Johannes Kleu (d. 1901, Remhoogte)

[SRC-010, Rose Willis Klaarstroom cameo. TERTIARY, TO VERIFY] A 23-year-old Boer rebel, unarmed, walking home to Aberdeen in February 1901. On the farm REMHOOGTE (PAR-000068) he stumbled on the wounded Lance-Corporal J. BoydM, who took fright and shot him in the chest. The owner of Remhoogte, 'R du Plessis', rode out, found him bleeding and carried him to the farmhouse, where he died. He was buried in the ravine at Wolwekloof and later reinterred at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Klaarstroom. MIEMIE DU PLESSIS, ten years old at the time, remembered it all her life. THE SURNAME MATTERS HERE: Klue/Kleu is already in this model - the Klues of Klueplaas - and the cameo also says the KLUE FAMILY hold the original Middelwater farmhouse. Whether this man is of that family is untested.

[7 Aug 2026] See PER-000326: the same surname appears as KLUE on a 1923 Middelwater transfer, and Middelwater carries the werf name KLUEPLAAS. LEAD-0125.

[7 Aug 2026] A CANDIDATE, AND ONLY A CANDIDATE. The Graaff-Reinet Kleu family (PER-001523, married 1872) had twelve children, and one is JOHANNES PAULUS KLEU, BORN 1876, DIED 1902 (FS LKFF-938). This row is a Johannes KleuH shot at Remhoogte in FEBRUARY 1901, aged 23 - which puts his birth about 1877-78. THE DATES DO NOT QUITE MEET: 1876 against about 1877-78 is close, but 1902 against February 1901 is a year apart in the wrong direction, and the age on the cameo is the softest figure of the lot. The cameo is TERTIARY (Rose Willis, retelling a ten-year-old's memory) and already marked TO VERIFY. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT: the FS profile LKFF-938 and whatever source gives it 1902; or a death notice, a war-graves record or the burial register of the Church of the Good Shepherd at Klaarstroom, where the cameo says he was reinterred. Aberdeen, where he was walking home to, is 90 km from Graaff-Reinet - which fits a Graaff-Reinet family and is not proof of one. LEAD-0125.

[7 Aug 2026] HE WAS A BOER, AND THE GRAVE IS A WAR GRAVE. eGGSA's album for the Remhoogte cemetery (SRC-330) records him as a member of Gideon Scheepers's commando, killed on 2 February 1901 in the running fight through 'Die Gang', the valley between Klaarstroom and Prince Albert, after two patrols of the Prince Albert Mounted Troops walked into a Klaarstroom the Boers had occupied the day before. He is said to have come upon the wounded Lance Corporal J. BoydM hiding in Wolwekloof and to have been shot in the chest at point-blank range. The account gives his age as 22 and his home as Aberdeen. THIS SETTLES PART OF LEAD-0125: a death on 2 February 1901 rules out Johannes Paulus KleuM (1876-1902), who was the other candidate. An age of 22 in February 1901 puts his birth about 1878-79, which agrees with the 1878~ already held and sits two years off the stone's 1880.

*** [2 Sep 2026] THE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE AND WITHDRAWN THE SAME HOUR, AND BOTH HALVES ARE KEPT. *** On seeing the Zuurberg baptism [FAMILY] Its this guy LKFF-938.aulus Kleu, born 8 December 1876. Within the hour he withdrew it: 'i do not think this is our guy from the grave'. The row is back to what it was, and the man of the baptism is held separately as PER-001945. WHAT WAS FOR IT: the surname, a region that loosely agrees, and the fact that nobody has produced another Johannes KleuH of the right age. WHAT IS AGAINST IT, and it is more: FamilySearch gives that man a death in 1902, and a man shot on 2 February 1901 did not die the following year. His baptism is at ZUURBERG under UITENHAGE, which is the eastern Cape and a long way from a man said to be walking home to ABERDEEN. And he was TWENTY-FOUR AND TWO MONTHS in February 1901 against the two accounts' twenty-two and twenty-three. *** ONE THING FROM THAT HOUR SURVIVES THE WITHDRAWAL AND IS WORTH MORE THAN THE MERGE WAS. *** Frans looked at the headstone: it reads CA 1880, not 1880. This project had been treating that year as stated and setting it against the accounts' ages. It states nothing. So the birth year of the man in this grave is not three readings but ZERO: two second-hand ages and a mason's estimate. [TO VERIFY]

