583 at Netherlands; he stated on October 8, 1638 that he was 54 years old. He was born circa 1584. He was born circa 1588 at Netherlands. Wolphert married Aeltje Jansdochter. Marriage banns for Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven and Neeltgen Jacobsdochter were published on 9-Jan-1605 at Amersfoort, Utrecht, Netherlands. Wolphert married Neeltgen Jacobsdochter, daughter of Jacob Petersz and Metgen Jacobsdr, on 17-Jan-1604/5 at Dutch Reformed Church, Amersfoort, Utrecht, Netherlands. Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven died between 2-Mar-1662 and 24-Jun-1662 at New Amersfoort, Kings County, New York.
He was also known as Wulphert Gerritsz Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wolfert Gerritsz Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wulffer Geritsz Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wulpher Gerritsz Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wolfert Garretsen Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wolfert Gerretsen Van Kouwenhoven. He was also known as Wolfert Gerretson Van Couwenhoven. He was also known as Wolfert Gerretsz Van Kouwenhoven. On 15-Dec-1611 The first reference to WOLFER GERRITSE when Wulphert Gerrits signed an agreement with his stylized A. According to the terms of that document, he agreed to assume the property and debts of the deceased parents of his wive Neeltgen Jacobsdr from the other heirs for 100 guilders. Her brother Herman Jacobsz also signed this document as well as her brother-in-law Willem Dircx who was married to Aeltgen Jacobs Petergen Petersdr, the underage daughter of her brother Peter Jacobsz, had already received 50 guilders.On 22-Mar-1612 Wulphert Gerritsz and his wife Neeltgen Jacosdr sold a bleachcamo outside the Coppelpoort of Amersfoort to Hendrick Janss and his wife Hasgenb Thonis fo 1,200 Carolus guilders, the occupation of Wolfert is not disclosed in this document.On 14-Apr-1615
Wolphert took part in a curiious agreement with Herman Zieboltz of Amsterdam, before Johan van Ingen an officer of the court of Utrechet. The name of the Amsterdammer suggests that he was a German or that he was of German descent. His name is also spelled Syboelt and Zyeboltz in those documents. According to a “donatiaq iner vivos” (gift to a living person) Ziebolz gave Wolphert two morgans of turf ground near Cologne in recognition of services rendered )but not payment for them). No monetary amount is mentioned for the services or the turf ground. In a second document of the same date issued by the same officer of the court of Utrecht, Ayeboliz made a debt owed by mim by Henrick Adrianesz and Adriaen Adriansz over to Wulpher Gerrits baker and Cornelis Wynantsz inkeeper. This second document authorized Wulpher Gerritss and Cornelis Wynantsz to assume ownership of the two morgens of turfground mentioned in the first document. These documents create the impression thaqt Zieboltz was unable to pay Wolfert money that he owed him, that the Amsterdammer made over a debt on which he had not been able to collect, and that Wolfert may have agreed to these vague terms because he would otherwise not be able to retrieve anything from his business dealings with the Zieboltz.On 16-May-1616 Wulpher Gerritss baker appeared as a witness before Johan van Ingen officer of the court of Utrecht, in a case in which Willem Gerritz miller testified that Griet Maes was evading the city grain tax. The document does not specify that Wulpher and Willem were brothers, and if such were the case, it is likely that this would have been discussed in the document.On 28-Oct-1616 Hendrick Janss and Haesgen Thonis made the last payment on the bleach camp which they had purchased from Wolfert Gerretse and Neeltge Jacbsdr, and the property was made over to them.Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven purchased from Aert van Schayck and his wife Anna Barents a house on the Langegraft in Amersfoort whch lay between the hosue of the aforesaid Aert on the one side and that fo Henrickgen Barents widow of Aelbert Conrneiss on the other side, while the breadt of the house lay on the Lieverrouwestraet (Dear Lady Street). Wolphert was listed as a baker.
on 30-Jan-1617 at Langegraft, Amersfoort, Utrecht, Netherlands.
On between Feb-1617 and Jul-1617 Within a short time, Wolpeher palced three mortgages on this house. Perhaps the transactions with Zieboltz were unprofiatble, and this was one of the causes fo his need for money. On Feb 15, 1617, Wulpher Gerritss baker and his wife Neeltgen Jacobsdr borrowed 100 guidlers from the Armen te Amersfoort on which he agreed to pay 6 guilders per year. On May 16, 1617, Wulpher Gerritss baker and his wife Neeltgen borrowed 200 guilders from Cornelis Baecx van der Tommen at a yearly interest of 12 guilders. On Jul 25, 1617, Wul;phur Gerritss baker and his wife Neelttgen Jacobsdr borrowed 250 guilders from Anna Goerts widow of Franck Frandkss at 15 guilders interest per year.
