NN van Beeck, Wife of Siger Vosken van Swalmen
and the Lordship of Wickrath and County of Hochstaden
We don't know the fate of the van Swalmen lines that branched off the lines leading down to Seger Vosken van Swalmen (mentioned 1313-1347). I believe that Giselbert van Swalmen, grandson of Siger van Gent and Oda Berthout van Grimbergen married a van de Werve from Antwerp and moved to the “te Werve” house in Rijswijk Holland to found the “Rijswijk Sweym” line there, but the evidence for that is circumstantial, although compelling. But for any other branches we lack information.
As it stands, and assuming that Siger van Gent was in fact Seger van Broeckhuysen, here's the van Swalmen branch down to Seger Vosken van Swalmen, from whom various other van Swalmen branches derive. Here's the line down to Seger Vosken:
Siger van Broeckhuysen (Siger van Gent) m. Oda Berthout van Grimbergen
Johan van Broeckhuysen m. NN
Seger [II] van Swalmen m. NN
Willem van Swalmen m. NN
Seger Vosken van Swalmen m. NN
The notable problem with this lineage is that the identities of most of the wives are missing. I can find no actual source for the supposed marriage of Johan van Broeckhuysen, son of Siger van Gent, to Jutta Praet von Randerath-Randerode; therefore, I'm levaing Johan's wife as unknown.
But I do now know the probable identity of Seger Vosken van Swalmen's wife, though not her name. She was a daughter of Sizo van Beeck (1272-1314) and Mette van Uitwijk (1280-1380).
How do I know this? I finally paid close attention to a relationship that I've mentioned in a couple of previous posts, which is that of the marriage of Jakob van Mirlaer to Guda van Swalmen. The issue regarding this marriage is described in a document from Avignon dated 15 May 1365, presented in loegiessen.nl:
"Pope Urban V writes to the archbishop of Cologne: knight Jakob of Mirlaer, lord of Milendunc and Guda de Sualmis, daughter of the late knight Siger van Swalmen, who were formerly married although they knew they were related in the fourth degree. The purpose of this marriage was the reacquisitionvof the lordship of Wikerode and other inheritances, which Guda had wrongfully kept, with the help of her husand. The pope calls on the archbishop to absolve the now-separated spouses from excommunication, granting them dispensation for re-marriage, newed marriage, dispensing them for renewed marriage and legalize their present and future descendants."
We need t analyze this text closely.
This text clarifies that Guda van Swalmen's father was Siger van Swalmen, by which is meant Seger Vosken van Swalmen.
The text states that Jakob van Mirlaer had been married to Guda van Swalmen and implies that their marriage had been annulled because when they married they knew that they were 4th degree relatives, which was a violation of Church law. In other words, their relationship was considered incestuous.
The text further says that their intent in marrying was for Jakob van Mirlaer to reacquire the lordship of Wickrode (Wickrath) as well as other inheritances, which Guda had unjustly kept (though it doesn't say how she'd obtained it in the first place).
The Pope also says that he reverses the marriage annulment, which has the effect of reinstating the marriage and conferring the status of legitimacy to children and descendants of those children.
We don't know when Jakob and Guda's marriage was annulled, but the primary purpose of seeking to reverse the anullment was almost certainly to legitimize the status of their children so that the children could inherit the real property they held in fief. A fief generally couldn't be inherited by an illegitiate child, and thus would either go to another relative or revert back to the allodial owner.
Their marriage was disallowed because “they knew they were related in the fourth degree.” Althought their exact relationship wasn't specified in the document, a fourth-degree relationship includes the relationship between:
A person and a great-great grandcild/parent
A person and a grandniece/nephew
A person and a great aunt/uncle
A person and a first cousin
Of these relationships, we can probably assume that theirs was that of first cousins, the other relationships being too unlikely to be credible. The Wikipedia article “Cousin Marriage” says: “Eventually, the [European] nobility became too interrelated to marry easily as the local pool of unrelated prospective spouses became smaller; increasingly, large payments to the church were required for exemptions (“dispensations”), or retrospective legitimizations of children.”
When I'd discussed this previously, I hadn't gone far enough in my analyzing what all this really meant. One question is how had Guda come to obtain possesson of Wickrath, and why was her possession of it unfair? But more importantly for us, and probably related, is the question of how exactly were Jakob and Guda related?
If Jakob and Guda were first cousins, then by definition they share one set of grandparents. So what do we know about Jakob's and Guda's grandparents? Below is information from the Geni.com tree.
