Hello.

This is my first question in the Forum, please accept my apologies if my format of asking is incorrect. 

Below is an extract of a 1688 Zelhem Court record regarding the estate of a Berent Dimmendael who died circa 1680. My understanding of those times is that married women could not own property and I would like to know whether that led to courts sometimes referring to the husband of the heir rather than the heir herself.

‘….. op die gereed goederen van Evert Dimmendael en de wed.w van Jan Coops en Hendrick Hummelinck als kinderen en erfgenaemen van wijlen Berent Dimmendael ….. ’

Rechterlijk Archief van het Landdrostambt Zutphen

Archieftoegangsnummer 3021 - Inventarisnummer 921

Vindplaats: Erfgoedcentrum Achterhoek en Liemers te Doetinchem

Link - https://www.flickr.com/photos/genealogiedomein/3862271167/in/album-72157622036331229/

I would like to rely on the court’s words meaning Hendrik Hummelinck is the true son of Berent, but can I? If either of Hendrick’s wives were Berent’s true heir, might the court still refer to Hendrick as above instead of naming the true heir in the record?

NOTE: By the time of this court case, Hendrick’s first wife had died (circa 1680-83) and he had remarried, probably circa 1685.

Thank you for any help you can give.

It certainly looks like Hendrick Hummelinck was a son of Berent Dimmendael. Don't be mislead by the different last names: in those times it was quite common for people to use the name of the farm they lived on as their last name. (That makes looking for forebears in certain parts of the country quite a challenge...)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, the family branch I am chasing has had some name changes due to working on different farms, a great surprise for me the first time I came across this, but now I am ok with it.

What really concerns me is that Hendrick's second wife's name is Willemken Dimmendael, and that some other tree owners show her as Berent's daughter, though they list no sources. Maybe these are educated guesses. I suspect the trees are incorrect in this matter, but I am fairly new to researching and am reluctant to back myself against several more experienced researchers. 

I am hoping the text of the Zelhem court's record might settle the matter by forum respondents telling me it would be most unusual for the court to refer to the true heir's spouse instead of the true heir.  

Thanks.

Well... it was perfectly normal for a woman to own property. It was even possible to keep your possessions and any later inheritance separate from those of your husband, and vice versa -- that is, if you entered into a marriage contract (before the marriage took place). And if you were a widow, you kept your part of the communal property anyway.

However, I read the text above as concerning the children and heirs of Berent Dimmendaal. Those were Evert Dimmendaal, the widow of Jan Coops (most likely being a daughter of Berent, now widowed) and Hendrick Hummelinck. The latter might be a true son (who had settled elsewhere and taken a different surname); or the husband of another daughter. In that case his wife may be still alive (then he inherits nomine uxoris); or she may be dead, and he does the honours for his - possibly still minor - children. Or she died after her father, having inherited so the money became communal property, then dying in her turn, so the widower had the right to collect.

All this is quite speculative; it might be true, or it might not. Also, the whole text is just a claim from an outsider, Willem Jansen, who asks for payment of wages from the late Berent, and now from his heirs. He might not have been correct in detail.

Hello Petra, thank you for your explanation. I learned much from it and have investigated further. Through a process of elimination, it seems the most likely child of Berent is Hendrik's first wife who probably died a year or so after Berent died. Thank you.