Note: Photos recently sent to me by my third cousin caused me to investigate the Bruck family connection to former President Teddy Roosevelt’s family, and in the process learn a trivial fact and uncover some inaccurate information in a so-called “Roosevelt Genealogy.”
I was astonished to discover that “ChatGPT” (see end of post, Figures 22a-c) correctly divined the connection between Baron Clemens von Zedlitz und Neukirch and the infamous American gangster Al Capone and the celebrated 19th century French author Guy de Maupassant, a disparate group to say the least. Having thought I’d merely come up with a catchy title for my post, I was quickly brought down to earth by artificial intelligence. Let me be clear, I have no known ancestral connection to either Al Capone nor Guy de Maupassant, and only a distant link by marriage to Baron Clemens von Zedlitz. Regular readers may vaguely recognize the von Zedlitz surname as it came up briefly in Post 177.
The current post is inspired by high-quality pictures my third cousin Christopher von Koschembahr (Figure 1) recently sent, including several of Baron Clemens von Zedlitz. (Figure 2) Family photos for me are always an inducement to researching and writing about people, as they make them come to life. As I will explain, these photos caused me to further explore the connection between the Bruck and Roosevelt families. This is a link I’ve long known existed. I’ve never previously investigated this because the Bruck von Koschembahrs, through whom I’m connected to the von Zedlitz family and by extension the Roosevelts, dropped the Bruck portion of their surname upon becoming naturalized American citizens. Having never interacted with the von Koschembahr family means I never thought much about the connection to their von Zedlitz kinsmen. I don’t mean to sound dismissive but am merely reflecting reality and the fact that for me connections to German aristocracy are just coincidental. This may simply reflect the fact I’m American.
That said, the hand drawn ancestral trees left to by my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck, though very incomplete, include the von Koschembahr and von Zedlitz relatives. (Figure 3) I think this was intentional on my uncle’s part, as I think he fashioned himself an aristocrat and wanted to draw the connection to aristocrats in the family, even if they were only related by marriage. There are two photos of him taken in 1926 in Liegnitz, Germany [today: Legnica, Poland] on horseback that illustrate my uncle’s self-perceived sense of himself as part of the aristocracy. (Figures 4-5) They recall a snippet in Amalie von Koschembahr, née Mockrauer’s diary which was the subject of Post 177. The quotation is about her son Stanislaus von Koschembahr, patriarch of the family following her husband’s death, when he greets his mother atop a recently acquired stallion. Quoting: “Stanislaus arrived on horseback; the horse was newly acquired, and we were supposed to inspect it. It was indeed a charming animal, and I was delighted to see my son as a rider.”
Figure 5. My uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck in 1926 atop his horse in Liegnitz [today; Legnica, Poland] dressed as Frederick the GreatTo help readers understand the link between the Bruck and Roosevelt families, I need to first review the link between the Bruck and von Koschembahr families. My great-grandfather Fedor Bruck’s (Figure 6) younger brother Wilhelm Bruck (Figure 7) married Margarete “Gretchen” von Koschembahr (Figure 8) and was henceforth known as Wilhelm Bruck von Koschembahr, as I discussed in Post 177. Wilhelm and Margarete and their five children were favorites of Margarete’s mother, Amalie von Koschembahr, née Mockrauer, who often mentioned them in her memoirs.
The oldest of Wilhelm and Gretchen Bruck von Koschembahr’s five children was Gerhard Bruck. In Post 177, I included a very poor-quality photograph of his wedding in 1914 to Hilda Zedlitz und Neukirch (Figure 9), with whom he would go on to have thirteen children (Figure 10), all of whom were known in America as von Koschembahr. As readers will surmise, Hilda von Zedlitz was the daughter of Baron Clemens von Zedlitz. Baron Clemens von Zedlitz married Cornelia Roosevelt in 1889 in New York as reported in the New York Times. (Figure 11)
One photo shared by Christopher von Koschembahr is an endearing one of Hilda as a child embracing her father. (Figure 12) Another photo shows Hilda as a baby with her mother, none other than Cornelia Roosevelt, a cousin of the former American President Theodore Roosevelt. (Figure 13) Another photo shows Cornelia standing alone. (Figure 14)
The “smoking gun,” so to speak, showing beyond a doubt the Bruck family connection to the Roosevelt family comes from Gerhard and Hilda’s 1914 wedding certificate where her parents are identified. (Figures 15a-b) Having none of my normally reliable translators currently available to me to translate the entire certificate, I’ve simply circled the relevant and very legible sections of it that show the Bruck and Roosevelt surnames. Interestingly, Gerhard Bruck, who would later adopt the von Koschembahr surname in America, still self-identified as a Bruck when he got married in 1914. Two of the witnesses at his wedding were his youngest brothers, Friedrich (1889-1963) and Heinz Bruck (1892-1915).
Christopher sent several photos of Baron Clemens von Zedlitz including one with his elderly father Benno von Zedlitz with his stepmother Anna (Figure 16), and a charming one of Clemens with his sister Hedwig as children. (Figure 17) I turned to ancestry seeking additional information, specifically about Baron Clemens von Zedlitz. Here’s where things took a completely unexpected and fascinating turn.
On one page of a document entitled “Roosevelt Genealogy” (Figures 18a-b), clearly part of a lengthier compilation, was a notation about Baron Clemens von Zedlitz claiming he died in 1901 in a boating accident involving none other than the last German Kaiser’s yacht. This fact alone made Clemens’ death of interest to me. The last German Kaiser was Wilhelm II, and he reigned until the end of WWI in 1918. Regular readers may recall him as my Bruck family had several interactions with him during his reign and following his abdication after German’s defeat during WWI.
The fact that Baron Clemens von Zedlitz, an aristocrat, would have been in the company of Kaiser Wilhelm II came as no surprise. As just implied, what was of far greater interest was that he was involved in a boating accident involving the Kaiser’s yacht during a regatta that resulted in his death in 1901, as the Roosevelt Genealogy claims.