Jakob van Mirlaer's four grandparents were:
Jakob [III] van Mirlaer (1255-1309) m. NN
Sizo van Beeck (1272-1314) m. Mette van Uitwijk, uit Roermond (1280-1380)
Guda van Swalmen's four grandparents were:
Willem van Swalmen m. Christina (?) NN
NN m. NN
The solution here is simple. Since to be first cousins Jakob and Guda's shared grandparents has to be exactly the same people. And since Jakob III van Mirlaer can't have been married to Willem van Swalmen, those shared grandparents had to be Sizo van Beeck and Mette van Uitwijk.
Ergo, Guda's father Seger Vosken had to have been married to a daughter of Sizo van Beeck and Mette van Uitwijk.
But even though this simple solution has to be true just based on logica, it also makes sense in terms of the mention of Guda being in possession of Wickrath, as well as other information we have on Wervern Vosken being bequeathed by the Archbishop of Cologne an estate formerly owned by the Hochstaden family, that estate be named “de Lippe.”
Jacob van Mirlaer's mother was Beatrix van Beeck, and the Geni.com tree doesn't show a sister, but we now know a sister must have existed. In this case I believe we do have enough evidence to place Guda van Swalmen's mother (Seger Vosken van Swalmen's wife) as NN van Beeck. But let's look at the Geni tree for the ancestry of Beatrix van Beeck, as her ancestry will be the same as her unknown sister.
.png)
Now let's follow Reinhard van Beeck a bit further up the tree:
.png)
And now we see that the van Beecks are really von Ahr-Hochstadens. A bit further up:
.png)
And so here it is. The van Beeck line descends from Otto von Ahr-Wickrath (1120-1162) and Adelheid von Hochstaden (1120-1170). So now it makes sense that both Guda and her cousin Jakob have some claim to ownership of Wickrath. Also, note the presence of Beatrix von Lippe (1184-). This is because she was also the grandaughter of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheild von Hochstaden and her father was Bernhard II, Count of Lippe (1145-1224). This no doubt explains why Werner Vosken van Swalmen was given the “de Lippe” estate.
Lordship of Wickrath (Wickrade, Wickerode)
The 1362 letter from Pope Urban V stated that the reason for the illegal marriage of Jacob V van Mirlaer to Guda van Swalmen had been for the purose of van Mirlaer reacquiring the lordship of Wikerode and of other inheritances that Guda had wrongfully kept. How had Guda axquired an interest in Wickerode in the first place? To understand this, let's go back to ancestors of everyone involved in Wickerath and also of Hochstaden: Otto von Ahr-Wickrath (1120-1162) and his wife Adelheid von Hochstaden (1120-1170).
The Wikipedia aritcle “Hochstaden” says that Hochstaden was a medieval county in the Rhineland. The counts of Hochstaden probably started with the probable son of Gerhard Wassenberg, Gerhad I von Hochstaden (mentioned 1074-1096). It says that these father-son Gerhards were “someimes referred to as 'Princes', a status that was beyond a simple count.” Gerhard I von Hochstaden's brother was Hermann III, Archbishop of Cologne. After Gerhard II “this older line died out...in 1149.” This means the line died out because Gerhard II had only a daughter but no son. Gerhard II was the father of Adelheid von Hochstaden who married Otto von Ahr-Wickrath about 1167. “From then on the ownership of Hochstaten was in the hands of the family of Are [Ahr].”
So we have Otto von Ahr-Wickrathh and Adelheid von Hochstaden, who hold a lot of property. According to the Geni.com family tree, he children of Otto and Adelheid were:
Sons: Otto, Dietrich, Lother, Rutger
Daughters: Salome, Heilwig
My assumption is that the rule of inheritance of property for these German properties was that the land was inherited by sons, and if one had no sons, then whether or not he had daughters, the land wen to the oldest male relative of the closest descendants, counting down from the most recent common male ancestor. Only if there are no male descendants from the common ancestor does a female take from her father (who would be the last male of that line). In other words, it goes down the male line from the sons first, then brothers if no sons, then male cousins if no brothers, then daughters of the last male cousin if no daughter. This assumption might be incorrect, but because it appears to explain the how the ownership of both Wickrath and the “de Lippe” Hochstaden estate estates ended up in the van Swalmen-van Broeckhuysens, it probably is correct.
