Rosetta van Bengale, SM/PROG - Childless with kids?

Started by Sharon Doubell on Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 15 posts

In her 1739 testament, Rosetta van Bengale is childless

1739 Testament CJ 2609:6 1739 is dié van Rosetta van Bengale, kinderloos, maar dit noem Rosetta van Boegies as haar vorige slavin en bemaak aan haar slaaf Aron van Bali asook Rosetta v Boegies se twee kinders Adolph Jonker en Jacob Janse.

So the children ascribed to her here are unlikely to be hers:
112 February 1736
Age 46
Birth of Johannes van Ceijlon
Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

1737
14 July 1737
Age 47
Birth of Frans van Ceijlon
Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

1738
14 September 1738
Age 48
Birth of Jan Adriaan van Ceijlon
Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

Also: Frans Jansz (c1737), Jan Adriaan Janse (c1738), Johannes Valentyn Van Cylon (c1741), Hendrik Jan Van Cijlon (c1746)

Query. Looking for sources to figure out if Maria Juliana Janse Van De Kaap is their child too.

Yes Maria Juliana is theirs too as per her distribution a/c:
1769 weduwee van Jan Jansz van Ceylon, liquidation & distribution a/c MOOC 13/1/7:4 1769-1770. According to Rosetta v Bengale’s 16/10/1769 will (ref MOOC8/13.23), she was married to Jan Jansz van Ceijlon and they had 4 children listed in the will: Johanna (Anna?) Rebecca, Appolinia, Johannes Adriaan en Maria Juliana.

[A 5th one was baptised, 1746, 12 Junie, doop Hendrik Jan, pa Johannes Janse van Ceijlon. Getuies Johanna Catharina en Hendrik Janse. He was not mentioned in the will so perhaps deceased already in 1769?]

They married in the christian church after having had a few children. 1737: Johannes Janz van Cijlon, trou met Rossetta van Bengalen vrijgegeven lijf eigenen.

Just be wary, there is another younger couple who are also called Rosetta van Bengale and Johannes Jansz!!! I should have marked them in a different colour on my table Sharon - just look out for them because their data is in the same column. Do not confuse them with the main Rosetta v Bengale x Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon in that column. 1758 Rosetta van Bengale x Johannes Jansz, wewenaar van Rosaleijn van Bengale (lg vermoedelik oorlede 1757) This is NOT the same as above couple - just coincidentally similar names!!! Sharon I should have highlighted them in a different colour for you in my table - please do so, to avoid confusion ☺ They also had no Jonker connection.

This is the entry for Sara. Fathers name different on Geni.
* Name: Sara Helena Smith
* Event Type: Baptism
* Event Date: 22 Nov 1772
* Event Place: Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope, South Africa
* Father's Name: Hendrik Smith
* Mother's Name: Maria Juliana Janse
Witness: Sara Danielse
* Entry Number: 162 , GS Film number: 2214107 , Digital Folder Number: 4322620 , Image Number: 00381

I hope it is clear now that the Rosetta van Bengale with will CJ 2609:6 1739 is NOT the same Rosetta van Bengale that was married to Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon and had 5 children with him.

She died in 1769, widow of Jan Jansz van Ceylon, liquidation & distribution a/c MOOC 13/1/7:4 1769-1770. According to her will of 16/10/1769 (ref MOOC8/13.23), she was married to Jan Jansz van Ceijlon and they had 4 children and/or grandchildren listed as beneficiaries: Johanna (Anna?) Rebecca, Appolinia, Johannes Adriaan en Maria Juliana. A fifth child appears to have died childless before 1769, he is not mentioned in the will (baptised 1746, 12 June, Hendrik Jan).

The CJ 2609:6 1739 Rosetta van Bengale married her former slave Aron/Arend van Balij, she was childless and Jonker van Makassar and some/all of Rosetta van Java/Boegies's children were beneficiaries in both her 1739 will and their combined will in 1747 CJ 2658:48 1747. She was connected to the Jonker family in that she was Jonker van Makassar's wife's former owner and their families obviously remained close. The Jonker children were beneficiaries in her wills and Adolph Jonker stood surety for Aron/Arend van Balji her former slave and husband to manumit a slave of his that he wished to set free.