Subscribers to ancestry may occasionally come across reference to newspaper accounts of contemporary events; typically accessing these articles requires a separate subscription to newspapers.com. I could tell from ancestry there are multiple articles about Baron von Zedlitz, so I asked a friend with a subscription if he could track these down for me, which he gratefully obliged to do.
Naturally, given the prominence of the Kaiser, I assumed newspapers of the time would have reported the boating accident. Sure enough, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article on the 19th of August 1896 describing the mishap in detail (Figure 19), and indeed a Baron von Zedlitz died as a result. The problem is that the news account was from 1896, not 1901 as the Roosevelt Genealogy reports. Also, a closer reading of the article showed that Baron von Zedlitz, notably no first name given, was crewing the boat with his brother, obviously another Baron von Zedlitz, again with no prename. Another detail noted in the 1896 article is that the Baron who died was not yet 40 years of age. Born in 1857, had Clemens died in a boating accident in 1901 as the Roosevelt Genealogy claims, he would have been over 40. Yet another clue something was amiss in the Roosevelt Genealogy is that his surviving daughter was supposedly named Olga; as implied above Clemens’ only child was named Hilda.
Since first names were not provided for either von Zedlitz brother, I was compelled to search elsewhere. Fortunately, I uncovered the death certificate for Baron Clemens von Zedlitz, and he did in fact die in 1901. (Figures 20a-b) Unable to read the certificate and ascertain his cause of death, I asked my German friend if he could decipher it. He found the cause of death not on the death certificate but on a contemporary Lutheran Church burial register, another document I’d downloaded from ancestry. (Figures 21a-b)
According to the church register, Baron Clemens von Zedlitz cause of death was supposedly “Lähmungsirrsinn,” what my friend thought might be “paralytic madness.” Having no idea what this means, I investigated on my own. I also asked my English fourth cousin, Helen Winter, née Renshaw, if a comprehensive German encyclopedia she recently purchased might have an explanation about this disease. Independently, we came to an identical conclusion, namely, that Baron Clemens died because of untreated syphilis, the final stages of which result in unpredictable behavior which manifests someone going mad. Since 1943, syphilis has been treated with penicillin or another antibiotic, though the first effective treatment was salvarsan (arsphenamine), discovered in 1909 by Paul Erhlich and Sahachiro Hata.
The realization that Baron Clemens died from untreated syphilis contracted much earlier in life recalled to me the movie “Scarface” about Al Capone starring Al Pacino. For readers who’ve seen the movie, towards the end of his life Al Capone exhibits increasingly erratic behavior, like what I assume Baron Clemens experienced. Helen’s own research had her learn that the famed French writer Guy de Maupassant suffered from and died from untreated syphilis. So apropos of trivial discoveries having virtually nothing to do with my family, Baron Clemens von Zedlitz, Al Capone, and Guy de Maupassant all died of the same condition. (Figures 22a-c)
One final thought about the misinformation I found in the Roosevelt Genealogy about the cause and timing of Baron Clemens von Zedlitz’s death. This is hardly the first time I’ve found incorrect ancestral information. The Russian proverb “Doveryai, non proveryai,” translated as “trust, but verify,” comes to mind. It was popularized by Ronald Reagan during nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union during his presidency. As I’ve regularly stressed, I strongly urge ancestral researchers to logically and systematically analyze data found in ancestry.com and on ancestral trees. Little should be taken at face value absent primary source documents.
PICTURE POSTCARD OF CROWN PRINCE’S WEDDING ADDED ON 4/26/2025
Note: Drawing upon the diary of an Amalie von Koschembahr, née Mockrauer, a relative by marriage, I highlight some observations she recorded between 1897 and 1918 about contemporary events.
Wilhelm Bruck (1849-1907) (Figure 1) was my great-great-grandfather Fedor Bruck’s (1834-1892) younger brother. (Figure 2) As discussed in Post 173, upon his marriage in 1884 to the aristocratic Margarete “Gretchen” von Koschembahr (1860-1946) (Figure 3), Wilhelm adopted her surname in the hyphenated form, Bruck-von Koschembahr. With the family’s arrival in America, the “Bruck” name was forever dropped. I ruefully think I’ve gone from what could have been a very large family to a smaller one on account of this.
Margarete’s parents were Leopold von Koschembahr (1829-1874) (Figure 4) and Amalie von Koschembahr, née Mockrauer (1834-1918). (Figure 5) Curiously, Amalie’s younger sister, Friederike “Fritzel” Mockrauer (1836-1924) (Figure 6) was married to Fedor Bruck; in other words, Amalie’s sister was married to her son-in-law’s older brother. In former times, such cross-generational “hookups” were not altogether uncommon.
Significantly the von Koschembahrs were not Jewish, though this did not prevent Wilhelm and Gretchen’s mischlinge children from being persecuted and forced to flee Germany during the Nazi Era.
Beginning in 1897 and continuing intermittently until roughly a year before her death in 1918, Amalie kept a diary. I became aware of the roughly 50 pages of her journal while researching Post 173. I obtained a typed German transcription of it from my third cousin and subsequently translated it using Google Translate. This resulted in a mostly very readable document.
Leopold von Koschembahr died at 45 years of age, but not before he and Amalie had 11 children born between 1855 and 1873. Amalie never remarried and reverted to her Mockrauer maiden name following her husband’s death. The children Amalie acknowledges in her diary are Hans (1858-1874); Stanislaus (1859-1914); Margarete (1860-1946); Leopold (1862-1908); Adolf (1863-1895); Elisabeth (1865-1865); Mathilde (1866-1931) (Figure 7); Max (1868-1890); Susanna (1869-1903); Erich (1871-1938) (Figure 8); and Friedrich Wilhelm (1873-1873). A 12th child I’ve documented elsewhere, Alexandra Mathilde Isidore von Koschembahr (1 June 1855-14 July 1855), died in infancy; this is a child I reckon was born before Amalie and Leopold were married. Two other children, Elisabeth and Friedrich Wilhelm, also died in infancy. Of the other children, Hans, Adolf, Susanna, Max, Leopold, and Stanislaus predeceased Amalie, with only Margarete, Mathilde, and Erich outliving her.