The issue is complicated by that fact that more than one estate was owned by Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden. But it appears that Wickrath was given to the oldest son Otto, Hochstaden to the second son Dietrich, and Beeck too the youngest son Rutger. Nothing appears to be known about Lother, assuming he even existed. The daugthers probably received substantial amounts of money and other property as dowries, but that's just a guess made without any evidence.
All three of these properties were located in today's Germany.
Son Otto inherited Wickrath. Otto had three wives: Margaretha van Altena, Alveradis von Saffenburg, Adelheid von Hochstaden. Of these three wives, only Alveradis von Saffenburg had any sons, so Wickerode probably went to her oldest son Otto, the younger son being named Heinrich. Otto had a son named Lothar and Lothar had a son named Heinrich von Wickerode (1210-1283). But Heinrich had only a daughter and no son, so Wickrath reverted to the closest male descendt of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden.
Recall that Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and his wife Alveradis von Saffenburg had a second son named Heinrich. Wickrath would have gone to the current male descendant of Heinrich, except that Heinrich had a daughter but no son.
Therefore, Wickrath would then go back up to a male-line descendant of the second son of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden, that second son being named Dietrich, count of Ahr and Hockstaden (1150-1194) who married Luitgard von Dachsberg (1150-1211). Dietrich did have one son, named Lothar, and Lothat had two sons: Konrad von Ahr und Hochstad (-1261) and Friedrich von Ahr, count of Hochstaden (-1265). Konrad was the Archbishop of Cologne from 1238-1261), and we'll return to him when we discuss Hochstaden.
But neither Konrad nor Friedrich inherited Wickrath because both died childless in the 1260's, whereas Heinrich von Wickerode died in 1283. So then Wickrath would go back up to the third son of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden, Lother and to his then-living male-line descendants, except that he had none as Lother had appaently died childless.
Wickrath would then go to the fourth son of Otto and Adelheid, that being Rutger von Ahr-Hochstaden (1180-). Rutger had a son Rutger, lord of Wegberg and Beeck (1210-), both Wegberg and Beeck probably being more Ahr or Hochstaden properties. Rutger had a son Reinhard (1238-1315) who was alive when Heinrich von Wickerode died in 1283, s Reinhard must have inherited Wickrath. And then Reinhard's son would have inherited Wickrath after him, that son being Sizo van Beeck (1272-1314).
Sizo van Beeck is not shown as having any sons. In the Geni tree he's shown as having only one daughter named Beatrix, who married Jacob IV van Mirlaer, but from the 1365 letter from the Pope we know that Sizo must also have had another daughter who married Seger Voskenn van Swalmen.
So this is how Wickrath ended up with Guda van Swalmen. I don't know exactly how Guda got Wickrath rather than her brothers Werner Vosken van Swalmen or Robijn, but apparently she did. The Pope's letter says that Guda's possession of it was wrongful, but I don't know the basis for that. But in any case this explains why Jacob married Guda: both were grandchildren of Sizo van Beeck, the last male-line descendant of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden.
Jacob van Mirlaer died in 1371 and Guda van Swalmen in 1378. The GenWiki Limburg van Broeckhuysen genealogy says that Willem van Broeckhuysen (mentioned 1329-1362) was “first lord of Wickrade in 1338). This must mean that Willem van Broeckhuysen had bought Wickrath from Jacob and Guda, because the van Broeckhuysen line had no claim to inheritance of Wickrath because the inheritance came through Seger Vosken's marriage to a daughter of Sizo van Beeck, a few generations after the van Swalmen line had branched off the van Broeckhuysen line. At this time both lines lived relatively closely to each other and must have been well aware that they were cousins, and on good terms with each other.
Hochstaden
I'll return to the van Mirlaer line for it's interesting genealogy, but first we'll finish with the inheritances of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath and Adelheid von Hochstaden.
A Roermond archive entry for 24 June 1372 says that Werner Voken van Swalmen was endowed by Archbishop Frederick of Cologne with an annual income from a toll at Neuss and the estate “zu Lippe” with all accessories. Knowing what we now know about the inheritance of Wickrath, this makes complete sense. Werner Vosken was a descendant of the last male-line descendant of Otto von Ahr-Wickrath (Sizo van Beeck), and if he was older than Jacob van Mirlaer then he was probably the oldest of the male descendants of the descendants of Sizo. The Wikipedia aricle “Hochstaden” says that “Archbishop Konrad von Hochstaden and his brother [Friedrich] bequeathed the property to the Cologne archbishopric.” But such a bequest was wrong because there were still heirs on Friedrich's death and rather than going to the Archbishopric of Cologne, Hochstaden should have gone to the next in line as in the Wickrath line of succession. But in 1372 Archbishop Friedrich III von Saarwarden corrected this error, givng Hochstaden to the then-oldest male hair of the last male-line heir of Otto von Ahr-Hochstaden.