*** [2 Sep 2026, LATE] FRANS PUTS LKFF-938 BACK ON THE TABLE, AND THE CASE IS BETTER THAN WHEN IT WAS WITHDRAWN. *** 'johannes paulus kleu, was named after his mother's father. so LKFF-938 is a real candidate for war grave.' THE NAMING ARGUMENT CHECKS OUT AS FAR AS A PATTERN CAN. Pieter Egbert KleuL and Martha Magdalena SoekoeM's children run Peter Egbert 1873, Maria Elizabeth Magdalena 1874, JOHANNES PAULUS 1876, so Johannes Paulus is the SECOND SON, which is the position 5b assigns to the mother's father. The same rule was watched working an hour earlier on a register rather than on a table: SRC-613 has Johannes Diederich Kleu named for JOHANNES DEDERICK FERREIRA, his mother's people, standing at the font in 1870. This family names by the rule. NOTE WHAT THAT DOES AND DOES NOT PROVE. It predicts that Martha Magdalena SoekoeM's father was a Johannes Paulus; no record here says so. The pattern generates the hypothesis and cannot confirm it. What it DOES support is the step that matters: a Kleu remembered on a stone as plain JOHANNES, in a family that names by rule, is a Johannes-something, and of the right generation this record holds exactly one. *** AND THREE THINGS HAVE MOVED SINCE THE WITHDRAWAL. *** The stone reads CA 1880, not 1880, so it never stated a year and 1876 is inside its range. The two ages of twenty-two and twenty-three are both second-hand, from an album description and a local history, neither written by anyone who had his baptism. He was twenty-four and two months. And SRC-616 has now put KLEUS IN THE JANSENVILLE AND ABERDEEN COUNTRY, which is where the grave points; his own father married at GRAAFF-REINET in 1872, fifty-five kilometres from Aberdeen. When he was withdrawn, the only Kleu geography this project had was George and Oudtshoorn. *** WHAT STILL STANDS AGAINST HIM IS ONE UNSOURCED YEAR. *** FamilySearch gives him a death in 1902 and no document for it is held here. A man shot on 2 February 1901 did not die in 1902 - unless the 1902 is not a death at all: the Klaarstroom cameo has the Remhoogte man buried in the ravine at Wolwekloof and REINTERRED at the Church of the Good Shepherd, and a reinterment sits in the registers a year or more after the killing. That is a hypothesis and it is not evidence. STATUS: PER-000518 and PER-001945 STAY APART. Frans's judgement of an hour ago was that they are two men and nothing since has overturned it; what has changed is that the case for one man is now the stronger of the two, on three counts against one unsourced year. The merge is not made without a document. THE DOCUMENT THAT DECIDES IT, IN ONE LINE: whatever FamilySearch is resting the 1902 on. Open that before anything else. Then the Aberdeen and Prince Albert burial registers for February 1901, and the Church of the Good Shepherd's own register for the reinterment.

*** [2 Sep 2026] THE 1876 BIRTH IS FIXED, AND THAT CUTS BOTH WAYS. *** [FAMILY] This jp klue has birth cert, so birth is correct LKFF-938. SRC-607 is the ZUURBERG BAPTISM of 6 March 1877 recording 'geboren 8e Dec: 1876', with both parents named. It is not a birth certificate - civil birth registration did not exist at the Cape in 1876 - but a baptism entry taken from the parents seven weeks after the event is the strongest form the period offers, and it agrees to the day with FamilySearch LKFF-938. THE BIRTH IS NOT IN DOUBT. *** WHICH REMOVES THE WIGGLE ROOM RATHER THAN SUPPLYING IT. *** He was TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AND TWO MONTHS on 2 February 1901, exactly, and no longer approximately. The two accounts of the shooting give the dead man as twenty-two and as twenty-three, and the stone reads CA 1880. All three now sit two to four years off a date that cannot move. THAT DOES NOT SINK HIM. Both ages are second-hand, one from an album description and one from a local history, neither written by anyone who had this baptism, and a mason's 'ca' is an estimate by definition. But the gap is now a fixed quantity to be explained rather than a fuzziness to be waved through. AND IT SHARPENS WHAT A BETTER CANDIDATE WOULD LOOK LIKE: a Kleu born about 1878 or 1879, which is what the two accounts and the stone all point at between them. This model holds one such man with no recorded death at all, SEBASTIAAN JOHANNES KLEU b.1879 (PER-002000, G82G-87N) - who fits the age and fails the name, since a Sebastiaan Johannes is called Sebastiaan and the stone says Johannes. SO THE TWO CANDIDATES FAIL ON OPPOSITE TESTS, and neither is chosen. What is still owed is the same single document: whatever FamilySearch rests the 1902 death on.

