Kyai Chili Mahmud van Ternate, SV/PROG - Not a slave but a prince exiled for rape?

HI Sharon,
Lets just wait and see what June says. I know Otto is a highly respected and well researched researcher, who still has great lot of contact with Delia as we all do.

He originally added him.
I
will see Otto at the next NEC meeting and will also post this question on our board and see what pops up.

You know - papier is hoër as tik.......
My own new words. There is no alturnative yet for ...as die swaard.
I always feel we are all so humanly dom, we can easily have a typo.
I meen, just look at my spelling here. Sies- Jan will say.

Judi, I've put the life events on his profile. There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest this man was a slave. I think someone might have been assuming all people of colour sent to the Cape were automatically slaves.
The documentation shows him petitioning Batavia for more money to maintain himself, right after he gets here, and it shows a petition by a slave who he owned for manumission from him.

Your spelling is perfect, and does you credit, and I stand to be corrected with alternative documents, - in which case we'll reattach him to these projects.

Are Katsili Dayan Mamrody Prins van Ternate and Kyai Chili Mahmud the same person?
There a profile of Katsili Dayan Mamrody done by me in June 2014, according to the entries he had a child Johanna , by Rosetta van Batavia, the child Johanna was baptized on 14 Feb 1717 in Cape Good Hope. Dutch Reform Church. The book with the entry is attach to her name.

Marie Vermeulen-Boshoff - cut and paste the profile link here. It sounds like it could be the same person.

Unknown Profile? Yes, I think they are - Will merge them for you :-)

I agree - not a slave

Sorry about the question mark above - I'm typing too fast and hitting the wrong keys :-)

Agree- not a slave.

An in-depth research article has just been published in Familia [52] 2015-2 which clears up the past uncertainty regarding the identities of Adolph Jonker's parents. They were indeed Indonesians Jonker van Makassar and Rosetta van Java, but Jonker van Makassar was definitely NOT the same person at all as the so-called banned Prins Catchiri Daijman Mamoeti from Ternate. All incorrect links made since 2013 based on this error should be corrected.

Thank you Em-Lo. I was seeing how we translate that article. It is also on eGGSA Facebook Page to the shortcut on Stamouers if you want to have a look.
Judi

From Jaco Strauss

I am contacting you about this profile: http://www.geni.com/people/Kyai-Chili-Mahmud-van-Ternate/6000000003...

It connects Kyai Chili Mahmud van Ternate incorrectly to Adolph Jonker and his Jonker siblings while in truth he was NOT their father. Furthermore, Jacob JANSZ was a half brother of Adolph through his mother and had a European father. Adolph on the other hand was the son of Jonker van Makassar.

A thorough study dealing with the ancestry of Adolph Jonker and his siblings has been published in Familia 52 (2015-20 with a synopsis of the core facts made available at the Stamouer WEBsite at:

http://www.stamouers.com/index.php/stamouers/surnames-h-to-j/231-jo...

Please rectify Kyai Chili Mahmud van Ternate's profile and remove the Jonker siblings from it.

Agreed, he was never a slave but an exiled family member of the King of Ternate who had been found guilty of rape. He was exiled in Jan 1704 instead of being executed to spare the king embarrassment. [LEIBBRANDT H.C.V. (1896). Precis of the Archives, Letters Received 1695-1708, no 282, p 512, of 03/01/1704 and no 276, p 437 of 01/02/1704.]

He lived as a 'free black' but ran a brothel and persisted in such serious immoral and criminal behaviour that he was eventually sentenced to life-long incarceration on Robben Island from 28 Nov 1722 (until his death in 1747). [Resolutions of the Council of Policy of the Cape of Good Hope 24 Nov. 1722: C 61, pp 27-34.]

Have updated the line, and the About. Please have a look.

I see this profile is still carrying the "SV / Prog" designation, but as this person has only three known descendents I suggest that we remove it. Whatever the definition of a Stamvader is, I am sure the "prince" does not meet them...

Has anyone tried to track the descendants of the three children we know he had?

I have looked but never found any mention of them beyond the 1731 documents re their manumission.

I would say he is stamvader if he had any recorded Children born in SA, regardless of their sex.
I would support removing SV/Prog only if his 3 children died without having any descendants themselves. Otherwise he still remains the ancestor of any of those decendants regardless where they were born. Being the most senior male member of that family name earns him the title SV/PROG.

Support your view, Daan.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/progenitor While any ancestor can be aprogenitor, or previous member of a family line, the word is usually applied to someone who was an originator of or major contributor to the characteristics of that line.
The word progenitor can be traced to the Latin prōgignere, which means "to beget," and so is linked to the beginning of a genealogical line. The clue comes in the "gen" part, meaning "birth, procreation," and signifying the genetic contribution of an ancestor to a family line. Prō- means "forward," and the -tor suffix indicates someone doing an action — so a progenitor is someone who gives rise to a family line.

There must be hundreds if not thousands of slaves and free blacks who had children, who not being of the Christian faith were never recorded and it is unknown as in the case of the incarcerated Prince of Ternate which, if any of his descendants lived, remained in South Africa (they might have opted for going to Ternate after manumission if they were related to the royal family there) and had children resulting in a South African family line?

I think the same rule must apply to all - so the question is, is it practice in Geni to enter every person who had a child in the Cape as SV/PROG even if there is no evidence of a line of descent beyond such a first generation, or do we enter them as SV/PROG only once evidence is found of a family line having been sired?

In my opinion we should do with the Prince whatever we do with all the other thousands of people who had children born in the early Cape, but without evidence of a family line having continued beyond that.

Baie goeie punte @Em. @Daan en @Johann, ek lei dan af dat julle ook die verwydering van die "Stamvader" titel voorstaan as daar nie enige verdere nageslag van die sg Prins aan die Kaap geïdentifiseer kan word nie?

As Daan says - the practice on GEni has been to show the oldest arrival who had children as the PROG. Unless we have proof that the 3 children died without descendants, it remains highly likely that they did not.
This is the rule that has been applied on Geni.

OK, if that's the Geni rule that's good to understand, thanks.

This defenition is not only followed in Geni. The same principle is applied in the SA Family registers kept by GISA.
It is not really an ethical matter of whether a person deserves to get the title. In creating the tree it is a cold and clinical probe to determine what the real biological ties between persons are, regardless whether the ancestor was a rapist, pedophile, murderer, traitor whatever. One can not on grounds of moral acceptability switch on or switch off titles or relationship ties- they are real.
The only sensitivity that one should observe would be he preferences of near family. In cases like the 'Prince" I think we should accept the facts of history and treat it exactly the same away as other family lines. And although we can cut out this family line if there was no further descendants, it might satisfy our preferences, but leave us all poorer in terms of common cultural property. Just think about all the Ozzies me might loose!

Oh Daan I think there must be a misunderstanding, I was NOT suggesting removing SV/PROG because of his criminal record at all! I am well aware and perfectly fine with the fact ancestors coming in all shapes and colours! There are no 'preferences' at play whatsoever.

I was just questioning whether someone (applying to everyone no matter of of what origin) whom we have no evidence of having offspring beyond 1 generation, no information about such offspring and thus no clear line of descent forward is entered as a 'stamvader' in Geni. There are literally thousands of such individuals in church and other records, so it would be a mammoth task which at first glance would appear pointless if we know absolutely nothing else about them.

But if that is the way Geni does it it is just dandy! ☺

Criminal behaviour is not the reason I asked the question. Afterall, I descend from Peter Becker and nobody would question his status as Stamvader.

But the difference between him and the so-called Prince is of course that he actually left descendents at the Cape beyond a single generation.

Is there any proof that the 'prince' also did?

Just as a matter of interest, he was called a "family member" not son of the king of Ternate in the communications about his arrival. It seems he only started to call himself a prince some time after his arrival.

When he bought slaves in 1705 and 1706, he was not called a prince, but just Diaj Mamoetje or Kaij Mamoed.. It would appear as if his claim to being a 'prince' was taken with a pinch of salt because he was recorded annually in the bandietrolle as the "sogenaamde" (so-called) Prins van Ternate.

So-called :-) I love it.

All the links to http://www.e-family.co.za/ leads to
"HTTP Error 404. The requested resource is not found."

Did the site move, or has it closed down? If the latter, it would probably be better to remove these dead links....