Genealogy Verkroost » Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk (± 1607-< 1654)

Personal data Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk 

• He was born about 1607 in Tull en 't Waal.
• Profession: Jonkheer, Heer van Schalkwijk, Tull en 't Waal etc..
• Record.Source 1

  Gerecht Utrecht, 12-06-1650, transport van huis door huismeester van Barbara en Laurensgasthuysen
  Not. Leechburch, U97a6-69, 14-07-1692, akkoord

• Resident from 1633 till 1653: Kasteel in Schalkwijk.

  In 1653 geen eigenaar meer.

• (Achtergrondinformatie) .

  Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk
  
  Tekst op internet over Adriaan Ram van Schalkwyck
  
  Vertaling uit het Engels
  
  De tekst start met een speculatie over de herkomst van de naam Van Schalkwijck.
  Verder wordt vermeld dat er enkele personen onder de naam Ram zijn begraven in de dom in Utrecht, te weten:
  
  Adriaan Ram, Domkanunnik, 1464-1518 Utrecht
  Adriaan Ram, overleden 1515 Utrecht
  
  Adriaan Ram van Schalkwyck, Baron of Heer van Schalkwijck bij Utrecht in Nederland, was in het jaar 1651 verbannen uit zijn land door een uitspraak van het Hof van Utrecht in verband met het uitoefenen van de Katholieke Religie. Zijn goederen werden in beslag genomen, zijn kasteel (een nest van Papisten genoemd in de uitspraak) verwoest tot de grond. Hij vluchtte naar Frankrijk en huwde een dochter van het huis van Courcelles... en het is duidelijk dat hij, hoewel beroofd van zijn rechten en eigendommen in Nederland, nog belangen of bezittingen in Brazilië had, dat op dat moment onder gezag van Holland stond, want met zijn Franse vrouw emigreerde hij naar dat verre land en overleed daar, met achterlating van minstens een zoon, Nicolaas.
  
  Opmerking van Jos Verkroost
  Er zitten wat onduidelijkheden in deze tekst. Ervan uitgaande dat hij getrouwd was met Margaretha van Isendoorn à Blois, zijn Franse relaties niet onwaarschijnlijk. Zij is evenwel in 1671 in Utrecht (Schalkwijk/Tull en 't Waal) weduwe van hem. Dus of ze is teruggekomen, of ze is nooit weggeweest. Er zijn nog geen verbindingen gevonden tussen haar en een familie genaamd Courcelles. Volgens de tekst is Nicolaas ver voor zijn verbanning geboren, dus nog in Utrecht.
  Uit informatie van de gemeente Houten blijkt dat het kasteel in 1653 eigendom is geworden van Frederik van Renesse van Elderen. Dit is consistent met de gebeurtenissen in 1651, waarna de familie gedwongen was delen van haar bezittingen te verkopen.
  
  The following detailed transcription of the edict is taken from: Condensed History of the Van Schalkwyck Boisaubin Family - 1128 to 1899, with additions thru 1921
  QUOTE:
  History of the Capture, Trial and banishment of Count Ram Van Schalkwyck
  - Judgment -
  Rendered and pronounced by the Court of Utrecht July 29th 1651 against,
  -Adrian Ram:
  At present held as prisoner in the Castle of Hasomberg; was summoned to appear before the court of Utrecht, testifies, that since time immemorial the Tower of his Castle Van Schalkwyck has been appropriated to the use of a Catholic Church also since the advent of the so called Reformed church - That Benches were placed all around the church to accommodate the crowds of people, and that services were attended by his subjects also by the inhabitants of other Towns -
  The Defendant also harbored priests, in disguise, among others one Dyck Van der Hurst, who was at the Castle for 18 months, where he gave instructions to his children, this in spite of the orders forbidding the assembling of Papists and of giving protection to Priests.
  On the 1st of June he had a large assembly of Papists at the castle, there to attend service in the church. - The Marshall of the Province having been apprised of it, repaired to the castle with some assistance, but those in the castle raised the Pont Levis, and were answered when Summoned by a shower of stones, which wounded several persons, besides this many of those in the castle were armed with guns and spikes and defended the Ramparts of the Castle - A Summons was made to lower the Bridge and allow the Marshall and his crowd to enter, this was refused on the ground that the Marshall could not enter the residence of a Lord without a special Commission from the States General, although it was known the Marshall had a right to disperse Papists wherever they assembled -
  The Marshall was kept all day before the castle The Commissioners then summoned the Lord of the Castle to surrender, promising that none of the Papists would be maltreated; he still refused to surrender - The same night Jan Jansey de Brec in the service of the Defendant was admitted to the castle, they then held a conference, the result being that De Brec left and went to the Town of Schalkwyck and to the surrounding Villages to summon the inhabitants to rise and arm themselves - They then attacked some of the Marshall's men, threw them down, took their arms away and beat them severely; later they attacked the Marshals main force and the armed corps that had been defending the Ramparts of Schalkwyck at this juncture Van der -Horst escaped and the insurgents fell back and followed the Dyke which leads to the Village, here they were attacked by Soldiers coming to the Marshals assistance; the Insurgents attacked them with great fury, shouting "Kill them! Kill them!" but the soldiers acting on the de-fensive, received them with coolness and determination, seeing which the insurgents fell back and dispersed. In view of this serious insurrection, all those who took part in it deserve exemplary chastisement, especially the accused before this Court -
  
  Decree.
  This Supreme Court therefore orders -
  That the tower of the castle of Schalkwyck shall be demolished-
  That the Pont Levis be taken down and that a stationary bridge be built in its place at his expense.
  That he will never be permitted to rebuild the Bridge or Tower.
  The accused forfeits his Patrimonial and Ecclesiastical rights during his lifetime.
  That the States General shall take possession of his Fief and have it administered by one of its delegates and shall invest it in those surviving the accused, either his children or heirs.
  Ordered that this judgment be made known to the Prisoner
  The banishment from the City and Cities of the Province of Utrecht for and during the space of ten years; to not return under pain of punishment -
  To have to leave within 15 days the Cities and the County of Utrecht -
  We condemn him according to Article VI of the States General of this Province dated 9 April 1639, concerning the prohibition of the assembling of papists, from this he is responsible for the assembling of all the people, and to pay all damages caused to the wounded who assisted the Marshall, and the expenses of this Court -
  
  So judged at Utrecht by the Lords July 29th 1651
  Signed by 25 Lords, Judges of the Supreme Court.
  UNQUOTE
  
  With regard to the marriage to the heiress of the House of Courcelles, it probably took place long before the banishment since Adrien's son Nicholas was clearly an adult already active in the Dutch conquest of Brazil. In fact, Nicholas and his own wife, who also appears to be of French origen, arrived in Guadeloupe after being cast out of Brazil by the Portuguese just three years later (1654). The fate of the Adrian's wife is unknown; however, her French family/nationality was clearly the key to Adrian's survival after fleeing Holland.

• (Achtergrondinformatie) .

  Neemt op 15-11-1614 leen in Harmelen over van zijn vader. Brengt op 21-04-1632
  hulde (toen vermoedelijk meerderjarig en dus waarschijnlijk geboren in 1607 (99
  fol 159v).
  
  Op 14-03-1640 werd het leen gesplitst in twee helften. De ene helft wordt
  overgedragen aan Jan Dalen, gehuwd met Joostje Cornelisdr (104 fol 9v-10v), de
  andere helft aan Dirk Cornelisz Gerverskop (104 fol 10v-12). De overdracht werd
  geregeld door Adriaan Dirksz van Wamel, procureur te Buren voor Adriaan Ram,
  Heer van Tull en 't Waall.
  
  Heren en graven van Culemborg
  
  6516 Stukken betreffende den verkoop van de heerlijkheid Schalkwijk aan jkr.
  Adriaan Ram
  Datering 1645-1650
  NB Vele dezer stukken zijn gedrukt Arch. Aartsb. Utrecht, XII, 27-55
  Omvang 1 omslag
  Vindplaats Gelders Archief
  
  Heerlijkheid is in 1647 door graaf Henrick Wolrad verkocht aan jkr Adriaan Ram,
  heer van Tull en 't Waal.
  
  verzameling van buchel booth
  
  142 Aantekeningen betreffende de kriminele procedure voor het hof van Utrecht
  tegen Adriaan Ram, heer van Schalkwijk, inzake het organiseren van
  rooms-katholieke erediensten, door Cornelis Booth
  Datering 1651
  Omvang 1 omslag
  Vindplaats Het Utrechts Archief
  
  Criminele sententies Utrecht, 10-04-1652, 239-1/99-08, 138r-139v, verbannen uit
  Utrecht, Holland en Zeeland wegens overtreden verbanning, illegale
  godsdienstuitoefening.
  
  Volgens archief voor de geschiedenis van het Aartsbisdom Utrecht volume 12
  eerst gehuwd met Margaretha Pauw van de familie Pauw met de bloem. Zij overleed
  1637.

• He died before 1654 in Brazilië.
• A child of Evert Ram and Beatrix Pieck
• This information was last updated on November 6, 2023.

Household of Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk

He is married to Margaretha van Isendoorn à Blois.

They got married on July 28, 1638 at Utrecht.Source 2

Child(ren):

1. Nicolas Girard van Schalkwijck  < 1630-1666
2. Beatrix Adriana Ram van Schalckwijck  ± 1636-> 1692 
3. Everardus Ram van Schalckwijck  < 1645-> 1692
4. Alard Ram  < 1651-> 1730 
5. Walraven Ram  < 1651-> 1692
6. Michiel Johan Ram van Schalkwijk  < 1651-> 1714
7. Willemina Sophia Ram  < 1651-> 1692

Do you have supplementary information, corrections or questions with regards to Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk?
The author of this publication would love to hear from you!

Timeline Adriaan Ram van Schalkwijk

Click on the names for more info. Symbols used:  grandparents    parents    brothers/sisters    children