*** [3 Sep 2026] HE IS NAMED, HE HAS A FARM, AND HE IS NOT ANY OF THE CANDIDATES THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN WEIGHING FOR A MONTH. *** Frans found him on the Roll of Honour (SRC-619) and behind it in the War Museum of the Boer Republics' own burgersterftes database (SRC-620, id 1644): KLUE, (PIET) JOHANNES, burgher, SCHEEPERS CAPE REBEL COMMANDO, address WATERKLOOF, ABERDEEN, killed in action at DOORNRIVIER IN THE LANGKLOOF on 24 AUGUST 1901, buried 'Remhoogte, Prins Albert from Grootfontein'. *** WHY THIS IS THE SAME MAN AND NOT A FOURTH CANDIDATE. *** Four things agree across sources that do not depend on one another: the surname, the commando (eGGSA's album narrative had already said Scheepers), the burial ground, and ABERDEEN - which is the detail Rose Willis's cameo carries and which nothing in a war-graves compilation would have taken from her. The war record adds what neither had: the farm, WATERKLOOF, and a noemnaam. Under 5b Piet is Petrus, so the parenthesis is how he was called and Johannes is what he was christened; both are kept, in noemnaam and in the name. *** AND IT ENDS THE LKFF-938 QUESTION WITHOUT NEEDING THE 1902. *** Johannes Paulus KleuM was argued for and against all evening on an unsourced death year. That is now beside the point: this man's home was a farm at Aberdeen, and Johannes Paulus KleuM was baptised at Zuurberg under Uitenhage into a Graaff-Reinet household. Nothing ties him to Waterkloof. PER-000518 AND PER-001945 STAY APART, and the reason has changed from a weak one to a documented one. LEAD-0332.

*** [3 Sep 2026] THE DATE IS NOW THE OPEN QUESTION, AND IT IS NOT SETTLED HERE. *** This project has published 2 FEBRUARY 1901, in the running fight through Die Gang between Klaarstroom and Prince Albert. The war record says 24 AUGUST 1901 at Doornrivier in the Langkloof, which is seven months and some two hundred kilometres away over the Swartberg. With one man established these are two dates for one killing and one of them is wrong. NOTE WHERE OURS COMES FROM: the February date is in eGGSA's ALBUM NARRATIVE (SRC-330), not on the stone, and Rose Willis (SRC-010, tertiary) says only 'February'. Neither is a record of the action. The August date sits better with the campaign - Scheepers was taken near Prince Albert on 10 October 1901, so his commando was in this country in the late winter and spring - but that is a reading of the war and not a document, and it is not enough to move a published date. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT: the Prince Albert Mounted Troops' return for the action, or a burial register. death_edtf is left at 1901-02-02 with this contradiction written against it rather than quietly changed. [TO VERIFY]

*** [3 Sep 2026] WHAT HIS CONNECTION TO THE GROUND HE LIES ON ACTUALLY IS: NONE THAT THIS PROJECT CAN FIND. IT IS THE WAR, NOT THE FAMILY. *** THE FARM IS REIM HOOGTE No. 167 (PAR-000092), surveyed as a loan place by Stretch in August 1833 for William Gouse and granted on 15 April 1841 to WILLEM JOHANNES GOUS. No Kleu or Klue has ever held it, lived on it, or is buried on it apart from him. *** AND HE LIES ALONE. *** CEM-005 holds ONE grave, his. Four hundred and twenty metres away is CEM-025 with ELEVEN, and it is a family ground: Johannes Gijsbertus du Plessis 1826-1913 and Johanna Elizabeth nee van Rooijen 1831-1913, their son JACOBUS JOHANNES PETRUS DU PLESSIS 1869-1941 (PER-000501, GRV-0711), and four more du Plessis women, with two Wilmans and a Neethling of the 1860s beneath them. Ninety metres the other way is CEM-026 with two Koens. He was buried NEAR the family whose ground it was and NOT AMONG THEM, which is what happens to a stranger killed on somebody's farm. *** WHICH CORROBORATES THE CAMEO IN THE ONE DETAIL IT COULD BE CHECKED ON. *** Rose Willis (SRC-010) has the owner of Remhoogte, 'R du Plessis', ride out, find him bleeding and carry him to the farmhouse. This project holds a du Plessis family in the ground beside him and holds JACOBUS JOHANNES PETRUS DU PLESSIS taking transfer of ROSSEL ERF, Reim Hoogte 167 Portion 1, on 15 June 1908 - EIGHT HUNDRED METRES FROM THE GRAVE. He was thirty-one in February 1901 and his father seventy-four. The initial does not match either man and the family is unmistakably right. [TO VERIFY] which du Plessis the cameo means, and who MIEMIE was - the ten-year-old who remembered it all her life would have been born about 1891 and is not in CEM-025 under that name.

