Willem Janszen Schutt - wrong parents?

The below text was recently posted in a private message, I have the permission of the user who posted it to share it publicly:

I'm not sure if this will help, or simply added to the confusion that swirls (and has swirled for a long time) around the Schut line...but, for what it's worth, I here enclose the material I have on Jan Willemse Schut.

The Schut line – me and plenty of others think – really ‘began’ with one Willem Schut (whose patronymic may well have been ‘Janse’, too), born back in the 1570’s (or thereabouts), about whom we know nothing…except that he never left Europe.
This Willem’s son (by an unknown mother) was named – we think – Jan Willemse Schut. He was the actual American genearch of our Schut line…although we’re not exactly sure when it was that he came to America and we’re not exactly sure who he really was.
Here’s what little that has been learned of the history of Jan Willemse Schut:
Birth: He was born, in 1596 (or maybe late 1595), on the island of Wieringen. This has been conjectured from two documents, listed further on:
Wieringen is a very odd place (see left for its current location) that – at the moment – isn’t an island at all. At other times in history, however, it certainly was an island… and it certainly wasn’t, also. The history of Wieringen, like the history of the Zuider Zee (‘southern sea’; the name was originally Frisian) has been long …and cyclical. The big body of water to the right of Wieringen (best to consult a Dutch map) was once a fresh-water lake. 12th century flooding turned it into a salt-water bay of the North Sea…and for 800 years or so, turned Wieringen into an island..
The Dutch (using windmills) spent centuries trying to turn the Zuider Zee into farmland. On July 31, 1924, they closed the Amsteldiep (the channel separating Wieringen from North Holland) with a short
dam called the Amsteldiepdijk. In 1930, the large polder (reclaimed land) to the south, the Wieringermeer, was completed, which turned Wieringen back into part of the mainland again. In 1932, the Zuider \
Zee once again became a lake (the Ijisselmeer) when the Afsluitdijk, a long dike was completed,
connecting Wieringen with Friesland.
Which it had been linguistically connected to for a very long time.
Besides naming the Zuider Zee, Frisians were the people who gave Wieringen its name. At the time (back in the Dark Ages), it was a part of a Frisian nation.
Like most things Frisian, the name ‘Wieringen’ was a simple and pragmatic choice. Unlike most of the Dutch seacoast, the landscape of Wieringen is not all flat. It has many ramparts of boulder clay, which were formed during the last Ice Age.
The Dutch believe ‘Wieringen’ comes from the Dutch word wier (which means ‘seaweed’)…but
such is not the case. ‘Wieringen’ originally came from the Old Frisian wîr, which means "height". Combined with the Old Frisian ‘ing’ ending (meaning ‘place’), Wieringen was ‘the high place’; compared to the rest of the land around it (most of which was reclaimed from the sea, it is a high place.
Old Frisian, by the way, was the West Germanic language spoken, up until the 16th century, by the people who moved into the area between the Rhine and Elbe on the European North Sea coast sometime around 300 AD. Old Frisian gradually morphed into the Frisian language which still survives in certain areas of coastal Holland and Germany.
The first written references to Wieringen are not in Frisian, however, but in Latin. It was mentioned, as "in pago Wirense" (see below for translation), in a list of property owned by the monastery of St. Boniface at Fulda, dated late 8th century or early 9th century AD. In that list, several entries are about gifts of Wieringen land to the Church. Here’s one:

“Ego in Dei nomine Isanbalt et uxor mea Sigibirn de Fresia tradimus ad sanctum Bonifacium in villa que dicitur Brochenlar, in pago WirEnse, quicquid proprietatis habuimus, hoc est de terra arabili quantum XI modus conseri potest”.