On 3-Jan-1618 Wulphert Gerritsz and his wife Neeltgen Jacobs purchased a bleachcamp outside the Coppelpoort of Amersfoort with Hubert Lambertsz Moll and his wife Geertgen Cornisdochter as thier partners. They borrowed 500 Carolus Guilders from Ghijsbert Cornelisz van Cuijlenburch, a citizen of the city of Utrecht, at an annual interest of 25 guilders and 20 stivers. In addition, Hubert Lamberts and his wife Geertje Cornelisdochter contracted a special mortgage ofr 400 Carolus guilders with the consent of Wulffert Gerritsz and his wife. On the no9rth side of the property lay the River Eem, on the east the city moat and on the south and west the heirs of Gerrit van Speulde. This propety came with two other mortgages: 200 guilders to the Poth and 600 guilders to Jo. Catharina van Morendael not yet conveyed to her. In a codicil, Wulpher Gerritsz baker and his wife Neeltgen Jacobs become party to the mortgage of Hubert Lambertsz Moll and his wife Geertge Cornelis for 400 guilders with interest on Ghijsbert Cornelisz van Culenborch with restriction that Wulpher would pay 150 guilders in the year 1618 and thereafter be free of oblicgation.In the margin is a notation that Dirck van Cullenburch as heir of his father Gysbert van Culenburch acknowledged that the obligation on the mortgage was fully paid on Mar 5, 1628.In the seventeenth century, a bleach camp was a capital intensive, seasonal business which required the labor of relatively many workers. Profits were meager because the buyers of the finished product and the suppliers of raw matierials such as lye were generally the same persons, and they acted to keep theri costs and thus the profits of the bleachers love. There were three types of bleaching activities, and the skills and experience reqiuired of workers was generally so high that each bleachery specialized in but one sort of material: Yarn (garenblekerij), woven cloth (lijnwaadblekerij), or clothing (klerenblekerij). In all three cases, the material was first generally cooked in a lye solution and later spread out on green grass for many weeks in small fields surrounding the bleach house where it was kept damp. Later, iot was cookled in a solution of wheat meal before being again spread on the field for a lenghtly period, the entire process requiring about three months. The consequences of this long procedure was that o9nly wealthy people were the customers of clothing bleachers because only they could afford to part with many items of clothing for so long a time. No equipment of the bleach camp listed in the purcahse document for Wolphert are given. So no indication of what type of bleachery Wolphert purchased. The bleach camp he sold in 1612 included a bleach table meaning it may have been a cloth bleach camp.
On 17-Sep-1618 Wulphert Gerritss baker and his wife Neeltge Jacobs contracted a mortgage with Coenraet Fransz, former mayor of the city of Amersfoort, for 100 guilders at an annual interest of 6 guilders, with the house of Wulphert on the Langegracht as security, which house lay between the house of Aert van Schayck and that of Hednrickgen Speldemaeckster.It does not appear that Wolferts endeavor as bleacher met with great success, and this may have been caused by a general malaise in the weavers trade in Amersfoort in this period, which in turn lay on a lack of capital. Because Wolfert’s work was dependent on this industry, he was limited as a businessman by the lack of sucess of the parent industry.On 5-Nov-1622 Wolphert was appointed guardian over the five under aged children of Willem Gerritsz Couwenhoven.
From NYGBR
Wulffer Geridtz, bleacher residing by the Coppelpoort and Harman Willemsz citizen of Amersfoort as “bloetvoochden” (blood guardians) of the five sons of Willem Gerridsz Couwenhoven, namely Gerridt, Willem, Jan, Harmen, and Willem the Younger, none of whom had yet reached the age of majority, made an agreement with the mother of the children Neeltgen Willemsdr the widow of Willem Gerridtsz assisted by the owner of Cowenhoven the honorable Johan de Wijs.This document indicates that Wolfert Gerritse had a brother Willem and that he was the tenant of the farm ouwenhoven which was owned by Johan de Wijs. This document indicates that Wolfert is connected to the Couwenhoven by Hoogland. It is at the same time possible that he was also linked to the Couwenhoven near Woudenberg because he was a son of Gerrit Willemsz van Couwenhoven, but documentation for this has not been discovered.On 24-Mar-1623 Beermt van Munster made a deposition under oath before the lieutenant, the schout, and the schepenen Dam and Bronchorst at the request of the (police) officer. He stated that the previous Saturday afternoon he had caught a bucket of fish by the Coppelpoort bridge and had given half of it to Wulphert the bleacher according to an agreement which they had made, and that Beernt had caught a small number of fish threafter. Wulpher and Harmen
Teut then took these fish from Beernt, and they would not divide them with him. Wulpher took the net and tried to give it to his wife. Harman hit Beernt in the eye with a weight in the net, but by then, it was ripped. Beernt then went to the defense of his wife, and Wulpher drew his knife and threatened him without harming him. Dirck Gerritsz, stevedore, using well-chosen words, separated the people from each other. On April 1 1623, Dirch Gerrisz was heard at the request of the officer and made a similar deposition under oath.On 11-Jun-1623 Hubert Moll and his wife Geertgen Cornelis sold a bleach camp to Wulpher Gerritsz bleacher and his wife in which they had been residing. This was situated in Amersfoort outside the Coppelpoort. The property description differs slightly from that given for the land transaction of 1618, but the mortgages are the same. It is likely that this is the same ground that Wulpher Gerritsz and Hubert Moll purchased then. On the date of purchase in 1623, Wulpher Gerritss sold this property to Monsieur Jacques Chiese Cuirass(ier) of the company of his Princely Excellency (Maurits?) and the purchser assumed the mortgages.This is the last document pertaining to Wolfert Gerritse that has been discovered in the archives of Amersfoort.

