← The land

Source SRC-300

Cape Town baptisms, 1701: children of Jan Nijs and of Kornelis Nijs

church register (original scan) · consulted 2026-08-06

Type
church register (original scan)
Repository
FamilySearch, "Cape Town, Cape Province, South Africa records"; Cape Dutch Reformed Church Archives
Reference
ark 3:1:S3HY-DZN4-WDT; image group 004322620, image 18 of 91; register opening pages 20-21, entries of 1701
Consulted
2026-08-06

Open the record ↗ the permanent identifier, not a search URL

The citation as it was given

TWO ENTRIES ON THIS PAGE CARRY THE NAME. '13 Mart: van KORNELIS NIJS en [illegible] WESSELS, getuijgen Francois [illegible] en Alida de Lange' - child JOHANNES. And '3 April 1701: van JAN NIJS en ELISAB[ETH] [illegible], getuijgen [illegible] en Pieter Willems' - child JOHANNES. The surnames of the two wives are not confidently legible on this image and are NOT guessed, per 5a note 5. WHY IT MATTERS. It puts JAN NIJS at the Cape with a wife ELISABETH in April 1701, which agrees with SRC-299, where the wife of the late Jan Nijs is LIJSBET JANSE DE RODE - Lijsbet being the everyday form of Elisabeth. The son JOHANNES baptised here is very likely the 'JAN' named as one of the three children in that 1713 inventory. [TO VERIFY] both identifications. A SECOND NIJS HOUSEHOLD is on the same page, KORNELIS NIJS, baptising a son eighteen days earlier and also naming him Johannes. Two men of one surname at the Cape in the same season, plausibly brothers, and a standing warning against matching this family on a surname alone. | [6 Aug 2026] THE ILLEGIBLE SURNAME NOW HAS SUPPORT FROM OUTSIDE THE IMAGE. FamilySearch gives Jan Nijs's wife as LIJSBET JANSZ FOCKESE DE ROODE (LV88-19V), and Fockese fits the letters left on the page where this note read '[illegible]'. It is recorded as SUPPORTED, not as read: the reading still comes from another record and not from this scan, which is the distinction 5a note 5 exists to keep.

Kept verbatim. This project contradicts published genealogies and corrects a family's own oral tradition, so every claim has to be checkable by someone who was not in the room.

What rests on this source

People