For those fortunate enough to have avoided taking Latin in high school, the passage translates as: "In God's name I, Isanbalt and my wife Sigibirn from Friesland, transfer to St. Boniface the manor which is named Brochenlar, in the area (named) Wieringen, all we had in property, that is of ploughland as much as can be sowed with 11 measures (of seed)".
Leaving your property to the church (the monks would then say Masses for your soul and keep you from going to Hell…theoretically) was very common in the dark days (it was the Dark Ages, after all) of the 9th century. The amount of property in land contained in these abbey lists is most revealing; the bequests alone were of more acreage than the modern (up to the 1930's) island of Wieringen.
Wieringen was initially inhabited and controlled by Frisians, until Floris V, Count of Holland, made the Wieringeners his subjects in 1284. In 1432 all the island of Wieringen officially became one township and received city rights. Its history from that point on has been Dutch history; it’s a part of Holland.
But the people of Wieringen were not necessarily convinced of that. They were – and still mostly remain, at least to themselves – Frisian.
If I seem to be harping on the ‘Frisian’ thing, it’s because Frisians are the ‘good guys’ to genealogists…because they came to use true surnames very early.
Surnames like Schut.
There is general disagreement about its derivation. Old Frisian is very like Old English (many Old Frisians, in fact, invaded Old England and became the Old English) and, in Old English, the word 'sceat' means a hill or projection; Wieringen, you recall, means ‘high place’ in Old Frisian. Did the first Schut come from the high place’s highest point? In Old German (a closely related language), 'schutze' is an occupational word for a bowman. In Dutch, a 'schutz' is an armed watchman, while a small cottage near a farm can be a ‘schut’. All these words are fine surname sources…we just don’t know which one happens to be the right one.
The Schuts were obviously ‘long in the land’, as they say, of Wieringen.
Our ancestor Jan Willemse Schut almost certainly came from there. This is clearly demonstrated by a 1668 document concerning his son, Willem Janse Schut:

“[Power of Attorney from Willem Jansz Schut to Stoffel Jansz Abeel]
Appeared before us, undersigned magistrates of Albany, colony of Rensselaerswijck and Schanechtade, Willem Jansz Schut, also known as Dommelaer, dwelling in that said colony, who declared to appoint and fully empower Stoffel Jansz Abeel, master carpenter, here, intending to depart for Holland, together with his cousin, named Eyttie Meijndertse, dwelling at Amsterdam in Holland, according to her writing of the 12th of April, 1666, especially to collect, demand and receive from his uncle Sijmon Janssen, his uncle, dwelling at Wieringen, everything that he inherited after the death of his grandmother, with its accrued interest, deposited with his said uncle; to issue quittance for the receipts, and moreover, to do, transact and perform what they deem necessary and advisable; promising at all times to accept everything the said attorneys shall do and perform in the said matter, without any gainsaying, under obligation for it provided by law, provided that the attorneys shall be properly obliged to justify their said transactions and receipts. Done in Albany the 6th/16th of July, 1668.

(Signed) Willem Jansz Schut Goose Gerretsen Richard Van Rensselaer”

By his patronymic ‘surname’ – Janssen (which, remember, is the same as ‘Janse’ and ‘Jansz’) – it would be my contention that the abovementioned “Sijmon” was actually Willem Janse Schut’s great-uncle, the brother of his grandfather Willem Janse(whose father was thereby named Jan, taking us back yet another generation)…although it’s possible that Sijmon could have also been a maternal great-uncle, or even a maternal uncle, in which case all bets on the patronymic are off. The Dutch of the 17th century – terribly uninterested in real genealogy, or they would have dumped the whole patronymic idea, wich is horribly confusing– did not distinguish between degrees of unclehood.
Whatever the relationship between Simon Janse Schut of Wieringen and Willem Janse Schut of Albany, the Power of Attorney shows that Schuts had been living on Wieringen for some time, and that some were still living there in 1668.
Jan Willemse Schut was almost certainly born there. The next question: when?
That would depend on the answer to this question:
Was ‘our’ Jan Willemse Schut the same man as the one who appears in the documents which follow?

“COMMISSARIES OF STORES.
1628. Jan Huyghen; Dirck Corssen; Maurits Jansen.
1633. Claes van Elslant, of Provisions; Jacob Stoffelsen,
Jacobus van Corlear, of Wares or Cargoes, vice (replacing) Corssen.
1637. Andries Hudde, of Wares.
1638 April 7. Jan Willemsen Schut, Assistant; Wybrant Pietersen, of Wares.
1639 July 21. Ulrich Lupold,* vice (replacing) Pietersen; Laurens Haen, Assist, to Lupold.
1640 Jan. 5. David Provoost, of Provisions.
1640 July 1. Oloff Stevensen van Cortland, vice (replacing) van Corlear.

• Lupold committed malversation in March of 1641, and dismissed, but “on petition and promise of amendment, some respectable Englishmen having interceded in his behalf, he was restored.”

A Commissariis (commissary) was a West India Company employee who supervised the arrival, storage and distribution of provisions, so an assistant commissary, presumably, assisted …meaning that he did most of the scut work, making out lots of lists and checking them twice.
It was a valued position, however; you made numerous business contacts and thereby maybe got to join in various trading ventures. It was a very good way to advance yourself. The flip side was…things like ‘malversation’ could happen to you.
‘Malversation’ is misbehavior – and especially corruption – in a public office…and it’s awfully easy to malverse, or be accused of malversing, when you’re the person who’s keeping track of warehouses full of valuable things that other people want…and some of those people might be happy to bribe you to ‘look the other way’, as they say.
Sometimes, unfortunately, as demonstrated by the career of Ulrich Lupold, above….you can get caught while being crooked.
But, overall, So “Assistant commissary” was good duty. Jan Willemse was working at a steady job at the place the action was…Nieuw Amsterdam, in the Dutch West India Company warehouse:
That Warehouse in Nieuw Amsterdam was a more physically impressive structure than just about any building in town…including Nieuw Amsterdam’s frequently run-down Fort.
Jan Willemse held a position of some responsibility, worked in a fine brick building, and was a man held in some respect.
We have definite documentary proof of these statement:

“[Declaration of Wybrant Pietersen and Jan Willemsen that Jan Evertsen Bout abused Gillis de Voocht as an informer and a villain and defied the fiscal]
Appeared before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary in New Netherland, at the request of Cornelis vander Hoykens, fiscal, appeared Wybrant Pietersen, merchant, aged about 29 years, and Jan Willemsen, aged about 43 years, who jointly testify, declare and attest, as they hereby do on their conscience, in place and with promise of a solemn oath if need be, that it is true and truthful that Jan Eversen Bout berating Gillis de Voocht at van Elslandt’s house, in the presence of the deponents and Mr. Lupoldt, the fiscal, as an informer and a villain, he, the fiscal, endeavored to defend him, whereupon Jan Eversen said, “I defy you, fiscal, and all the others.” All of which the deponents declare to be true and truthful, persisting in their declaration, which is made by them without simulation or regard of person, solely in support of the truth. Done this 11th of 9ber [September] Anno. 1639, in Fort Amsterdam.
Wybrant Pietersen Yan Wyllemsen
Acknowledged before me,
Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary”
Three important things can be taken from this declaration:
I. The “Jan Willemsen” above is clearly the same “Jan Willemsen Schut” in the list on a previous page Fellow declarer Wybrant Pietersen was his immediate superior in the Commissary’s office, appointed to that position on the very same day that Jan Willemse was appointed to his.
II. It establishes his approximate birthdate (1639 minus 43 years makes him born ca. 1596).
III. He is regarded as an upright and reliable citizen; it’s why he was called a witness. There is further documentation of this status.

“[Lease by Wolphert Gerritsen of a cow belonging to the deacons of New Amsterdam]
Appeared before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, appointed secretary in New Netherland for the General Chartered West India Company, Wolphert Gerritsen, residing at Kesquaeckquerem, who acknowledges that on the 11th of June Ano. 1640 he hired and received from Pieter Cornelissen and Jan Willemse Schut, deacons here, one healthy and sound cow, on the conditions hereinafter written.
First, Wolphert Gerritsen shall have the use and benefit of said cow for the term of three consecutive years, commencing the 11th of June Ano. 1640 and ending the 11th of June Ano. 1643, provided that the lessee and the lessors shall equally share the risk of death if there be any increase before death, and if she happen to die without increase the loss shall fall on the lessors or those who may succeed them in office. At the expiration of the three years aforesaid, the deacons shall first take away the above mentioned cow, and the increase which by the blessing of God shall be produced is to be shared and divided half and half by the lessors and the lessee, provided that the deacons pay the aforesaid Wolphert Gerritsen the sum of forty guilders. Wolphert Gerritsen shall be bound to support a heifer calf, on condition of receiving the sum of twenty guilders Holland currency for so doing, for the term of two consecutive years, commencing on the 11th of June 1640 and ending on the 11th of June 1642, for all of which the respective parties bind themselves as by law provided. [In witness] this is signed by them in Fort Amsterdam, on the last of April Ano. 1641, in presence of the witnesses hereto invited.”

Deacons, in a Dutch Reformed Church of the 17th century, were looked up to; they represented stability. They were the church’s lay leaders and came from the ranks of businessmen and officials, not from the everyday rank-and-file. Anyone, like Jan Willemse Schut, who was a Deacon of the Nieuw
Amsterdam Dutch Reformed Church had adjectives like ‘worthy’ and ‘prominent’ used about him at the time…and also should have expected such adjectives in later family genealogies.
Unfortunately, as we shall see, such was not the case.
While Jan Willemse was a Deacon of the Nieuw Amsterdam Dutch Reformed Church, he doesn’t show up in church records a lot; I can find him as a baptismal sponsor only once:

“1642: 21 Apr; Philip du Trieux; Isaac; Mr. Herman Reyniers, Jan Willemszen Schut, Philip Gerritsz, Sara du Trieux, Sara Roelofs.”

It is possible…but far from proven…that either of the fellow witnesses (female) could have been his wife; Dutch women, in those days, generally went by their maiden names.
Jan Willemse seems to have gotten along well with his boss – Mauritz Jansen, another of the Commissaries (since 1628) – and was considered reliable and trustworthy…as another record shows:

“[Certificate that Margarita Gillis, wife of David Provoost, was living on January 1, 1640]
Appeared before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, residing secretary in New Netherland for the General Chartered West India Company, appeared Maurits Jansen, commissary of provisions, aged [blank] years, and Jan Willemsen Schut, steward, aged [blank] years, who at the request of David Provoost jointly testified, declared and certified, as they do hereby on their conscience and with promise of a solemn oath if need be, that it is true and truthful that Margarita Gillis, wife of said Provoost and daughter of Barbara Schut, was still living on the first of January Ano. 1640. All of which they, the attestants, declare to be true, persisting in their declaration and stating that it is made by them solely to bear witness to the truth, to no one’s benefit or injury. Done this l6th of August Ao. 1641 in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland.
Jan Willemsen Maurits Jansen Acknowledged before me,
Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary”

Another record demonstrates that Mauritz Jansen liked Jan Willemse so much, he’d even do favors for him:

“Nieuw Amsterdam Court Records, September 12, 1642:
Jan Willemsen Schut gave a power of attorney to Mauritz Jansen, to receive sundry articles for him.”

The “sundry articles” included: a black cloth mantle, a purple coat, a velvet bag, and one bed and pillow. From all available evidence, all these items were successfully retrieved from wherever they had been.
These records are from the years 1638 – 1642. They show a fairly minor functionary of the Dutch West India Company living a fairly quiet, but well-documented, and quite respectable, life.
And then something happened:

“Nieuw Amsterdam Court Records, August 31, 1648
Jan Willemsen Schut gave a power of attorney to Jan Stevensen, a schoolmaster, to receive money due him from the Dutch West India Company, in Amsterdam.”

“Money due him from the Dutch West India Company in Amsterdam?”
What was that all about? Why the six-year gap, when he isn’t mentioned in the records?
Had he lost his job? Had he been caught committing malversation?
Assistants received their salary on a regular basis (though often in kind rather than cash; cash was scarce). If Jan Willemse was empowering someone going to Amsterdam – a school-teacher, not anybody with any real clout – to collect “money due him”…it strongly implies that he was both an ex-employee and out-of-favor with the Company.
And that’s the last we hear of him.
The man presumed to be his son, Willem Janse Schut, first appears in provable, first-source documents (not unreliable statements, copying earlier – also unreliable – researchers in 1654, in what is now Albany.
In August of that year, at a sale of goods belonging to Jan Tyssen van der Heyden, Willem Janse Schut bought a coat (for 39 florins, in beaver pelts) and unspecified items (for 25 florins, 16 stivers). A few months later, he found himself in court:

“Tuesday, December 22, 1654.
Jan Thomasz, plaintiff, against Willem Jansz Schut, defendant.
The plaintiff declares that the defendant has again hired himself out for a year at 240 florins and free washing.”
The defendant denies it and says that he would rather leave than serve out the aforesaid time.”

Willem was trying to back out of what’s known as an ‘indentureship’; it didn’t work:

“The court, having heard the arguments and pleadings on both sides, forbid the defendant to leave, or to hire himself to any one in this juris-diction during the aforesaid time, and order him to serve out his time with the plaintiff, on pain of banishment, the defendant being further ordered to regulate himself according to [contract].”

An indentured servant was typically a young, unskilled laborer contracted to work for an employer for a fixed period of time. In the English colonies, that was typically three to seven years, but the Dutch system was more flexible; sometimes an indenture-ship was only a matter of months. You indentured yourself as a farm or house servant; you got, in exchange, transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture. Sometimes…but not often…you even got wages.
Indentured servants included both men and women; most under age 21. This court case would match up very well with a 20-year-old Willem, discontented with his lot and trying to better himself.
A record only weeks later shows the same thing:

“February 5, 1655. “William Jansen Shut bought a piece of money, for 5 guilders and 1 stiver and another for 4 guilders and 13 stivers.”

That refers to ‘hard’ money, which you purchased for either grain, some other commodity, or wampum…and received an actual metal coin. Coins were scarce in the colonies and thus valuable; they tended to increase in value (it’s rather like people buying gold today). Buying hard money showed that Willem had the right capitalistic and entrepreneurial instincts…but he was still a servant, getting told what to do:

“Tuesday. April 27, 1655.
“Jan Thomasz, plaintiff, against Willem Jansz Schut, defendant, about a renewal of contract of service…Said service is alleged to be for the period of four months, commencing at the opening of the trade. Parties thereupon agree and the defendant promises by hand clasp that he will serve the plaintiff for the period of two months, commencing the first of May next, or a week or two later, provided that he shall receive reasonable wages.”

The agreement, which must have been reached through negotiation, meant that Willem would be indentured for only two months. I suspect – but cannot prove – that the agreement was reached because Jan Thomasz, his master, realized that Willem would reach his 21st birthday that summer and – as an adult – would have many more options available to him.
My suspicion is reinforced by the next record we have of Willem Janse Schut, a court case in which Willem was not a defendant, but a witness:

“Tuesday, December 7, 1655.
Presentibus omnibus (all members of the Court present).
Appeared in court Jacob Willemsz, baker, and Willem Jansz Schut, being subpoenaed to testify to the truth, and declared under solemn oath at the request of Johan de Deckere, commissary and officer here, that it is true that they, in the month of July last, were present at the house of Tomas Paul, when Jochem, the baker, and Gerrit Slechtenhorst were fighting and that they consequently saw that the said Jochem several times tore at the male organs of the said Slechtenhorst and that he, Jacob Willemsz, forced said Jochem’s hand away from the said place and that they afterwards heard the said Jochem say that he would have torn them, meaning the said instrument with its appendix, from his body, if he had not been prevented therefrom. So truly may Almighty God help the deponents. Actum ut supra (done as above).”

This gripping tale (if I may resort to double-entendre) is of historical interest, in and of itself. “Jochem the baker” was one Jochem Wesselse (Joachim, child of Wessel), often in trouble (usually for beating somebody up), obviously a dirty fighter, and this time attacking someone with political clout; Gerrit Slechtenhorst was the son of a former Director of Rensselaerwyck.
For our purposes, Willem appearing as a witness is the major interest. He was “subpoenaed to testify to the truth, and declared under solemn oath” that Jochem the baker was behaving brutally, etc.. Willem’s declaration was made “under solemn oath”…which meant that Willem, as of December 7, 1655, was over 21 years of age. You had to be a full adult to swear.
If we assume that Willem – the indentured servant of Jan Thomasz – was still underage back in May of 1655, but of age in December of that year…then Willem was born sometime in the summer or fall of 1634.
To conclude: What we appear to have here, is a father – Jan Willemse Schut – who was born (by his own testimony) in 1595 or 1596) on the island of Wieringen in Holland and who came to America sometime before 1638 (when he is first on record in Nieuw Amsterdam, working as an assistant commissary for the Dutch West India Company).
This Jan Willemse Schut has no documented wife. Any inference that her name was ‘Grietje’ is based on hearsay alone, or from genealogists copying other genealogists, instead of the consultation original sources.
We think that he had a son, Willem Janse Schut, born ca. 1634, either back in the Netherlands or in Nieuw Amsterdam, who did grow up to marry a Grietje Jacobse, which is where the confusion may have come in.
We have no idea who this Willem Janse Schut’s actual mother was.
Willem Janse Schut, in 1654, indentured himself, indicating that he was quite poor at the time. That fits nicely with a father, Jan Willemse Schut, who – by 1648 – seems to have lost his job with the Dutch West India Company, fallen into poverty and quite possibly died not long afterward. Since sons of people of influence with the Company (which ran the Colony) certainly didn’t have to end up indenturing themselves, this might also explain Willem’s attempt to break the indenture. He had been raised to expect better and his new lack of status galled him
It should also be noted that the administration of Director/General Willem Kieft , under which Jan Willemse Schut had spent his entire (recorded) career in Nieuw Amsterdam, ended in 1647…with Kieft recalled to Holland in disgrace, facing various charges. He was succeeded by Pieter Stuyvesant in 1648. As the old saying goes: ‘New brooms sweep clean’.
This change took of government took place right around the time when Jan Willemse Schut may have become unemployed.

Do not be deceived by the MANY false claims that have been made about the early Schut line.