*** [3 Sep 2026] A FARM-NUMBER ERROR IN THIS PROJECT'S OWN RECORD, AND IT IS THE TWO-MIDDELWATERS TRAP AGAIN. *** This row has said since 7 August that he was shot 'on the farm REMHOOGTE (PAR-000068)'. PAR-000068 is RHEMHOOGTE No. 125, Abel Albertus OosthuizenM's ground from July 1879. The grave is on REIM HOOGTE No. 167 (PAR-000092), the Gous farm. TWO DIFFERENT FARMS, BOTH CALLED REMHOOGTE, and the grave sits 14.9 km from the centre of the one named here and 2.3 km from the centre of the other. 9 already warns about two Middelwaters; this is the same failure on a different name and it went unnoticed for four weeks because a farm NAME was written where a farm NUMBER decides the question. The parcel reference is corrected: he was killed and buried on FARM 167, not farm 125.

*** [3 Sep 2026] AND ON WHETHER HE JOINS SUSANNA MARIA KLUE OF MIDDELWATER (PER-000326). FRANS: 'there must also be a connection between this person and susanna maria klue from middelwater.' THE PROXIMITY IS REAL AND SMALL, AND THE WAR RECORD NOW CUTS AGAINST IT. *** Three Klue and Kleu traces sit inside one nine-kilometre circle: this grave in 1901; the werf name KLUEPLAAS on Middelwater, 8.5 km away, where the two portrait sketches were found in an attic; and VASTE WATER, a Middelwater portion, transferred to Susanna Maria KlueM on 26 April 1923, 8.7 km away. He is also the ONLY Kleu or Klue buried anywhere in the Prince Albert division, on 20,949 photographed captions. In a district this size that is worth noticing and it is the reason LEAD-0125 was opened. *** BUT THE WAR RECORD GIVES HIM A HOME AND IT IS NOT HERE. *** SRC-619 and SRC-620: address WATERKLOOF, ABERDEEN, some 150 km north-east, and a Cape rebel in Scheepers's commando was killed where the commando was, not where he came from. He owned nothing here, lived nowhere here, and lies apart from the family whose ground it was. On the evidence gathered so far he was a stranger on this farm. *** SO THE TWO ARE NOT JOINED, AND THERE IS A CLEAN TEST THAT WOULD JOIN THEM. *** Either the family held ground at both ends, or one surname has turned up twice in a small district twenty-two years apart, which is exactly what 9 forbids reading as a match. Susanna Maria KlueM is still unidentified - no birth, no death, no FamilySearch id, nothing but a name on a 1923 diagram. IF SHE OR HER PEOPLE PROVE TO BE ABERDEEN OR WATERKLOOF PEOPLE, THE TWO JOIN. That is one question asked of one place, and it is the same Aberdeen search LEAD-0332 already needs.