Whether Werner Vosken van Swalmen petitioned or sued for possession of Hochstaden, or whether the Archbishop simply did the right thing, apparently isn't know. Hochstaden went to Robijn van Swalmen after Werner Vosken van Swalmen's death, but I don't know who it went to after Robijn's death (or sale, if he sold it before he died). Possibly it went to Robijn's brother Gerard if he was still alive, or more likely to Werner Vosken's son Seger van Swalmen (mentioned 1358-1407). Possibly this was how he financed his purchase of Burg Laurenzberg, if he didn't obtain it through marriage.
Unsupported Relationships in Geni.com Family Tree
As I mentioned in my previous post, in the Geni.com family tree the first Seger von Broeckhuysen (AKA Siger van Gent) was erroneously given as a wife an unknown daughter of Dietrich von Ahr-Hochstaden (1150-1194) and Luitgard von Dachsburg (1150-1211). This relationship couldn't have been based on an actual source because it's pretty clear that Seger van Brockhuysen was Siger van Gent, and his only wife was probably Oda Berthout van Grimbergen. Instead, this relationship appears to have been an attempt to explain the inheritance of Wickrath and/or Hochstaden. However, providing Seger with a von Ahr-Hochstaden wife wouldn't explain the inheritance because the inheritance had to go through the von Ahr-Wickrath paternal line malee only.
In the Geni tree the wife of Johan, son of Seger, is Jutta Praet von Randerath-Randerode. As I've previously mentioned, this relationship isn't sourced and therefore also seems speculative, although it's possible.
The van Mirlaer Ancestry
Here's one line leading back from Jakob V van Mirlaer:
Jakob V van Mirlaer (1313-1371) m Guda van Swalmen (1341-1378)
Jacob IV van Mirlaer (1290-1360) m Beatrix van Beeck (1300-1365)
Jacob III van Mirlaer-Millendonk (1255-1309) m NN
Jacob II van Mirlaer (1220-1268) m Alveradis van Cuyck (1224-1272)
Hendrick III van Cuijk (1200-1250) m Aleydis Persijn ( -1243)
Jan Dirks Persijn (1145-1224) m Aleida van Altena (1185-1229)
Boudewijn I van Altena (1142-) m Margaretha Viggezele van Gent (1141)
Steppo Viggezele van Gent (1122-1154) m Alicia van Gent (1122-1154)
In other words, the van Mirlaer line sine Jacob III had van Gent ancestry!
Jacob V van Mirlaer's 4th great-grandmother Margaretha Viggezele van Gent was the brothe rof Siger II Viggezele van Gent (1145-1202), the grandfather of Siger van Gent (van Broeckhuysen). And Steppo Viggezele van Gent and Alicia van Gent were also not only Siger van Gent's great-grandparents, but also Oda Berthout van Grimberen's great-grandparents (Siger van Gent and Oda Berthout van Grimbergen therefore being second cousins).
Thus, Jakob V van Mirlaer and Guda van Swalmen were not only first cousins through the van Beeck-van Uitwijk line, but also more distant cousins through the van Swalmen-van Gent line.
Of course, this assumes that Siger van Gent was also Seger van Broeckhuysen, which I now believe is almost certain, though others may not. Let's see if a bit of DNA evidence pushes one way or the other.
DNA Match van Altena
In my 31 October 2022 post I gave a list of my Dutch DNA matches, among whom was one named van Altena. At the time I wrote that post I had no idea that Siger van Gent was Seger van Broeckhuysen, and I had no idea how I might be related to my DNA match (cousin) van Altena.
MyHeritage has a new feature called “Possible relationships” in which for each DNA match it purports to “indicate how a DNA match might be related to you based on the amount of DNA you share with the match...Each possible relationship is assigned with a probability and with the Most Recent Common Ancestor of you and your DNA match.” For many reasons I like MyHeritage, but this feature is useless and very wrong in many caseswhen dealing with small amounts of DNA. Van Altena and I share 8.5 cM of DNA (on chromosome 18) and based on that amount of DNA MyHeritage claims that van Altena are 4th cousins and share 3rd great-grandparents. 3rd great-grandparents are 5 generations up, or about 125 years in the past from our births, let's say arount the year 1875. This is absurd, because all of my Dutch ancestry comes from New Netherland immigrants, most all of whom were born in the mid 1600's at the most recent, or about 300 years before my birth. And of those, none was a van Altena, and in fact as far as I know, the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of van Altena and me is probably the aforementioned Boudewijn I van Altena (1143-1200)(on my side through his daughter Sophie van Altena, the mother of Oda Berthout van Grimbergen. In other words, the MRCA of van Altena and I was probably born about 800 years before I was born, or about 32 generations! This is far more distant than MyHeritage's prediction equivalent to about 6 generations. The reason I'm making a big deal about this is because now that MyHeritage is placing these predictions predominantly for each match, it's actually causing confusion. Many small DNA segments are much older than MyHeritage is claiming. In my 6 September 2021 post I cited from a scientific study explaining why mmost small segments of DNA are from much further back in the past than is generally believed. This paper said that the idea that a 10 cM block of DNA will be from about 5 generations ago is because 10 cM is the mean length of a DNA segment from 5 generations ago. This is obviously the concept that MyHeritage is following. However, the reality is that because you are much more likely to share a common genetic ancestor from further in the past than 5 generations in the past because there were so many more of them, that most 10 cM (or less) blocks of DNA are actually from much further in the past. In their study of English DNA, the average 10 cM blockfrom 32-52 generations ago.
So yes, as strange as it sounds, DNA matching with small segments of DNA can useful in clarifying relationships from 1000 to even 1500 years ago, or back to about 500 AD.
Assuming that my DNA match van Altena is a paternal line ancestor of the van Altena line, and presuming I'm a descent of Siger van Gent and Oda Berthout van Grimbergen, van Altena and I would share a common van Altena ancestor sometime before Oda was born, probably Boudewijn van Altena or a paternal ancestor of Boudewijn probably not too far above him.
For me the most interesting thing about my van Altena DNA match is that he's also a shared match to 2 Norwegian-Swedish-Danish matches. As I've mentioned before, many of my Dutch DNA matches are also matches to many Scandinavian matches. And in fact van Atena may have many more Scandinavian matches than I know about, because I only know about the Scandinavian matches who are also matches to me.
A DNA match is a cousin. A shared match is when you have two DNA matches who are also DNA matches to each other. If such a three-way match is “triangulated,” this means that the 3 DNA matches share the same segement of DNA and that therefore they definitely came from the same ancestor. If the three-way match is not triangulated, it means they two of them share one segmentn of DNA and two share a separate segment of DNA; in this case, it isn't certain that the three of them descend from a common ancestors because one two-way relationship could be through marriage frm the perspective of the third match.
However, when it comes to DNA matches from different countries, especially when the common ancestor was from hundreds of years ago before travel was easy and cheap, it's much more likely that the three cousins involved in a a non triangulated shared match did descend from a common ancestor. I have no idea of the ancestry of my DNA match van Altena, but I doubt that his family tree shows any Norwegian ancestors. Mine does because one of my great-grandfathers was Norwegian and separately one of my grandmothers was Swedish/Norwegian/Finnish. Thus my family tree (on my mother's side) is full of Scandinavians and I have thousands of Scandinavian DNA matches. But why does van Altena have Scandinavian matches?
MyHeritage predicts that van Alena has no Scandinavian ancestry. Yet he has at least two Norwegian matches. How is this possible? There are two basic ways in which a person from one country can have cousins from another. Using the example of a DNA match from Holland who has Norwegian DNA matches, the first way that the Hollander can have Norwegian DNA matches is if he had an ancestor who immigrated to Holland froom Norway. In that case he'll have Norwegian DNA matches (sousins), but he'll also have some Norwegian DNA himself. The other way he could have Norwegian DNA matches is if one of his Dutch ancestors emigrated to Norway; in this case he'll also have Norwegian DNA matches but he won't himself have Norwegian DNA. Given that van Altena has Norwegian DNA matches but apparently no Norwegian/Scandinavian DAN, we can presume that van Altena has an ancestor who emigrated from the Netherlands to Norway at some unknown time in the past.
One of van Altena's Norwegian matches is a man called Weea. Remember, I only know this because I'm also a match to Weea. But although I know that van Altena is a match to Weea and shares 12.8 cM of DNA with Weea, I don't know if that DNA is in one segment or two. I share 15.0 cM of DNA with this Weea in 2 segments, and I also have 3 other Weea cousins that van Altena doesn't have. This probably means that my common ancestor with Weea was through my mother's Scandinavian ancestors rather through my father's Dutch matches, but this can't be assumed because it's also possible that one of the DNA segments I share with this Weea is from my father's Dutch ancestry.
The DNA that I share with van Altena and Weea is not triangulated, and this is a good illustration of how this can happen. If I'm a match to Weea through my mother's ancestors and to van Altena through my father's ancestors, then van Altena and I are both cousins to Weea, but only coincidentally through different segments of DNA.
So how is van Altena connected genetically to Weea? It's rare that a family tree for a DNA match is well-developed enough to show a relationship path from this far in the past, but in fact much of the Weea family tree going very far back in time does show that Weea has a van Mirlaer ancestor that emigrated from the Netherlands in the 1300's, first spending a few generations in Germany and Denmark. I can't connect this family free (from Geni.com) to the exact DNA match Weea because recent generations aren't shown, so this is an uncertainty. But I can connect it to a Weea born in 1895, and it's quite possible that this is therefore the ancestry of van Altena's DNA match Weea.
Van Alten (or van Gent) DNA Goes to Norway
Steppo Viggezele van Gent (1122-1154) m Alicia van Gent (1122-1154)
Margaretha Viggezele van Gent (1141-1194) m. Boudewijn I van Altena (1142)
Aleida van Altena (1185-1229) m. Jan Dirks Persijn (1145-1224) m
Aleydis Persijn ( -1243) m. Hendrick III van Cuijk (1200-1250)
Alveradis van Cuyck (1224-1272) m. Jacob II van Mirlaer (1220-1268)
Jacob III van Mirlaer-Millendonk (1255-1309) m NN
Jacob IV van Mirlaer (1290-1360) m. Beatrix van Beeck (1300-1365)
Christine van Mirlaer (-1381) m. Rollman von Sinzig zu Ahrenthal (1317-1381)
Heinrich II Rollman von Sinzig und Ahrenthal (1380-1428)
Margarethe von Sinzig (1365-1430) m. Otto Heinrich von Wiltberg (-1469)
Anna von Wiltberg (1405 Denmark -1478) m. Johan III von Ahlefeldt (1400-1463)
Claus von Ahlefeldt (1425-1486) possibly born in Lehmkuhlen, Plön, Denmark
Catharine von Ahlefeldt, til Nordsee (1457-1530) born in Kiel
Anna, daughter of Markvard VI Wulfsen Breide, til Clausdorf (1465-1551) Bülck
Anna Ottesdatter Rantzau, til Bülck (1470-) Denmark
Hans Pogwisch, til Farve (1485-1560) b. Farve d. Maasleben (!) (AKA Maslev)
Margarethe von Pogwisch (1560-) Maasleben
Agethe von Oertzen (1583-1604)
Margrethe, daughter of Curt von der Lühe (1590-1667) Mecklenburg
Johan Brockenhuus, greve til Sebberkloster (1614-1673) Slet, Denmark – Copenhagen
Margrethe Johansdatter Brockenhuus ( - 1745) b. Roskilde d. Buskerud, Norway
married to Eilert Jørgen Christof von Hadeln (1660-1714) b. Tøten
Anne Eilertsdatter von Hadeln (1686-1742) Løten, Norway
Eilert Jørgen von Hadeln Ramm (1720-1793) Løten, Norway
Eilert Valdemar Preben Ramm (1769-1837) b. Furnes, Norway d. Vang, Norway
Peronella Eilertsdatter Ramm (1794-1887) Løten, Norway
Ole Pedersen 18
Anne Olsdatter Johansen Vemstad (1863-1909) Løten Norway
married Johan Lauritz Johansen (1854-1941)
Ole Weea (1895- ) Løten, Hedmark, Norway
Unknown Weea
Unknown Weea
DNA Match Weea
Assuming DNA match Weea is a descendant of Ole Weea and that DNA match van Altena is a descedant of the van Altena line from Boudewijn van Altena, this is a plausible pathway to explain why Dutch DNA match van Altena shares DNA with Norwegian DNA match Weea.
The DNA could have come from the van Altena line or the van Gent line, and either way one of the segments of DNA I share with Weea could have also have come from this pathway if the Sweaim/den Hartog line descended from the van Swalmen line as I believe is likely.
This pathway isn't proof of these connections but it's moderately decent evidence. It's also possible that the connection is from a more recent emigration from Liege/Limburg, possibly from a man named de Besche, which I'll discuss in a future post.