He immigrated between 1624 and 1625 to New Amsterdam, New York County, New York. He and Neeltgen Jacobsdochter immigrated in Jun-1625 to New Netherlands; or July 1625, with his wife and family on a ship of the Dutch West India Company which saled in the expedidition that was comprsed of the ships Mackerel, Horse, Cow and Sheep. On 1629 Wolfert returned to the Netherlands.
On 24-May-1630 He retruned from the Netherlands on board “De Endracht” (the Unity).
There exists a letter from Kiiaen van Rensselaer to Wolfert which I have to get from sources. At this time Wolfert was in the Netherlands and the letter had to do with terminating Wolfert’s contract with van Rensselaer and mentions that Wolferts wife was unhappy living in New Netherlands. In the letter van Rensselaer states he would not want someone who was not happy working for him to remain in his employ under the circumstances. It was a friendly letter. According to the source there are several letters fo Wolfert from Van Rensselaer. The letter above was read over the phone to me and I have yet to receive the exact copy and don’t take short hand in 1632.

Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven purchased “Keskateuw” located on Long Island from the Indians. Here was established the first kown white settlement on Long Island. Wolphert called his “plantation” Achterveldt, shown on the Manatu Map of New Netherlands as farm No. 36 near the Indian long house to the Kestachau tribe. Wolphert’s house surrounded by palisades, was the focal pont of the village of New Amersfoort, later called Flatlands.
on 30-Jun-1636.
On 18-Apr-1657 He got “Smal Civil Rights.”
On 20-Oct-1661 Wolfert Gerritsen Van Couwenhoven was named in a suit filed by Frans Jansen regardin a dispute ofver a contract in which Jansen was to buy land from Wofert. This was the first time the name Van Couwenhoven was mentioned in reference to Wolfert.

In the October 2004The New York Genealogical & Biographical Society, Review, published and article titled Wolfert Gerritse in the Netherlands: Further Thoughts About the Van Couwenhoven Family This article follows.