Select observations and noteworthy events from Amalie’s memoir will be discussed in this post.
A few comments before I launch into this presentation. In writing my posts, I’m ever mindful of the fact that I’m writing about my distant ancestors who are unknown to most readers. For this reason, unless the people’s stories are compelling, I’ll focus on the social and political context in which they lived and on noteworthy events or global developments they may have witnessed or written about that may be familiar and possibly of greater interest to readers. For example, Amalie’s observations on Germany’s expansionist aspirations are intriguing because they speak to Europe’s colonial past.
Another balancing act I have to tightrope is how much of the family “skeletons” to reveal. It is significant that Amalie self-censored her journal so that she removed some pages considering them in retrospect too inflammatory or disparaging. An example of pages she removed relate to the dissolution of her son Leo’s brief first engagement in 1901. Enough survives elsewhere, however, so that even more than 100 years after the journal was written, living descendants may retain some of the same sensibilities. I prefer to think that I’m not whitewashing my ancestors’ stories as much as soft-pedaling uncomfortable truths. I concede this may be a distinction without a discernible difference.
Many of Amalie’s observations speak to the weather, her belief in God, her health, and her relationships and visits across Germany to see her children and family; she also touches on the connection among her children. I consider these to be of limited interest to readers. Except where Amalie’s reflections relate to my great-great-uncle Wilhelm Bruck and his family, I won’t dwell on them.
Amalie appears to have been particularly fond and close to Wilhelm and Gretchen, and their five children, Gerhard (1885-1961) (Figure 9), Charlotte (1886-1974) (Figure 10), Marianne (1888-1975) (Figure 11), Friedrich 1889-1963) (Figure 12), and Heinz (1892-1915). Her brief vignettes of family gatherings with them are particularly memorable since so few written accounts survive of my Bruck ancestors. Wilhelm appears to have been very much adored by his family and mother-in-law. This reinforces the impression I have of some of my Bruck ancestors, namely, that they were charismatic, warm, funny, and extroverted.
At the time Amalie started to record her memoirs in 1897 she was already 63 years old. Until she moved from Berlin to Dresden in April 1902 to live with her unmarried daughter Mathilde “Tilchen,” her entries were recorded in Berlin. Her oldest son was Hans von Koschembahr (1858-1874) who died at sixteen and whom she lovingly remembered in an 1898 entry on what would have been his 40th birthday. Following his father Leopold’s death some months earlier in the same year, Hans would ordinarily have inherited the mantle as patriarch of the family. Instead this role was assumed by the next oldest son, Stanislaus “Stasch” von Koschembahr (1859-1914).
Notably, Stanislaus von Koschembahr was permanently transferred on the 1st of April 1898 to the German General Staff, also known as the Great General Staff [German: Großen-Generalstab]. This was a very big deal, as this was the full-time body responsible for military planning and strategy, initially for the Prussian Army and later for the German Army. Stanislaus was killed in Mulhouse in Alsace-Lorraine on the 9th of August 1914. At the time, General von Koschembahr was commanding the 84th Infantry Brigade.
An entry that Amalie records on the 6th of May 1898 speaks indirectly to Stanislaus’ negative attitude towards some of his sibling’s partners. When his younger sister Susanna Friederike von Koschembahr (1869-1903) got engaged to her future husband Friedrich “Fritz” Otto Freiherr von Ripperda (1864-1922), Amalie remarked that happily this marriage would not cause any conflict among her children because Susanna and Fritz would behave as relatives to Wilhelm and Gretchen Bruck. The implication is that contrary to the marriage of the latter, which Stanislaus opposed, he favored Susanna’s marriage. There are two ostensible reasons he did not approve of Gretchen’s alliance. First, Stanislaus considered Wilhelm to be non-aristocratic and second, he disapproved because Wilhelm was Jewish.
Stanislaus apparently held the same negative views towards his younger brother Leo’s selection of the “commoner” Alice Auerbach as his spouse; she too was Jewish. Here is what Amalie writes: “Since Stanislaus did not agree to this marriage, he behaved with reserve and, unfortunately, not in a friendly manner towards Alice. It was certainly painful for Leo to bring about a rift, but he had no choice, as he had to remain loyal and steadfast to his Alice. So there was another rift between the siblings, and it hurt me immensely. Of course, there was nothing we could do about it—we had to bear it and wait to see whether time and insight would help bring about a reconciliation.” Amalie later notes that Stanislaus and Leo eventually reconciled.
It is also noteworthy that Stanislaus (Figure 13) attended the wedding of Wilhelm and Margarete Bruck’s eldest son, Gerhard Bruck, when he married Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch (Figure 14a-c) on the 21st of March 1914. This suggests Stanislaus may also eventually have reached an “accommodation” with his sister and her husband, possibly because his nephew married an aristocrat.
As previously noted, Gretchen and Wilhelm Bruck had five children. Amalie remarks on Wilhelm’s appointment to the Justizrat, Judicial Council, on the 17th of December 1897. Gretchen and Wilhelm appeared to have had a warm relationship. On his 48th birthday in 1898, and on subsequent birthdays, Gretchen wrote short plays for the children to perform that were the source of great merriment. The scenes are so intimate they are easily imagined.
Amalie’s diary, written as it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, reflects societal approval of Germany’s colonial expansionism. She remarks very favorably on Germany’s 1897 takeover of Jiaozhou Bay [German: Kiautschou Bucht] in China. In 1898, a formal lease agreement was reached between the Germans and the imperial Chinese government. The Kiautschou Bay Leased Territory was a German leased territory in Imperial and Early Republican China from 1898 to 1914. It covered 213 square miles and was centered on Jiaozhou Bay on the southern coast of the Shandong Peninsula. The Russian Empire resented the German move as an infringement on their ambitions in the region.
