Elisabeth Rebecca van Bengalen
about 1700 – 3 July 1759 · van Bengale line
Names
- Given
- Elisabeth Rebecca
- Surname
- van Bengalen
The formal baptismal name and the name a person was actually called are both kept, and neither is derived from the other. Spelling drift between records is evidence, not noise.
Three generations around this person
Work out how this person is related to somebody else →
Click any name and the same three generations are drawn around that person instead. There is no first couple here and no top to the tree: it is only ever the family standing closest to whoever you are reading about, and a blank is a gap in the record rather than a statement about anybody.
Immediate family
- Children
- Apollonia Jansz van de Caab
A life in the record
- about 1700 born Born
- 3 July 1759 died Died
Stories
- mentioned A woman's forty-six possessions
What we don't know
- Neither parent is recorded, so this person is not attached to the tree above them.
- No dated record ties this person to a specific piece of ground.
A sourced gap beats an unsourced fill. These are the open questions on this person, stated rather than papered over.
Research notes
A DIRECT ANCESTOR at nine generations - the closest of the three to the present - by way of the MOCKE line: Elisabeth Rebecca van BengalenH -> Apollonia Jansz van de CaabH -> Sophia Rebecca PlagmanM -> Frederik Simon MockeL -> Sophia Johanna MockeM -> and onward. Married to Carel Jansz van Bengal, so both parents of the next generation carry the toponym. NO PLACE IS ASSERTED HERE. The private tree gives a birthplace, but this project treats the tree's place strings as hostile and they are least reliable exactly where they matter most - on people carried across an ocean. The toponym in the NAME is what the Cape record itself used and is recorded as written. VERIFICATION ROUTE: the First Fifty Years project, which transcribes the Cape records of 1652 onward and documents enslaved and free-black people rather than only settlers. Nothing here should be repeated as established until it is checked against a transcribed record. [TREE] [TO VERIFY]
[15 Aug 2026, FS] FamilySearch id filled from the FamilySearch id field of the family tree exports, matched on this row's own tree id and accepted only because the tree's NAME AND YEARS agree with this row. It is a door to the sources, not a source: nothing here is taken from the profile.
[22 Sep 2026, SRC-664] NOT IN THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS index, under this name or her family's. The index has an 'Anna Rebekka van Bengalen' as a baptism witness in 1732, which may be worth testing [TO VERIFY].
These are working notes, not finished prose: they carry the reasoning, the corrections and the things still marked to verify. They are kept here so the page itself can read as what is known.
Open questions
-
FamilySearch ids for the enslaved and free-black ancestors, and for Anthony van de Kaap
priority 1 · LEAD-0112
Eleven people at the head of this family — the ten of S021 plus Catharina van PalliacattaM — and the one enslaved man in the family's own estate papers carry no FamilySearch id between them. Which of them have profiles, and what are the ids?
What would settle it An id per person, or a recorded finding that no profile exists.
-
Import the nine Cape descent chains - they are Frans's own ancestry, generation 9 to 13
priority 1 · LEAD-0116
Eight of S021's ten have no recorded child in this model, so the site names a descent it cannot walk. The private tree holds every chain. Importing them means about fifty new person rows across the de Wet, Mocke, Duminy, Snyman, van Dyk, Janse van Vuuren, Smuts and du Preez lines. Is that in scope?
What would settle it Frans deciding. A middle course exists: import only the chains that reach families the site actually writes about, and leave the rest as a stated gap on the page.
Elders
FamilySearch profile MJYS-CLL