WOLFERT GERRITSE IN THE NETHERLANDS: Further Thoughts About the Van Couwenhoven Family
BY WILLEM VAN KOUWENHOVEN
The purpose of this article. Several years ago, I made a study using documents about Wolfert Gerritse van Couwenhoven which Marcel Kemp had sought out at my request in the archives of the district Amersfoort in the Netherlands.[1] The New York Genealogical and Biographical Society was kind enough to publish this in THE RECORD as “Wolfert Gerritse in the Netherlands.” (2] During the intervening time, I have developed several points of criticism about the article which pertain to the views which were expressed there about Wolfert’s first wife Aeltge Jansdochter, the birth order of Wolfert and his brother Willem, the date on which the tenancy of Willem’s son Jan on the farm Kouwenhoven was terminated, and the projected picture of Wolfert’s childhood.
Wolfert Gerritse in recent literature. Additional information has been published in the meantime by Marcel Kemp and Gerard Raven as “Boerderij Kouwenhoven en de familie Van Kouwenhoven 1400-1650” in De Bewaarsman,[3] the publication of the Historische kring Hoogland, the Historical Society’ of Hoogland. (The farm Kouwenhoven is located in the neighborhood Coelhorst within the former district Hoogland, which is now a part of the district Amersfoort.) Gerard Raven was co-editor of De Bewaarsman when the article was published. In addition to information about the early history of the farm that appeared in Kemp’s article “De herkomst van Wolfert Gerritsz, stamvader van de Amerikaanse familie Van Kouwenhoven” in the 1996 Jaarboek van bet Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie[4] and in the above-mentioned article in THE RECORD, the article in De Bewaarsman contains information about a tenant on the farm in 1536, insights into the lives of the tenants in the period 1620-1650, and a report of the construction of a brick manor house on the farm during the eighteenth century by a new land owner, as well as the history of the farm to the present day. Only the material that pertains to the critique of the article in THE RECORD will be dealt with in this discussion.

Information about Kouwenhoven, its neighborhood Coelhorst, and the local Chapel Coelhorst were included in the booklet “Hoogland-West,” the issue of De Bewaarsman for April 2001. The material about the chapel will be recounted in the portion of this critique that deals with Wolfert’s childhood.

Aeltge Jansdochter, Wolfert’s first wife. As first point of critique, the view of Aeltge Jansdochter which was set forth in the article in THE RECORD[5] should be revised – that it was uncertain that the Wolfert Gerritse who married Aeltge Jansdochter on 17 January 1605[6] was the same person as the Wolfert Gerritse who is found in numerous documents in the archives of Amersfoort in the period 1611-1623. M. Kemp expressed this opinion initially in the report of his impressively thorough search for documents regarding Wolfert Gerritse which was first given to this writer, and this opinion was used in the article for THE RECORD. By the time it was published, Kemp had expressed the same view in his article “De herkomst van Wolfert Gerritsz, …”[7] Because other documents were not found which linked Aeltge Jansdochter to the baker/bleacher Wolfert Gerritse, Kemp hesitated to draw the conclusion that Aeltge was Wolfert’s first wife.
This seems overly cautious. Only one Wolfert Gerritse has been found in the numerous other documents from more or less the same period that have been preserved in the records of the district Amersfoort. Although many documents from this period in the district have been lost for various reasons, those that have survived give no reason to surmise that there was at that time a second Wolfert Gerritse in the district to whom the entry in the marriage register might refer. It would then be better to reason that the Wolfert Gerritse of the marriage record is the same person who is found in all of the other documents. It then follows that Aeltge Jansdochter was Wolfert’s first wife, that she died shortly after their marriage without bearing any children who survived, and that Neeltje Jacobsdochter, who is shown as his wife in the documents from the Amersfoort archives, was his second wife and the mother of his known children.
Willem Gerritse, Wolfert’s younger brother. Secondly, there is a problem in the article with the estimated birth year that was given for Wolfert’s brother Willem. While Kemp made no statements about Willem’s birth year in his article in the Jaarboek, he and Raven estimated in the article in De Bewaarsman that Willem was born in the period 1580-1585.[8] Since Willem remained on the farm Couwenhoven as its tenant, it was assumed in the article for THE RECORD that he was older than Wolfert, who was born in 1584.1] Yet, none of Willem’s five children had attained their majority when their father died in 1622. Thus, none of them were capable of succeeding him as tenant. The family was enabled to stay on the farm because Willem’s widow Neeltge Willemsdochter married Peter Coenraetsz., apparently with the approval if not the instigation of the owner of the farm, Johan de Wijs of Amersfoort.[1]

If one of Willem’s five sons was but a few months removed from attaining his majority, it would seem that it could have been arranged in one way or another that he become the tenant of the farm, if he was in other respects a suitable candidate for this work. That this did not occur suggests that the oldest son was several years removed from his majority, and this is the tenor of the agreement which the “blood guardians” Wolfert Gerritse and Harmen Willemsz. of Amersfoort (respectively the brother of Willem and the brother of Willem’s widow) made with the mother of Willem’s children on 5 November 1622.P 1] She was to care for the children and let them attend school and learn to read and write. Such stipulations suggest that some of the children were too young to have learned basic literacy skills at the time of their father’s death.