Germany was a latecomer to the imperialistic scramble for colonies. Germany had two primary objectives, using the German colony to support a global naval presence and to support the economy of the mother country. Densely populated China was viewed as a potential market to be exploited with expansionist thinkers demanding an active colonial policy from the government. China was made a high priority because it was deemed to be the most important non-European market in the world.
Amalie remarked on how she was closely following the Spanish-American War of 1898, which had not yet been decided at the time she wrote. She may have oversimplified the cause of the war attributing it to “Spain’s poor economics.” The mysterious explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, which killed 266 American sailors, was the major catalyst for war. While the cause of the explosion has never been fully determined, many Americans blamed Spain. Sensationalized news coverage by American newspapers, referred to as “yellow journalism,” exaggerated Spanish atrocities in Cuba and inflamed public opinion, pushing for intervention. American business interests, particularly in the sugar industry, may also have played a part in intervention by America, prodded by businessmen who sought stability and continued profits.
Another contemporary conflict Amalie followed and remarked disapprovingly upon was the Second Boer War (1899-1902), also known as the Boer War, Transvaal War, Anglo-Boer War, or South African War. This was a conflict fought between the British Empire and the two Boer republics, the South African Republic and the Orange Free State, over the Empire’s influence in Southern Africa. The Boers were descendants of Dutch colonists, along with French Huguenots and other European settlers, who established a colony at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. The descendants of the Dutch colonists are known as Afrikaners.
Amalie remarked the following: “It is the most unjust war that nations have ever waged, and the English are losing respect and prestige. How outrageous is their cruelty against a peaceful people who, through toil and tireless work, have created a flourishing empire.” Seen through a modern-day prism, the mistreatment and subjugation of the native population would render a more negative assessment of the Afrikaners.
Of scant interest to readers but of personal curiosity was that Gretchen and Wilhelm’s eldest son Gerhard was allowed to take a vacation to Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland] during Easter 1900. Ratibor in Upper Silesia, as regular readers may recall, is where my father was born and where my family had a presence that lasted more than 100 years. Gerhard visited his widowed great-aunt Friederike “Fritzel” Mockrauer (i.e., Amalie’s sister married to Fedor Bruck, already deceased at the time Gerhard visited) while his father and sister relaxed in Krummhübel [today: Karpacz, Poland] near today’s Karkonosze National Park, which straddles the Polish-Czech border. This is a popular ski resort, and near where my father went skiing with friends many years later. (Figure 15) Given this is a place various members of my family vacationed over the years, my wife and I have decided to include it as a destination during our upcoming holiday in Poland and the Czech Republic.
I’m interested in this for two reasons. My famed ancestor Dr. Walther Wolfgang Bruck (1872-1937) from Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland] was the personal dentist to Kaiser Wilhelm’s second wife Princess Hermine Reuss of Greiz (Figure 16), possibly the Kaiser himself, and other members of the Prussian aristocracy. More directly, the German Crown Prince’s wife, Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, visited the flower shop and school owned by my great-aunt Franziska Bruck in Berlin. Official postcards and photographs exist of this visit, one I guess took place in the early to mid-1910s. (Figure 17)
Amalie describes the Berlin scene preceding the Crown Prince’s marriage (Figures 18 & 21): “Even though, at my advanced age, I couldn’t see much due to the associated exertion, the general enthusiasm filled me with joyful participation, especially when my grandchildren returned home from their outings and spoke with delight about all the splendors they had seen. But at least I was able to admire the Unter der Linden boulevard, as Gretchen took a carriage for a ride. The street was transformed into a rose garden, and Pariser Platz, with its tall masts adorned with rich rose tufts in the sun, looked like something out of a fairytale. And the Opera House was beautifully decorated above all else. Long, yellow-tinted garlands of rhododendrons hung from top to bottom, and large bushes on balconies, windows, and corners, as well as the Crown Prince’s Palace, were framed with pink roses and greenery, even all the window frames. One can imagine there was no way there could have been such an abundance of natural, precious roses at the beginning of June, so everything was decorated with artificial ones. Despite the tremendous heat that had prevailed here for days, masses of people gathered in the streets and squares, participating in the event in our Imperial Palace with astonishing stamina and such sincere, enthusiastic joy that every heart had to rejoice. The young bride was immensely popular. The young couple, in general, won the full sympathy of the crowd through their friendliness they gratefully extended to the enthusiastic people. Our Emperor was also very pleased by his people’s joyful participation in the joy that moved his father’s heart. He expressed it in a wonderful speech at the wedding banquet; few can speak like this ruler with his great understanding, spirit, and kind heart.”
In an entry Amalie recorded on the 13th of October 1906 she reflects on her life. In part she writes:
“My upbringing was such that I lacked any practical experience, and this became particularly detrimental to me now that, at the age of 21, when I married, I found myself in circumstances of which I had no idea. My upbringing at home was, in terms of education and the formation of the heart, the best imaginable and even astonishing for that time in the early 19th century, in a simple middle-class home. . .My parents valued decency and morals, raised us very modestly and unpretentiously, but never discussed in depth our future and our destiny in the event of marriage [Editor’s note: this is a criticism of the complete lack of knowledge in sexual matters]. Such matters were strictly kept at arm’s length, as was business knowledge, which must be important to a woman.”
She continues, characterizing her husband’s equal level of idealism and inexperience, and the detrimental effects:
“The great inclination and enthusiasm of youth prevailed. My husband, at 26, was just as idealistic and inexperienced as I was, and we lived like children in fairy tales. The awakening was very bitter, and since my husband never explained or confided in me the financial situation we were living in, I only learned in outline about the situation, which had already been poor when I married. The estate of Mittel-Sohra near Görlitz was too large for the means available to my husband, and since I received only a very small dowry, it was too difficult to maintain myself there. The estate was beautiful and, as I imagined, a profitable property, but it required a great deal of diligence, energy, and enthusiasm to make progress, even with extreme frugality. My husband lacked all of this, and I was far too inexperienced to support and encourage him as a loyal companion.”
