Arenout - De Klerk progenitors

What is the profile link of Pieter 1643-1678 - I don't seem to find him in the context you mention? Is he Pieter Abraham Pieter Abrahamszoon de Klerk?

Daan kon jy kry?

Ek dink hierdie een: Dus SV soos jy tereg sê.
3-Pieter Abraham(se) DE CLERCK g. Ca. 1643, (Serooskerke, Walcheren, Nederland), o. 1678/1688
+Sara Barents COCHET g. Ca. 1652, Oost-Souburg, Zeeland, Nederland, h. Ca. 1670, o. Apr 1714,
Stellenbosch, ou.. Barent Jansz COCHÉ (COUSIEE) en Jannetie Joosse VAN VOOREN
4-Abraham DE CLERCQ d. 17 of 18 Mei 1670, Serooskerke, Walcheren, Nederland, o. Ca. 1670
4-Abraham DE KLERK{a1} d. 11 Okt 1671, Serooskerke, Walcheren, Nederland, o. 1745, Land
van Waveren
4-Barendt DE CLERCK g. 1674, (Serooskerke, Walcheren, Nederland), o. Voor 1688
4-Jeanne DE KLERK{a2} g. 1675, Straatkerk, Nederland
4-Joost DE KLERK{a3} g. 1678, (Serooskerke, Walcheren, Nederland), o. 1713, Drakenstein

The About Me is now contradictory - can you fix it?

Sharon I am in contact with the writer Dr. D de Klerk and he haas send me the correct ways. It was the way I had it but somehow, somewhere, someone messed around again.
D en D ek maak nog werk daaraan.
Groete
Judi

Zoe, D en D kyk asseblief of dit nou klop met die register.
Dit was a'g'v' 'n verkeerde merge vanaf My Heritage.
David jy kan sommer aan my by my e-pos skryf asseblief.

Mooi dag.
Judi

Thanks Judi

Maybe consider locking it temporarily in case it gets matched and merged again.

But cf "Pieter, vader van die Suid-Afrikaanse stamvader was een van vyf kinders wat uit die huwelik van Pieter de Clercq en Clasyna Cordie gebore is. Die kinders se doopdatums is die volgende: Abraham 3 April 1630; Susanna 1 April 1632; Pieter en Saertjie 4 Oktober 1634 en Janneken 21 Januarie 1637."

according to DIE HERKOMS VAN DIE DE KLERKS - Eben de Klerk Familia (XXVI (1), 1989)

and "Sy vader was Pieter Abraham de Klerk wat op 4 Oktober 1634 te Serooskerke op die eiland Walcheren gedoop is. ... Sy vader se ouers was Pieter Abraham de Clercq en Adria-enken (Adriaentje) Joost onoff." - Die Geslagregister van Abraham de Klerk - Vanaf Vogelvallei na Verre Lande.

I think we should obtain the baptism register entry for 4 Oct 1634 from Serooskerke to be sure.

However, I've now found this:

The article "Die herkoms van die de Klerks" by Eben de Klerk (Familia XXVI/1989 no 1 pg 2) includes a paragraph that the parents of Pieter de Clercq were Pieter de Clercq and Clasyna Cordie of Serooskerke. This was disproved in a reaction by CE Hulstaert, "Reacties en aanvullings op Die herkoms van die de Klerks" (Familia XXVI/1989 no 3 pg 63) based on research by HLJ van der Linden, of the Genealogische Werkgroep van Walcheren.

In this article van Hulstaert furnishes conclusive evidence to the contrary, sourced from the actual Church register of Serooskerken.

The author proves that Pieter Abrahams was the son of Abraham de Clercq and Adriaanken Joost Onoff of Serooskerken, and lists the children that were previously ascribed to Pieter de Clerck (sr) and Clasyna Cordie under the real parents. - on http://www.greeff.info/tng01/getperson.php?personID=I26545&tree...

Neither marriages nor baptisms in Serooskerke in 1600's are online yet.

Does anyone have CE Hulstaert, "Reacties en aanvullings op Die herkoms van die de Klerks" (Familia XXVI/1989 no 3 pg 63) to load onto the 'about me'

I'll put a query onto the facebook page, Jansi (https://www.facebook.com/groups/243811932355680/) good going!

David de Klerk has got much more recent information and proved that the Familia article was not correct. Judi will post all the relevant information with David's assistance

It's turning into a good detective trail :-)

Which Familia article is not correct - van Hulstaert's as well?

Jansi, you will have to check in "Van Vogelvallei na Verre Velde (Judi has a copy) but apparently David had contact with in the latter who supplied documentation to him which lead to revised viewpoint which you also quoted above.
I am under the impression David's subsequent contact with Hulstaert and documentation received, was after publication of Familia and "Reacties which lead to the conclusion you quoted

So is van Hulstaert correct?

Jansi
I do not know the exact answer.
David has included the results of his second encounter in his book which is correct. In what sense it differs from Reacties I do not know, but that was an intermediate status which might only be of academic interest.
The real issue is that:
what was believed to be the parents of the stamvader, has been changed to what is published in his book.
He highlighted the issue since Geni's information was based on old incorrect information.