Since Willem’s children were not so old when he died in 1622, it would seem that the birth year 1580 that was assigned to him lies too far in the past and that it is likely that he was born several years later. If Willem’s children are listed in birth order in the agreement between the “blood guardians” and the widow, Jan would be his third son. He became the tenant on Couwenhoven on 5 July 1636,02] and he married Nellitgen Henricxdr. five days later.[13] Assuming that both father and son married shortly after their twenty-first birthday and that there were three years between each child, results in an estimated birth date of circa 1587 for Willem rather than circa 1580, which was assigned in THE RECORD article.[14] Willem would have been legally eligible to enter into contracts as a tenant only when he reached his majority, which would seem to have been about 1608.

It should be emphasized that this is but an estimate that is based on reasonable assumptions about birth order and birth intervals that have been made in regard to two men. It should be expected that new documents about Willem and Jan could well require further slight corrections regarding their birth and marriage dates. Yet, Kemp’s search in the Archives of Amersfoort was so thorough that it is unlikely that further documents about these persons will be found there. Perhaps a reference to them will by chance be discovered in one or more documents from other districts while other matters are being studied.

as the younger son who left home, learned a trade (perhaps with some parental support) and became a businessman. The thought that is being presented here is that although Willem was the younger son, he stayed on the farm, working it and perhaps initially serving as a caretaker for his parent(s) while the older brother Wolfert had years earlier left the homestead, even though it was customary in Hoogland that the oldest son succeed his father as tenant. Wolfert sought to survive in the business world of Amersfoort, where he already resided as a married man when he was twenty-one years old according to the entry in the marriage register of the Reformed Church of Amersfoort, which was located in the St. Joriskerk[15] (St. George’s Church). This is a plausible explanation, yet it requires further refinement.

Jan Willemse’s tenancy on Kouwenhoven ends. The other tenants on Kouwenhoven about which there is information were not able to labor there many years. Peter Coenraetsz. became tenant in 1622, and by 1638 he had died and was succeeded by Jan Willemsz van Kouwenhoven. While Kemp and Raven argue that Jan was deceased as early as 1646, it is certain that he was no longer living in 1656 when the estate of his mother Neeltge Willemsdr. was inventoried.[16

Kemp and Raven are of the opinion that Jan had died by 1646 since a police report from that year was made by Jan Bartz. who lived on Kouwenhoven.[17] Apparently the thought is that the farm Kouwenhoven was so small that the tenant farmer (pachter) could not have employed a resident worker (knecht), but only day laborers (dagloners) as they were needed. Thus, it could be reasonably concluded that a person who listed his residence as Kouwenhoven must have been the tenant farmer of that date.[18] It is noted that it is a problem that Jan Willemsz. and his wife Nelletge Hendrixdr. would then have had to have had eight children in ten years. Kemp and Raven conclude that Nelletge was forced to depart from Kouwenhoven following Jan’s death because none of the children was old enough to become the succeeding tenant.

It would be more reasonable to consider that it would be bad for the health of the wife and the children which she bore if they came into the world made for a healthier farm. Although the `pill’ was not yet then known, local populations generally had their own effective means of planning parenthood, even in the seventeenth century. It would then seem better to conclude that by 1646, Jan Willemsz. and his wife Nelletge Hendrixdr. had relocated, that five of their children or so had been born on Kouwenhoven and that the rest were born in their new location before Jan died somewhat more than fifteen years after he had become the tenant farmer on Kouwenhoven. [19]

As a third point then, there is no need to change the view which was expressed in THE RECORD article of 1998 regarding Jan’s death date, but it would appear that the family’s tenancy on Kouwenhoven likely had already ended by 1646, ten years earlier than was presented in that article.
Wolfert’s childhood. What were the circumstances of Wolfert’s childhood? Farm work was much harder and heavier than it is now, and it was often necessary to labor in a strong wind in cold, wet weather, which caused severe illnesses. Although it now seems strange, the life of a farmer was similar then to that of a contemporary professional athlete. The training or work began for both early in life, and by the time each was thirty years old, he was already past his peak. While it is now unusual to find an athlete older than forty-five on a team roster, it was then unusual to find a farmer older than forty-five years old on a landlord’s list of tenants – not because the older tenant was enjoying retirement in his luxurious villa, but because he had died of exhaustion and illness. Although it would seem that the average lifespan of a tenant farmer in this region did not differ greatly during this period from that of the general population and that it thus was about forty-five years, Jan Willemsz. was younger when he died, and it would seem that this was also true of his father. It would seem that some tenants died several years before they reached forty-five while a similar number lived a few years beyond that benchmark.

It would seem unlikely that Gerrit the father of Wolfert and Willem would have been able to work as a tenant farmer for many more years than the documented tenants of Kouwenhoven Peter Coenraetsz. and Jan Willemsz.[20] It would thus have been unlikely that he would have been able to work as a tenant much more than fifteen years. If Willem became the tenant about 1608, it would then seem that his predecessor may have begun his tenancy about 1593. This is three years later than the estimate given in the above cited article in THE RECORD.
According to the above calculations, Wolfert would then have been nine years old, and Willem six. At first sight, this would seem to suggest that there is something wrong with the assumptions behind these figures, since this would mean that the children apparently were not born on Kouwenhoven, but it is more profitable to reason that insight is thus given into the complex and fragile world into which the boys were born.

There is no document in which Wolfert is listed as a resident of Kouwenhoven or as its tenant farmer, nor for the reasons enumerated above, does it seem likely that such evidence of his presence on the farm will be discovered. Yet, he used the name Van Couwenhoven,[21] and he worked as a farmer and as a farm supervisor. Why the choice for this name? Where did he learn farm work? If he lived and worked on the farm Kouwenhoven as a child, both questions would be answered. Thus, because no better explanation has yet been found, it is reasonable to assume that this farm was his home and work place for a time during his early years.

In the earlier article in THE RECORD it was mentioned that a director of the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) in the early seventeenth century bore the family name Couwenhoven,[22] and it was suggested that although this man was not a blood relative, his high position may have afforded Wolfert a further reason to use the name Van Couwenhoven in New Amsterdam rather than another reasonable choice of name such as Van Amersfoort or Van Coelhorst. In regard to this, Gerard Raven has commented[23] that the directors of the Dutch West India Company in Amsterdam would not necessarily know that a Couwenhoven was a director of the Dutch East India Company in Rotterdam. It is thus uncertain that it would have been professionally advantageous for Wolfert to use this name. This implies that he used it for personal reasons, that is to say, because he had lived and worked there during a significant portion of his youth.

It is possible that Wolfert and his brother Willem were born elsewhere and that their father only later became tenant on Kouwenhoven. If so, he probably was tenant for six or twelve years at their previous residence. If that is the case, the father likely died within five years of the start of his work on the farm, although he may have lived longer and have seen Willem become the tenant on the farm, in which event he may then have been able to do but limited work because he would already have reached the advanced age of 45 years. Still, there is a considerable likelihood that the father died before either boy attained his twenty-first year. This implies that there was a tenant intermediate between Willem and his father. If that was indeed the case, how were the children enabled to remain on the farm? And their mother? Other siblings? Because of the dearth of documents, it is not possible to answer these questions. There is for instance no testament or inventory for the estate of Wolfert’s father in which his patronymic and that of his mother are disclosed with a list of their children, although it is reasonable to think that such documents once existed. It is not possible to ascertain precisely to what extent Wolfert’s life and that of his father Gerrit and his brother Willem were in agreement or disagreement with the possibilities and probabilities which have been set forth here. The contours of the pieces of the puzzle do not come into clear view, and it is not possible to seen how they fit together.

Early change of family on the farm Kouwenhoven. Kemp and Raven list the tenant of Kouwenhoven about 1536 and in 1548 as Reyer Pot.[24l In 1564 the tenant was Gherit Jansz;[25] in 1619/20 Willem Gerritsz.[26] As noted above, the tenant in 1622 was Peter Coenraetsz., and in 1636 Jan Willemsz.,[27] while Jan Bartsz. apparently had become the tenant by 1646. Clearly a change of tenant families occurred sometime between 1548 and 1564 and again about 1646. Because of the short life expectancy and the disruptions of death, it is likely that other changes in tenant families on Kouwenhoven occurred during this period which are not disclosed because of the dearth of documents.

It is thus best to be cautious about drawing an easy conclusion that Gerrit the father of Wolfert and Willem succeeded his father on Kouwenhoven and that the family can be found on this farm much further back into the past. This accentuates the conclusion in the earlier article in THE RECORD that there is insufficient basis to conclude that there was a family relationship between Wolfert Gerritse and the Gherit (Gerrit) Jansz. who in 1564 was listed as the tenant of Kouwenhoven.[28] Kemp described him as a suitable candidate to be the father of Wolfert Gerritsz. and Willem Gerritsz. In his article, he placed brackets around the name [Jansz. Couwenhoven] in his “Genealogie Van Couwenhoven” to indicate that the names within the brackets were merely hypothetical for Gerrit Jansz.[29] He was certain that the father of Wolfert and Willem was Gerrit, and it was speculative if the father was Gerrit Jansz. Couwenhoven.[30] This thought is repeated in the article in De Bewaarsman with the cautionary observation that Gerrit Jansz. would have been unusually old if he were the father of Wolfert and Willem.[31]

A further weakness in the thesis that Gerrit Jansz. and Wolfert Gerritsz. were father and son is that the patronymic Gerritsz. (son of Gerrit) is largely the basis for asserting that this relationship exists while Gerrit together with Willem, Jan and Hendrik are the most common Dutch given names. Gerrit occurs as frequently as Willem in the registers of marriages and baptisms during this period. It is not surprising then that a tenant bore the name Gerrit Jansz., and without further documentary evidence, there is insufficient basis to assert that he was the father of Wolfert Gerritsz. It should be noted that Kemp has cautiously refrained from doing this.

Religious life in Wolfert’s childhood, the Coelhorst Chapel. A discussion of religion and worship can be added to the treatment of Wolfert’s childhood. The Coelhorst Chapel, which was built about 1350, stands just around the corner from the farm Kouwenhoven. This proximity evokes a picture of Wolfert trudging on Sunday mornings with other family members and residents of the neighborhood Coelhorst through the snow to worship services in this building. Yet, the historical story differs greatly from this.
About 1350, the residents of Hoogland no longer had to attend mass in Oud-Leusden, which was several miles south of Amersfoort while their hamlet then stood several miles northwest of the more northerly city.321 They received their own chapel, which was dedicated to St. Nicholas, who was not only the patron saint of farmers in areas that had just been placed under cultivation, but also the protector from floods. The Reformation brought a step backward to this little settlement. In 1580, Catholic services were forbidden by the provincial parliament of Utrecht, and the church was closed. It seems to have been the intention of the Protestants to hold their own services in this building, which during the intervening two centuries had been endowed with the income from several farms, but a pastor could not be found. It was not until 1655 that it could be arranged that Reformed pastors from the region would hold services in turn in the chapel. In the meantime, itinerant priests had offered the mass for the faithful without interruption at other places in the neighborhood such as the manor house Hoogerhorst, until Hoogland was again assigned its own priest in 1640.33 Ill feeling was likely generated when the chapel was close[d and its income was not used for many decades for services in that building or for pastoral care for the local residents. Perhaps as a result, the Protestant families gradually departed from Coel[horst in the seventeenth century so that the hamlet was almost exclusively Catholic in the eighteenth century as is noted in another source.[34] This has remained unchanged in subsequent years.

It seems unlikely that such negligence by the administrators of the local Reformed church would have generated interest for that church and its teachings in Wolfert. When he lived in Coelhorst, it would seem that there was little that would have attracted him to the Reformed church. This may explain why none of his children are to be found in the baptismal registers of Amersfoort or Leusden. In a later period when he cultivated contacts with Reformed businessmen such as Killiaen van Rensselaer, he may have found it expedient to affiliate with their church. Perhaps it is for this reason that he is listed on 13 August 1651 as a witness of the baptism of Albert, son of Albert Albertszen, at the Reformed church in New Amsterdam.[35]

October 31, 2007
A document described as the oldest surviving land deed for Long Island land was auctioned Wednesday for $156,000 in Manhattan.

The deed, signed by Dutch Colonial Gov. Wouter von Twiller at “Eylandt Manhatans” on June 6, 1636, confirms the purchase of 3,600 acres from the Lenape Indians. The land is known as Keskachauge, and constitutes a large portion of present day Brooklyn.

The winning bid was more than three times predicted, and for almost four times the opening bid of $40,000
“It is without question one of the oldest Dutch documents in private hands,” said Jeremy Markowitz, head of Americana sales at Bloomsbury Auctions, a Manhattan auction house where the sale took place. “It is the first deed for land on Long Island.”

Markowitz describes the deed as one of the earliest examples of private land ownership in the colony controlled by the Dutch West India Company.

“It is amazing it survived, being over 370 years old and preceding the first private land ownership in Manhattan.”

Markowitz said the deed was signed a dozen years after the founding of the Dutch colony by von Twiller, the successor to the first and better known governor, Peter Minuit.

“We know from the records of the Dutch West India Company who received land deeds,” Markowitz said. “There are only about a dozen land deeds that preceded this one” and they are for tracts north or south of present day New York City.

The 13-by-18-inch document, written in ink in Dutch, confirms the purchase of the land in the Flatlands section of Brooklyn from the Indians by Wolfert Gerritsz van Couwenhoven and Andries Hudde.

The auction catalog carries a price estimate of $50,000 to $75,000 but auction organizer Markowitz said that range was very conservative and there has been a lot of interest from institutions and private collectors.

On the reverse side, there is a reaffirmation of the original transaction in 1658 and signature of another more famous governor, Peter Stuyvesant, who amended it to say the sole owner of the property was Kouwenhoven. The endorsement was a result of the proclamation by the Dutch West India Company in 1652 that annulled all private land purchases and took all the land back

“It came from a private collector,” Markowitz said. It has been auctioned several times after being held by the Kouwenhoven family for centuries.

The document has minor soiling and a small hole affecting two words where the deed is dated. The text reads:

“We, director and council of New Netherland, residing on the island of Manhattan at Fort Amsterdam ? herewith testify and declare, that today, date underwritten, before us personally appeared Tenkirau, Ketaun, Ararikan, Awackouw, Warinckehinck, Wappittawackenis, Ehettin, as owners; Penhawis, Kakappeteno being present as chiefs of the district, ? have transferred, ceded, surrendered and conveyed as lawful, true and free possession, as they therewith transfer, cede, surrender and convey to and for the behalf of Andries Hudde and Wolphert Gerritsz the westernmost of the flats called Keskateuw belonging to them on the island called Suan Hacky between the bay of the North river and the East River of New Netherland?”

According to Markowitz, on June 6, 1636, Wolfert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven and Andries Hudde purchased jointly the 3,600 acres. The same day Jacobus Van Corlear bought an adjoining tract, and 10 days later a third was purchased.

Together, these three tracts in present day Brooklyn constituted an area called ‘Castuteeuw,’ ‘Kestateuw’ and ‘Casteteuw.'” The name is thought to be derived from the Lenape word for “where grass is cut.”

The catalog notes “the sale of these lots was a significant event and constitutes among the earliest examples of private land ownership in New Netherland. At the time, it was highly unusual for land to be owned by anyone except the Dutch West India Company.” And most land was leased rather than sold.

Colonial records show the first private purchase of land in the colony of New Netherland occurred in 1629, in present day Delaware. The 1636 purchases collectively are the seventh purchase of land in New Netherland, and the third in the present state of New York. The first private land sale on the island of Manhattan was recorded two years later.

Corlear purchased the land for speculation but Gerritsz van Kouwenhoven settled on the westernmost of the three plots and constructed a dwelling and laid out a plantation that eventually became the settlement and town of Flatlands. The pioneer called his estate Achterveldt and his dwelling stood near the junction of Kouwenhoven Place and Flatbush Avenue.

On January 5, 1811, Mary Catherine was married to Henry Bergaw Brevoort. They lived on Rouge Farm until 1812. In 1812, during the war while Henry was serving with Commodore Perry in the Lake Erie campaign, Mary Catherine was taken captive by Indians.

Following her release and the end of the war, they returned to Detroit and had five children.

Mary Catherine Brevoort Died on December 26, 1868 at the age of 86. She died in the house where she had been born and where she was married—a house that had been built by her father.

Born: September 4, 1782
Died: December 26, 1868
Buried: Lot 48, Section V

https://rosamondpress.com/2017/07/14/brevoort-of-the-house-of-bourbon/

 

Hendrick Brevoort was baptized on 17-Dec-1670 at Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, New York County, New York. He was the son of Jan Hendrickson Brevoort and Annatie Bastianns Ellisen. Hendrick married Maria Van Couwenhoven, daughter of Johannes Jacobse Van Kouwenhoven and Saartje Frans, on 26-Aug-1699 at Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, New York County, New York; 1st marriage Hendrick. Hendrick Brevoort married Jacomyntie Bokke, daughter of Abraham Bokke and Tanneke Andries Van Driese, on 9-Oct-1705 at Dutch Reformed Church, New York City, New York County, New York,, by whom he had nine children. Hendrick Brevoort died in 1718 at Harlem, New York County, New York.

Children of Hendrick Brevoort and Maria Van Couwenhoven

Children of Hendrick Brevoort and Jacomyntie Bokke

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Winkle Van Bogart

  1. Reblogged this on Rosamond Press and commented:

    The uninvited Phantom of the Rosamond Gallery – has taken New York!

Leave a Reply to Royal Rosamond Press Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.