*** [3 Sep 2026] THE DATE, WITH THE CAMPAIGN NOW READ (SRC-624), AND IT IS STILL NOT SETTLED. *** THREE dates are now in play, not two. Rose Willis and the eGGSA album say 2 FEBRUARY 1901. The Military History Journal puts Scheepers's Klaarstroom attack on 11 FEBRUARY 1901, 'two soldiers killed'. WMBR and ROHSA say 24 AUGUST 1901 at Doornrivier in the Langkloof. The nine days between the first two matter less than the fact of them: THE FEBRUARY TRADITION DISAGREES WITH ITSELF, so 2 February is not the fixed point this row has treated it as since August. *** THE STRONGEST NEW ARGUMENT RUNS AGAINST FEBRUARY AND IT IS ABOUT HIM, NOT ABOUT THE COMMANDO. *** Scheepers OCCUPIED ABERDEEN ON 5 MARCH 1901 and raided that district through June and July. His home was WATERKLOOF, ABERDEEN. The moment an Aberdeen man joins this commando is when it reaches Aberdeen, and that is a month AFTER he is said to have died. It is not proof - a rebel could ride out to meet a commando anywhere - but it is the first argument from the man's own circumstances rather than from the shape of the campaign. And August's geography fits: the article has Scheepers in the LADISMITH AND OUDTSHOORN districts through August and September, and Doornrivier is in the Langkloof. *** WHAT STILL DEFENDS FEBRUARY IS THE ONE THING AUGUST CANNOT EXPLAIN: THE GRAVE. *** He lies on Reim Hoogte 167, and Die Gang runs between Klaarstroom and Prince Albert. A man killed there is buried there. A man killed at Doornrivier is two hundred kilometres and a mountain range away, and WMBR's own burial field, 'Remhoogte, Prins Albert FROM GROOTFONTEIN', reads like a compiler's note rather than a record. *** SO THE LIVE HYPOTHESIS IS CONFLATION, IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. *** Either a war-graves compiler matched a Langkloof casualty named Klue to the one famous Klue grave in the Cape midlands, taking the burial place from the grave instead of from a record; or the Klaarstroom tradition attached a local killing to a stone that belongs to a man who died elsewhere. Both databases and both local accounts agree on the surname, the commando and ABERDEEN, so it is one man either way. death_edtf STAYS AT 1901-02-02 WITH THIS WRITTEN AGAINST IT. Changing a published date on a balance of arguments is exactly what 10 forbids. WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT: the Cape rebel return or commando roll behind WMBR 1644; the Prince Albert Mounted Troops' casualty return for the February action; or Lance Corporal J. BoydM's own record - and ROHSA holds NO Boyd who died in the Cape in 1901, its only 1901 Boyd being a Bechuanaland Rifle Volunteer who died on 18 October, so Boyd very likely SURVIVED his wound and would appear in a service record rather than a casualty list.

*** [3 Sep 2026, SRC-010 read in full; see SRC-625] SIX NEW FACTS, ONE CORRECTION OF OURS, AND THE DATE QUESTION CLOSES. *** ONE, THE CORRECTION, AND IT IS OURS: this row has said since 7 August that HE was buried at Wolwekloof and 'later reinterred at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Klaarstroom'. THAT REINTERMENT IS BOYD'S, at his widow's request, because the Good Shepherd was the nearest Anglican church. Johannes KleuH was never moved. He was buried in the ravine and he is still there, which is exactly what the single grave on Reim Hoogte 167 says. TWO, AND IT ANSWERS THE ONE THING THE MODEL COULD NOT: WHY HE LIES ALONE. Du Plessis 'took the body, wrapped it in a blanket, and buried it quietly during the night' - a burial at night by one farmer, off his own family ground. And IN 1948 KLEU'S FAMILY IN ABERDEEN WERE ASKED WHETHER THEY WANTED HIM MOVED TO A MORE SUITABLE GRAVEYARD AND THEY REFUSED, saying he should be allowed to rest in peace. He lies alone because two families decided he should. THREE, WHERE THE ABERDEEN ADDRESS COMES FROM. 'Kleu was wearing a red waistcoat and in the pocket was his home address.' Du Plessis read it off the body and after the war sent the waistcoat, with its bullet hole, to Kleu's parents at Aberdeen. SO 'WATERKLOOF, ABERDEEN' IN WMBR 1644 IS NOT A COMPILER'S GUESS - it descends from a piece of paper in a dead man's pocket, and the cameo and the war record reach it independently. FOUR, HE JOINED SCHEEPERS ON 15 JANUARY 1901 and 'the war had lasted only 18 days'. Fifteen January plus eighteen days is 2 FEBRUARY: the cameo's arithmetic checks against its own date. *** AND THAT DESTROYS THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR THE AUGUST DATE. *** That argument ran: an Aberdeen man would have joined when Scheepers occupied Aberdeen on 5 March, which is after February. The source answers it directly: he joined on 15 January, seven weeks before the commando reached his district. The reasoning was sound and the premise was wrong. FIVE, BOYD DIED TOO, of his wounds, found only while the grave was being dug, and was buried beside TROOPER S K GISHFORD of the 2ND BRABANT'S REGIMENT. Two soldiers killed, which is exactly what the Military History Journal (SRC-624) counts at Klaarstroom. SIX, MIEMIE DU PLESSIS WAS THE FARMER'S OWN DAUGHTER. 'Father took the body' - the ten-year-old whose memory carries this whole story is R du Plessis's child, which this project had never noticed. *** THE DATE: 2 FEBRUARY 1901 STANDS, AND IT IS BETTER SUPPORTED TONIGHT THAN IT WAS THIS MORNING. *** The eGGSA album for the Church of the Good Shepherd states that Boyd and Gishford 'were both killed on 2 February 1901 during the skirmish in Die Gang', and adds that the Guild Cross MISSPELLS Gishford as HIRSCHFORD AND MISDATES HIM TO 4 FEBRUARY. Two soldiers' graves, the burial ground's own record of the action, and a cameo whose internal arithmetic agrees. The Journal's 11 February is a secondary compilation and is now an outlier alongside WMBR's 24 August. SO WMBR 1644 AND ROHSA 45992 ALMOST CERTAINLY CONFLATE: a compiler matched a Klue of Scheepers's commando to a Langkloof action and carried the burial place over from the famous grave. Their ADDRESS is right and their DATE is not. death_edtf remains 1901-02-02, now on evidence rather than on inertia. HIS AGE IS STILL UNSETTLED: this passage says 23, the eGGSA Remhoogte album says 22, the stone says 'ca 1880'. [TO VERIFY]