Ultimately, notwithstanding the fact that Leopold von Koschembahr’s mother gave him money to pay the usurious rates to which he was subjected, creditors repossessed their home in 1856-57. Having saved the capital the couple had received from Leopold’s mother, they began to search for a house in Amalie’s hometown of Tost [today: Toszek, Poland] in Upper Silesia. While waiting for the proper opportunity to buy another estate, Amalie ruefully notes Leopold was led “. . .to the incredible idea of investing the money in speculative securities. At the time, the Union War was raging in America, and American securities were being traded. My husband speculated with these securities and lost all his money. That was a terrible blow—for we were not only penniless, but there were also differences to be paid, for which we didn’t have the money. Now, the courts were still at risk of seizing all our belongings.” Friends and relatives, fortunately, pooled money to help the couple pay their debts and lease a property near Posen [today: Poznań, Poland]. However, because of Leopold’s character, as Amalie describes it, “. . .a serious, steady mind was out of the question. He was composed of kindness and great weakness, an invincible stubbornness and idealism.” Because of Leopold’s failings, the couple eventually also lost the lease on the estate near Posen. Suffice it to say that while Leopold may have been an entitled member of the aristocracy, he was imbued with a terrible business sense.
Given her fondness for her son-in-law, my great-great-uncle Wilhelm Bruck, expectedly Amalie remarks on his sudden death on the 15th of February 1907, then again in 1909 on the anniversary of his death. Naturally, she records the deaths of her daughter Susanna in 1903 and her son Leo in 1908, bemoaning the fact she’s outlived them.
Interestingly, Amalie remarks on the celebration of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s birthday on the 27th of January 1909, a fact that will seem curious to an American audience. Unlike our American President, the German Kaiser was seen as the embodiment of German national identity and the leader who would guide the nation towards greatness. Initially, the Kaiser was seen as a symbol of national unity and strength, but his personality and policies, particularly as they impacted the First World War, led to a shift in perception.
Among Amalie Mockrauer’s siblings was a younger sister named Rosalie Mockrauer (1844-1927) (Figure 19) who was married to Dr. Josef Pauly (1843-1916) (Figure 20), the subject of Post 56. Rosalie and Josef lived in Posen [today: Poznań, Poland] and had nine children, eight of whom were girls. Suffice it to say, that many of the distant cousins whom I’ve found and am presently in contact with, are related to me directly or indirectly through the Mockrauers or their in-laws (e.g., Pauly, Kantorowicz).
Amalie died in August 1918, shortly before World War I ended in November 1918. Surprisingly, she makes no mention in her diary of the war, only a passing reference in 1909 of the unrest among Serbian nationalists against Austro-Hungarian rule. World War I was later sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.
There is so much more I could extract from Amalie’s memoir, but I’ve simply highlighted a few items to discuss that transcend my own family, hoping this might be of slightly greater interest to readers.
Note: In this post, I discuss a so-called “castle” presently located in southwestern Poland that was once owned by the noble von Koschembahr family. My great-granduncle Wilhelm Bruck married into this family and adopted his wife’s matronymic. The manor house which survives in dilapidated condition was once the home of his father-in-law’s two widowed sisters.
In Post 115, I introduced readers to Wilhelm Bruck (1849-1907) (Figure 1), one of my great granduncles, who married Margarete von Koschembahr (1860-1948) (Figure 2) on the 14th of September 1884 in Berlin, Germany. Wilhelm was the younger brother of my great-grandfather Fedor Bruck (1834-1892) (Figure 3), the second-generation owner of the family business in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland], the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel.
Upon their marriage, Wilhelm added his wife’s matronymic to his name. The unusual adoption of a wife’s surname most typically happened when the wife was a so-called peer, that’s to say, was a hereditary titled noble in her own right. The result was that Wilhelm and his descendants became known as “Bruck-von Koschembahr,” though the Bruck surname was dropped entirely upon the family’s arrival in America.
By all measures the von Koschembahr descendants are my distant relatives though until the year before last I’d never been in contact with any members of this branch. While my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck was particularly impressed with links to nobiliary members on our ancestral line, took special pains to note them in his hand drawn ancestral trees, and may even have been in touch with members of this branch, this has never been of explicit interest to me. Regardless, in December 2023, I was contacted by an American descendant of this offshoot of my family, Christopher von Koschembahr. Christopher mentioned his mother had stumbled upon my blog. He also explained he was the son of Dieter von Koschembahr (1929-1995), who I knew to be one of the grandsons of Wilhelm Bruck and Margarete von Koschembahr.
As an aside, during our exchanges, Christopher asked when my father changed his surname from “Bruck” to “Brook.” I didn’t know at the time. However, in connection with my ongoing German citizenship application, I’ve since learned my father became Gary Otto Brook upon becoming an American citizen in July 1955. I think Christopher’s question stemmed from the fact that he serendipitously named his daughter “Brookes,” so had the original surname been retained, she would have been known as “Brookes Bruck.”
In March 2024, Christopher mentioned to me his intention to visit one of the former family estates currently located southwestern Poland, a short distance northeast of the German border town of Görlitz. Embedded in this email was a message from my third cousin, Kurt Polborn, to Christopher with some of the historical background on the property and the name of the Polish town where the estate is located, Żarki Średnie. Like Kurt and me, Christopher and Kurt are third cousins. A brief digression before I discuss what I know of the von Koschembahr family property and its former residents.
