Hendrik Kip

good point! Wonder if we can answer the question...

It is likely impossible to prove either way, short of some document indicating that one of them was out of NA at the time.

Circumstantial evidence might come from the specific form of the name recorded "Hendrik Kip" and comparing it to other records from the 1660s, if one of the men was consistently using either Snr or Jnr then that would be strongly suggestive. Or alternately one of them may have regularly been using his patronym?

It's not evidence by any stretch but Hendrick Snr's profile page includes this text: "Records show that Hendrick Kip took an active part in the government under the Dutch rule, and after the surrender to the English, he took the oath of allegiance in October 1664." and names time as one of the signatories.

PS Mike, this profile needs parental conflict resolved: Hendrick Willemsz Hendricksen

Thanks, Alex! No matter what circumstancial evidence can be found, I doubt that it's possible to determine this with certainty. My guess would be that it's the father, simply based on the order of the names of the signatories. The names at the top are VIPs. Well, there are some important figures further down the list, but Hendrik's name appears very close to the top. Both the father and the son played a role in politics, but the father would necessarily have seniority (and more weight).

This being said, the original Remonstrance was apparently lost, so we can't get a look at the signatures, AND the text of the Remonstrance as we know it was recreated from memory based on my understanding of a letter by Stuyvesant. I don't think that it's impossible that one of the pair was omitted and that they both signed. Stuyvesant writes in one of his letters, in which he defends himself, that the entire burghery signed. He could have been exaggerating since he was justifying his actions, but well… In the end, we can see that several members of the Kip family signed. They seemed to agree with each other on the course of action to take. :-)

Oh! I must correct myself.
I just realized that there are different lists of signatures in a different order. In the following, Hendrick Kip's signature is the first one, which makes him look like the leader.
https://archive.org/stream/documentsrelativ03newy#page/249/

While I'm at it, I might as well ask what you think of the above transcript. In the Holland documents, there are several mentions of copies of the 1664 Remonstrance within documents written by Stuyvesant. This transcript (above) says it's a copy of a document in the Royal Archives in Holland. Some of the names of the signers are following by the mention "his mark." When they recreated the Remonstrance, do you think that they got those guys to put down their signatures again? Or did the person who wrote this copy just put down the names from memory?

Does anybody here read Dutch, and could check if a digitized copy is available here? https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en