*** [3 Sep 2026] THE TWO ACCOUNTS OF 2 FEBRUARY 1901 ARE NOT INDEPENDENT, AND THIS PROJECT TREATED THEM AS SUCH. *** The eGGSA cemetery information names its source in full: 'Sources: Marincowitz, Helena (1999): Prince Albert and the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). Prince Albert, Fransie Pienaar Museum, pp.15; 19-22.' SRC-172 already records that ROSE WILLIS'S CAMEO CITES THE SAME AUTHOR in its own bibliography. So the album description and the cameo are one narrative wearing two coats, and this project has been reading them as two witnesses. I told Frans an hour ago that the date rested on 'two soldiers' graves, the burial ground's own record of the action, and a cameo whose internal arithmetic agrees'. THE GRAVES ARE REAL AND INDEPENDENT; THE TWO NARRATIVES ARE ONE AUTHORITY. 2 FEBRUARY STILL STANDS as the better date - a local monograph working from local records beats a national compilation's field, and the cameo's own arithmetic (joined 15 January, 'the war had lasted only 18 days') checks against it - but it rests on ONE 1999 MONOGRAPH plus that arithmetic, not on three sources. *** AND THE MONOGRAPH IS TWENTY MINUTES FROM KLAARSTROOM AND WRITTEN BY FAMILY. *** Helena MarincowitzM is PER-000945 in this model, 1931-2007, wife of Charles Patrick 'Pat' Marincowitz, already identified here as 'a greatly revered historian'. SRC-172 has called her work 'likely the single most valuable unread secondary source for the project' since it was written. Pages 15 and 19-22 of the 1999 book are now a specific request rather than a general one.

*** [SRC-626, 3 Sep 2026] THIS IS THE KLEU HOUSEHOLD AT ABERDEEN, AND IT HAS BEEN IN THE MODEL SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER WITHOUT ANYBODY KNOWING WHAT IT WAS. *** WikiTree gives this man's death as 29 NOVEMBER 1908 AT TWEEBRACHT, ABERDEEN, CAPE COLONY. The FS batch carried the year and no place, so the one fact that mattered was the one missing. His children were born at UNIONDALE and his grandchildren at ABERDEEN - Petronella Danielina Magdalena KleuL on 6 June 1899 at Aberdeen, Maria Fouche Kleu on 5 August 1909 there - SO THE HOUSEHOLD MOVED FROM THE LANGKLOOF TO ABERDEEN BETWEEN 1878 AND 1899, and was at Aberdeen through the war. *** WHICH IS EXACTLY THE FAMILY THE REMHOOGTE WAR GRAVE NEEDS. *** Johannes 'Piet' Klue of WATERKLOOF, ABERDEEN (PER-000518) was shot on 2 February 1901 aged twenty-two or twenty-three, and in 1948 his family were still at Aberdeen to be written to. This project has spent two days testing eighty-seven rows against a name and never once asked which of them lived where, because the batch carried no places at all. NOTHING HERE IS AN IDENTIFICATION YET: Tweebracht is not Waterkloof, and no son of this house carries Johannes as a first name. But it is the first Kleu ground at Aberdeen this project has held, and it is where to look. LEAD-0332, LEAD-0337.

*** [3 Sep 2026] THE DISPLAY NAME IS PUT BACK, AND FRANS IS THE REASON. *** It was changed this evening to "Johannes 'Piet' Klue of Waterkloof, Aberdeen" on the strength of the war record. [FAMILY] We have not identified who he was... HE IS RIGHT AND THE NAME WAS DOING WORK THE EVIDENCE CANNOT DO. A display name is the most prominent claim on a person page and it carries no qualification, no [TO VERIFY] and no source. WATERKLOOF RESTS ON ONE COMPILED DATABASE (SRC-620); Aberdeen is well attested and the farm is not; and we still do not know his parents, his birth, or which Kleu household he belongs to. The noemnaam PIET stays in its own field, where it is a recorded variant rather than an assertion, and Waterkloof and Aberdeen stay in these notes where the qualifications live. 10: no unqualified absolutes, and a name is the least qualifiable place in the whole model. *** [7 Sep 2026, SRC-172 READ IN FULL] THE FARM'S OWN FAMILY TELLS THIS STORY, AND IT HAS BEEN IN PRINT SINCE 1999. *** Helena MarincowitzM's book - the work this project has been citing at third hand through Rose Willis and an eGGSA caption - carries an eyewitness interview taken in 1977 from the ten-year-old girl who was in the house. She is Miemie de WitM, PER-002051; her father is Roelof du PlessisM, PER-002050; the account is SRC-632. WHAT HAPPENED, in her words (p.34): 'During the war an Englishman's horse was shot from under him at Remhoogte. He himself was wounded and hid in Wolwekloof. A young Boer, named Johannes KleuH came upon him and the Englishman shot him at point blank range through the chest. My father carried the sorely wounded Kleu through the back door into the house and laid him in the room where he died.' THE WAISTCOAT IS HERS, AND IT IS THE SOURCE OF THE ABERDEEN ADDRESS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN WORKING FROM: 'He was wearing a red waistcoat and in the pocket was his home address. Father took the body, wrapped in a blanket, and buried it quietly during the night. After the war he sent the waistcoat with its bullet hole to Kleu's parents at Aberdeen. They did not want his remains removed and said "Let him rest." He was about 22 years old and unmarried.' Every later telling of this grave runs back through that pocket. SO THE ABERDEEN FAMILY IS ATTESTED, AND IT IS ATTESTED AS PARENTS. Not a district, not an address on a form: a father and mother at Aberdeen who received a dead son's waistcoat and answered. That is the strongest statement this project holds on where to look, and it is still not a surname list. LEAD-0332, LEAD-0337. THE BOOK'S OWN NARRATIVE ADDS THE MILITARY FRAME (p.13): 'One of the Boers, Johannes KleuH, was seriously wounded and was left behind with the Du Plessis family at Remhoogte. He died and was buried on the farm. KLEU HAD JOINED SCHEEPERS' COMMANDO AT ABERDEEN EARLY IN JANUARY 1901.' AND A SECOND MAN JOINED AT ABERDEEN IN THE SAME WEEK, WHICH IS WHY THE DATE IS WORTH SOMETHING. p.33: Carel Petrus van Heerden's 'parents lived at Aberdeen. He went to visit his parents and on 16 January 1901 joined Comdt. Gideon Scheepers' commando.' Rose Willis's cameo has Kleu joining on 15 January. Three independent statements put Scheepers recruiting at Aberdeen in the middle of January 1901 and put both men in it. The commando was taking up local sons as it passed, and Kleu was one of them - which is an argument that his home really was Aberdeen and not merely his correspondence address. THE DATE OF DEATH IS NOW CARRIED BY THE BOOK ITSELF and not only by the cameo's arithmetic: p.12's plate is captioned 'Remhoogte: The original homestead where Johannes KleuH died on 2 February 1901 in the room at the far end of the stoep', and p.45 repeats 'He died on 2 February 1901'. WMBR's 24 August remains the outlier. HIS AGE IS STILL NOT SETTLED AND THIS DOES NOT SETTLE IT. 'About 22' is what a daughter remembered her father saying, 76 years later. The eGGSA album says 22, the stone says 'ca 1880', the Rose Willis passage says 23. They agree only in the sense that nobody knows. birth_edtf stays 1878~. [TO VERIFY]