As I explained in the previous post, Post 172, upon learning that Christopher’s family once owned a “castle” in what is today called Żarki Średnie, Poland (Figure 4), I turned to a comprehensive 1893 map of Silesia once sent to me by Paul Newerla. I had discovered the town was called “Kesselbach” during the Prussian era, though was unable to find it on the detailed Silesian map. This is when I turned to the 1:25,000 scale “Urmesstischblätter” military maps discussed in my prior article. (Figure 5) After learning Żarki Średnie/Kesselbach was located 7.5km or 4.66 miles northeast of Gorlitz, I located it on map number “4756-Penzig/Pieńsk.” (Figures 6a-c)
I was unable to find Kesselbach in the meyersgaz.org database even by using “star as a wildcard” in the “Search” bar. This points out the advantage of having several different map sources one can turn to. It was only after I found an old postcard on eBay referring to the castle as “Schloß-Mittel Sohra” (Figure 7) that I found “Mittel Sohra,” in meyersgaz.org. (Figure 8)
Based on the picture in Wikipedia of the von Koschembahr “manor house,” as they refer to it, the mansion appeared to be maintained and in very good shape. (Figure 9) Other pictures found online seemed to corroborate this. (Figure 10) This was a grand illusion as Christopher discovered when he visited the former family estate in July 2024. (Figure 11) While the structure is still standing, the floors and roof are collapsing, the windows and doors are missing or broken, and roots are growing through the foundations and openings. (Figures 12a-b) When Christopher used hand gestures to communicate with Polish laborers working nearby on the day he visited, they gesticulated that tossing a hand grenade into the building would solve the problem.
As a retired archaeologist I have come across multiple such historic structures over the years while conducting pedestrian surveys on the public lands in the western United States. This is one reason the deteriorating mansion holds a peculiar fascination for me, different than it may for the average reader. Adding this to the history that my cousin Kurt Polborn told me about the place, I’ve been able to relate it to specific individuals who lived there. This is not always possible even with recent historic era ruins.
Let me relate the part of the story I’ve been told and connect it to historic documents I’ve uncovered.
I told readers at the outset of this post that my great granduncle Wilhelm Bruck married Margarete von Koschembahr and added her matronymic to his surname. Margarete’s father was Leopold von Koschembahr (1829-1874) (Figure 13) married to Amalie Mockrauer (1834-1918). (Figure 14) As a quick aside, my Bruck ancestors are related by marriage to Mockrauers over several generations, but that’s a story for another day.
Leopold von Koschembahr was Kurt Polborn’s great-great-grandfather. According to Kurt, Leopold filed for bankruptcy on a few occasions, and his large family would likely not have survived without the help of his mother and his Jewish in-laws. Amalie Mockrauer wrote in her diary about the financial disasters of her married life.
As a reflection of the self-perceived “superiority” of the nobility vis a vis the bourgeoisie, upon Wilhelm Bruck’s death in 1907, his widow Margarete dropped the Bruck surname and reverted to her maiden name.
Returning to the ruined manor house in Żarki Średnie, according to Kurt, Leopold von Koschembahr’s had two sisters. The older one was Julie Leopoldine Anna von Koschembahr (1827-1883), referred to as “Anna”; the younger was Isidore Mathilde Helene von Koschembahr (1833-1887), familiarly called “Isidore.” Though they were six years apart, both got married the same year in 1859. Anna married Adolph von Blankensee (1812-1871) (Figures 15a-b), while Isidore wed Major Otto von Heugel (1826-1871). (Figures 16a-b)
Their respective husbands fought in the Franco-Prussian War, also known as the Franco-German War of 1870-1871. Both died during this conflict in France within weeks of one another. Adolph von Blankensee died from Typhus on the 11th of January 1871, while his brother-in-law Otto von Heugel died on the 29th of January 1871 in a place called La-Queue-en-Brie (Figures 17a-b), a commune in the southeastern suburbs of Paris. Following their husbands’ deaths, the widows apparently lived together in the family manor in Kesselbach until their deaths. Both are recorded as having died in Görlitz, the largest nearby town.
The only known depiction of Anna von Koschembahr is an endearing painting from ca. 1830 standing alongside her younger brother Leopold. (Figure 18) The original of this painting is owned by the descendants of Kurt’s recently deceased uncle, Clemens von Koschembahr, Chistopher von Koschembahr’s uncle. In Post 75, I wrote about this Biedermeier-style painting because my third cousin, Agnes Stieda, née Vogel, owns a replica of this painting. (Figure 19) How a copy of this painting came to be made is unknown.
No images are known of Isidore. However, given the extensive von Koschembahr family, it is probable that a likeness of her survives among the family’s ephemera. It is my hope that one of her von Koschembahr descendants may stumble upon my blog and scrutinize their family photos.
The history of the von Koschembahr manor house is unknown. Discovery of the so-called “grundbuch,” the German land register that records property ownership and other details that would have been maintained by a special division of the local court, would provide details on the castle’s construction and ownership. Whether the grundbuch survived the devastation of WWII is also unknown.
I can only surmise what happened to the manor house following Isidore’s death in 1887. Neither Anna or Isidore had any children, However, a younger von Koschembahr sibling, Erich Wilhelm Adolf von Koschembahr (1836-1890), had two daughters, and one may have inherited the property. I would posit the estate continued to be owned by Anna and Isidore’s descendants since titled families tended to own multiple estates around the country. Regardless of what happened to the property following the death of the two widows, there can be no doubt the family lost ownership of the estate at the end of WWII when the family fled the area as the Russians were approaching.
Pictures of the manor house, including the one on Wikipedia, show the shell of the castle still in restorable condition. These pictures, probably taken in the last 10-15 years, suggest that someone lived in and maintained the property until shortly before then. I strongly suspect I’ll eventually write a postscript to this post as I learn more about the history of the von Koschembahr manor house.
The dilapidated remains of the von Koschembahr castle in Żarki Średnie holds a particular appeal to me as a retired archaeologist. Because most historic era remains found throughout the United States are not related to titled families or known individuals and are assuredly not connected to my family, learning of a surviving structure that is piques my interest. I’ll leave it at that.
Note: In this Blog post, I introduce readers to the “Fold3” database, which primarily provides access to military records and documents on the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, and WWII, incorporating the stories, photos, and personal documents of the men and women who served in these conflicts. Utilizing ancestry.com, I will explain how I chanced upon naturalization documents in Fold3 for members of the von Koschembahr branch of my family that supplement what I found on ancestry and that may be similarly useful to readers in their own familial endeavors. This post is part of a series of infrequent installments where I give readers clues on accessing ancestral databases.
As discussed in Post 115, Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr (1885-1961) arrived in America with his wife Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch (1891-1954) in October 1938 with ten of their thirteen children (Figure 1), having by then dropped the “Bruck” portion of his surname and going simply by Gerhard von Koschembahr. A Passenger Manifest shows the arrival of the family in New York on the 1st of October 1938 from Le Havre, France aboard the “SS Paris.” (Figure 2) A New York Times article dated the 2nd of October 1938 reported on Gerhard and Hilda von Koschembahr’s arrival in New York and confirmed the names of their ten children traveling with them. (Figure 3) Included at the end of this post is a vital statistics table for Gerhard and Hilda von Koschembahr and their 13 children, only one of whom still survives.
Readers familiar with ancestry.com know that attached to each of the persons in one’s family tree are “leaves” representing clues possibly related to the individual in question. I carefully reviewed all the clues attached to Gerhard and Hilda and their children. Of acute interest were forms labelled either “U.S. Federal Naturalization Records, 1787-1991” (Figures 4a-b) or “Naturalization Petition and Record Books, 1888-1946” (Figures 5a-b); the latter are particularly interesting because they often include photographs attached to the petitions. I have mentioned in previous Blog posts, but it is worth reiterating here, that finding photographs of people in my family tree makes those people seem tangible and real.
The aforementioned “U.S. Federal Naturalization Records, 1787-1991” linked to some of the von Koschembahr family members mostly originate from Maine (see Figures 4a-b); upon their arrival in America, as the 1938 New York Times article pointed out, the family settled in Portland, Maine so this connection makes sense. In the case of Gerhard von Koschembahr, the form he signed on the 22nd of August 1939 in the U.S. District Court of Portland, Maine entitled “Declaration of Intention” does not include an attached photograph. (Figure 6a) HOWEVER, the same form with precisely the same information and identically typed date that is found among the “Ohio, U.S., Naturalization Petition and Record Books, 1888-1946,” under “Naturalizations—Ohio Northern,” has an attached photo. (Figure 6b) Similarly, page two of Gerhard’s “Declaration of Intention” form found in the two databases includes one version of the form with a photo, the other without. (Figures 7a-b) The latter forms with the attached photos from the Northern District of Ohio are postmarked “N.D.O.” and are dated “Apr 25 1944,” but in all other aspects contain the same information. For Cornelia Hilda, I could only find the two pages of her Declaration of Intention form with photos. (see Figures 9a-b)
According to what is printed in the upper lefthand corner of the Declaration of Intention form, it was completed in triplicate; the “Original” without the picture was kept by the clerk but the one labelled “Triplicate” was supposedly to be given to the declarant. If this is the case, how then have ones with pictures wound up in the official Naturalization Record Books?
There is a reason I painstakingly explain the above to readers. To be sure that one has found all the naturalization and petition forms that may exist for an immigrant ancestor, one should not only check ancestry.com, but should also peruse ancestry’s “Fold3” database. I’ll return to the specifics of what supplementary materials may exist in those forms below but let me digress and briefly tell readers about Fold3.
Fold3 began in 1999 as “iArchives,” and was involved in digitizing historical newspapers and other archival content for universities, libraries, and media companies across the country. In January 2007, they launched “Footnote.com” by digitizing 5 million original documents, many of which were military related. Then, in October of 2010 ancestry.com purchased iArchives, and rebranded it as Fold3 as part of its effort to make it a premier website for military records. According to their website, “The Fold3 name comes from a traditional flag folding ceremony in which the third fold is made in honor and remembrance of veterans who served in defense of their country and to maintain peace throughout the world.” Today, the database includes documents on the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, U.S. presidents, historical newspapers, and naturalization documents.
Since ancestry owns Fold3, I assumed all the information in Fold3 is included in ancestry.com; this may well be true, but it was only by accessing BOTH databases that I found all the naturalization documents related to the von Koschembahrs.
In trying to access a “Declaration of Intention” form on ancestry for one member of this family, possibly by mistake, I was unable to open it but discovered it was in the Fold3 database. Since I know my local library not only has an institutional version of ancestry but also one for Fold3, I was successfully able to retrieve the form in this manner. I then realized that not only does Fold3 include military records but also contains naturalization documents for immigrant arrivals. It took me a while to navigate Fold 3, but I eventually learned that naturalization records for the following regions and cities are digitized:
Naturalization Index—California San Diego (A-Z)
Naturalization Index—Massachusetts (1866-1983 with gaps)
Naturalization Index—Maryland (1703-1968 with gaps)
Naturalization Index—New York Eastern (July 1865-September 1906)
Naturalization Index—New York Eastern (October 1906-November 1925)
Naturalization Index—New York Eastern (November 1925-December 1957)
Naturalization Index—New York Southern Intentions (A-Z)
Naturalization Index—New York Southern Petitions (1810-1964 with gaps)
Naturalization Index—Western (1892-1988 with gaps)
Naturalization Index—New York City Courts (1792-1958 with minor gaps)
Naturalization Index—WWI Soldiers (A-Z)
Naturalizations—California Los Angeles (A-Z)
Naturalizations—California San Diego (A-Z)
Naturalizations—California Southern (A-Z)
Naturalizations—Los Angeles Eastern (by “Birth Country”)
Naturalizations—Massachusetts (U.S. District Court)
Naturalizations—Maryland (by “Birth Country”)
Naturalizations—New York Eastern (by “Birth Country”)
Naturalizations—New York Southern (by “Birth Country”)
Naturalizations—Pennsylvania Middle (Circuit Court and District Court, 1901-1906; District Court, 1906-1911; District Court 1909-1911; District Court 1910-1930; District Court 1911-1916)
Naturalizations—Pennsylvania Western (Records of the US Circuit and District Courts: Declarations of Intent and Petitions. 1798-1959 with gaps)
I found the specific information on the von Koschembahr branch of my family in Fold3 under “Naturalizations—Ohio Northern.” (Figures 8a-b) Simply typing the surname in the “Search” bar on the portal page of Fold3 will yield the broadest number of hits; occasionally one may have to search for one’s relatives using name variations. Case in point. There may be as many as ten different variations by which to search for Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr since she was a baroness in her own right and was a descendant of the Roosevelt family (e.g., Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch; Hilda Cornelia Roosevelt Koschembahr; Gabriela Hedwig Clementina Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr; etc.).