H.C.V. Leibbrandt: Precis of the Archives of the Cape of Good Hope. Vol 16, Requesten (Memorials) 1715-1806 Vol 1 A-E: 1742 Aron of Baly, free black, wishes to emancipate his slave Corydon of Bengal ; offers as surety himself and the Burgher Adolf Jonker. (No. 32, p5)

Re Rosetta van Bengale who was married to Johannes Jansz van Ceijlon:

Inventories of the Orphan Chamber
Reference no.: MOOC8/13.23
Testator(s):
Rosetta van Bengalen
16 October 1769
Cloppenburg

Inventaris van alle sodanige goederen als 'er naar voor afgaande op den 6:e Julij 1750 gepasseerde testamentaire dispositie met haar en haar voor overleedene man, mitsgaders op den 10:e Maart 1764 door haar nader gemaakte codicillaire dispositie metter dood zijn ontruijmt en de naargelaaten door Rosetta van Bengalen wed: Jan Jansz: van Ceijlon, ten voordeele van haare nagelatene kind en kindskinderen, met naamen:

1) Valentijn van Oolen bij representatie van wijlen desselfs moeder Johanna Rebecca Jansz: gehuuwt geweest met Harmen van Oolen
2) Sara Christina Danielsz en
Hendrik Danielsz: bij plaatsvullinge van wijlen hunlieder moeder Appolinia Jansz: getr: geweest met Adolph Danielsz:
3) Johannes Adriaan Jansz: bij representatie van wijlen desselfs vader Johannes Willem Jansz:
4) Maria Juliana Jansz: getrouwt met den burger Hendrik Smit

Baptize entries was find for the children of Appolinia Jansz married to Adolph Danielsz.
On one of the children document, Johannes Jansz, and Rossetta van Bengalen was the witness.

Thanks for all the work girls. My computer had to go into the shop yesterday as it had slowed to a standstill. So I'll wait to get it back - hopefully later today - before I try and instate this - just in case you think I'm ignoring you.

Em Lo, on your (fantastic!) table, you seem to have Appolonia (bap 13 Jul 1732) [Apolonia van die Caap?] as the child of Arnoldus Koevoet en Rosa van Bengale - sold by Arnoldus in 1736.

"1736, 12 Feb doop Johannes (onecht) seun van haar [Rosetta van Bengalen] en Johannes van Ceylon. Getuies jan van Ceylon en Rachel de Vyf.
Jan v Ceylon koop slavin Apolonia vd Caap by Arnoldus Koevot op 4 Jan 1736, so moes vry wees.Reference no.: MOOC10/4.143.
Apolonia was Arnoldus Koevoet en Rosa van Bengale se kind, gedoop 13 Julie 1732. Was hierdie Rosa dalk Rosetta v Bengalen se kind wat sy by haar ex moes 'koop'??"

Is it possible that Arnoldus was Appolonia's owner, and not her father?

Die doop inskrywing van Appolonia lees soos volg:
Gedoop; Gedoop 13 Jul 1732.
Appolania een slawekind van Arnoldus Koevoet, die moeder is Rosa van Bengalen, de getuie is Arnoldus Koevoet.
Geen Vader word genoem, Rosa was 'n slaaf vir Arnoldus Koevoet.

Rosa van Bengalen was eers die slaaf van:
Rosa van Bengalen
Birth: before 1709
Bengalen. (Bay of Bengal India), Rosa was a slave of Luit Slotsboo.
Immediate Family:
Partner of Antony Dosant
Mother of Emanuel Dosant

You guys are right!!! He was her owner not her father!!!!!!!! Great - and thanks for correcting that!! Well she was mentioned in Rosetta van Bengale (who was married to Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon's will as a child, so maybe she was Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon's child as all the other children of this Rosetta was. I did not find a baptism for her, but I must admit once I had established with certainly this Rosetta van Bengalen was not connected to the Jonker family, I stopped looking at the finer details.

I just had another search and still can still not find a baptismal record for this Apolonia, daughter of Rosetta van Bengalen who x Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon. She was bought from her owner Arnoldus Koevoet by Jan (Johannes) Jansz van Ceijlon, remained part of this family life-long and is in Rosetta's will listed as her child.

What I did notice in my search for her baptismal notice is that as in the case of the Rosetta's, there were definitely numerous Apolonia's at the Cape!!

Hi Marie, the Rosetta van Bengalen x Anthony Dosant you found is yet another, not even in my table Sharon - there sure were numerous of them! It just underscores to me the importance of confirmation by additional documents/family relationships, and not being tempted to assume 2 people are the same person just because their names are similar! ☺

Showing all 15 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion