Dutch-Colonies-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [D-Col] Lucasz
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:57:51 EDT

Peggy,
You present a very interesting scenario, especially since this baptismal
record was written by Domine Johannes Weecksteen. On page 16 of Hoes where
this record appears for little Maria Legg in 1682, there are 12
corrections/variations to baptismal information as scribed by the Domine.
What is amazing is that there are only 17 entries on the entire page. It
quite possible that Wilhem Lucasz instead of Wilhelm Legg was missed for a
correction?

On the previous page (15) in Hoes there is an explanation for these variation
notations: Domine Weecksteen's first baptisms were recorded in the "latter
part of the earliest book of records. He subsequently commenced a new
record-book (the present Vol. ll) by copying therein the baptisms recorded by
him in Vol. l. There are minor variations in the two lists, but we have
deemed it proper to follow the original list of Vol. l and to indicate in
foot-notes the more important variations." There are 8 variation changes on
THIS page. Apparently Domine Weecksteen had some recording problems?
Cynthia

In a message dated 08/31/2002 10:21:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

<< Your question rang a bell, and I checked my list of name variants
for one of my ancestors. In 1682, at the baptism of Maria Legg
(Hoes # 260), Domine Johannes Weecksteen recorded the father
William LEGG as Wilhem LUCASZ. Another version (also from
Domine Weecksteen) was LUYCK. Lucasz looks to me more like
a patronymic (son of Lucas) than an attempt to spell LEGG. But if
William was, as it seems, English or Scottish .... Surely the Domine
didn't say "Never mind that; what was your father's name?" :)
>>

This thread:

• Re: [D-Col] Lucasz by

  • Re: [D-Col] Lucasz by