In the case of the father Gerhard von Koschembahr’s “Declaration of Intention” form, suffice it to say, a lot of vital data are provided. Because Gerhard had 13 children, a separate form was attached, naming them, and giving their dates and places of birth. While this information was previously known to me from elsewhere, had it not been this would have been useful ancestral information. On Gerhard’s wife’s “Declaration of Intention” form, her vital data is similarly shown, and the identical form attached with the names and vitals of her children. (Figures 9a-b)
In addition to Gerhard and Hilda’s 1939 Declaration of Intention forms, in Fold3, for both I discovered combined 1945 “Affidavit of Witness” and “Oath of Allegiance” forms (Figures 10-11); 1939 “Certificate of Arrival” forms (Figures 12-13); and 1939 “Petition for Naturalization” forms which were withdrawn in December 1944. (Figures 14-15)
As mentioned above, Gerhard and Hilda arrived in America on the 1st of October 1938 with ten of their thirteen children. I was able to find forms with photos like those of their parents for only four of the children (Figures 16-19); two were also required to sign “Certificates of Loyalty.” (Figures 20a-b) For two of the boys, Clemens (Figures 21a-b) and Hans (John) Christoph von Koschembahr (Figures 22a-b), I found their WWII Registration cards since both were of an age appropriate to be drafted into the armed forces. This is something I would have expected to find in Fold3 since the database includes primarily military records.
In closing I would simply advise readers coming across naturalization and petition records for immigrant ancestors to check both ancestry.com and Fold3, naturally as well as other ancestral databases, to ensure you have not inadvertently overlooked anything. And you too may be rewarded by finding photos of your predecessors.
VITAL STATISTICS FOR GERHARD VON KOSCHEMBAHR, CORNELIA HILDA VON ZEDLITZ UND NEUKIRCH, & THEIR THIRTEEN CHILDREN
NAME
(relationship)
VITAL EVENT
DATE
PLACE
SOURCE OF DATA
Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr (self)
Birth
28 July 1885
Berlin, Germany
Berlin, Germany birth certificate
Marriage (to Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch)
21 March 1914
Dresden, Germany
Dresden, Germany marriage certificate
Death
3 October 1961
Rye, Westchester, New York
New York State, U.S. Death Index, 1957-1970; headstone
Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch (wife)
Birth
1 April 1891
Berlin, Germany
Berlin, Germany birth certificate
Marriage (to Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr)
21 March 1914
Dresden, Germany
Dresden, Germany marriage certificate
Death
26 May 1954
Port Chester, Westchester, New York
New York, U.S. Death Index, 1852-1956; headstone
Gisela von Koschembahr (daughter)
Birth
24 November 1914
Berlin, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
1 January 1999
Palmdale, Los Angeles, California
Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014
Irmela von Koschembahr (daughter)
Birth
7 November 1915
Berlin, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
15 September 2001
Mayfield Heights, Cuyahoga, Ohio
Ohio, U.S. Death Records, 1908-1932, 1938-2018
Gerhard von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
22 January 1917
Berlin, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
11 May 1996
New York City, New York
Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014
Gundula von Koschembahr Daughter)
Birth
13 November 1918
Berlin, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
16 August 2004
Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga, Ohio
Ohio, U.S. Death Records, 1908-1932, 1938-2018
Heinz-Hasso von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
3 December 1919
Baden-Baden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
19 March 1999
Winnetka, Cook, Illinois
Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014
Wolfgang von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
1 July 1921
Dresden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
22 June 1996
Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio
Ohio, U.S. Death Records, 1908-1932, 1938-2018
Ursula von Koschembahr (daughter)
Birth
14 September 1923
Dresden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
31 October 2018
Pennsylvania
U.S., Cemetery and Funeral Home Collection, 1847-Current
Cordula von Koschembahr (daughter)
Birth
28 November 1924
Dresden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
15 December 2004
U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007
Clemens von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
20 February 1926
Dresden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
Living
Hans Christoph von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
28 May 1927
Dresden, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
20 June 2006
Middletown, Connecticut
Connecticut Death Index, 1949-2012
Dietrich von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
10 July 1929
Erfurt, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
6 January 1995
U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007
Edela von Koschembahr (daughter)
Birth
23 May 1931
Erfurt, Germany
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Death
24 November 2001
U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014
Gottfried von Koschembahr (son)
Birth
5 November 1934
Bern, Switzerland
1939 “Declaration of Intention” U.S. Naturalization forms for Gerhard & Cornelia Hilda von Koschembahr
Note: In this post, I introduce readers to my great-grandfather Fedor Bruck’s youngest brother, Wilhelm Bruck, who in 1884 married a noblewoman, Mathilde Margarethe von Koschembahr. This resulted in the nobiliary particle “von” being added to the Bruck surname in merged form as “Bruck von Koschembahr”; in the subsequent generation the “Bruck” part of the surname was dropped altogether. I also talk briefly in this installment about German nobility.
In Post 113, I acquainted readers with Oskar Bruck (1831-1892), the oldest of my great-great-grandparents Samuel Bruck (1808-1863) and Charlotte Bruck née Marle’s (1809-1861) nine children. This provided an opportunity to discuss Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese Consul in Lithuania at the outset of WWII, one of Yad Vashem’s “Right Among the Nations,” whose courageous actions helped save one of Oskar’s daughters, son-in-law, and grandson. Then, in Post 114, I discussed Samuel and Charlotte Bruck’s eighth born child, Helena Strauss née Bruck (1845-1910), one of whose daughters, son-in-law, and grandson were likely murdered in either Auschwitz-Birkenau or Buchenwald. The fate of Oskar and Helena’s descendants could not have been more divergent.
In the current post, I will focus on the youngest of Samuel and Charlotte Bruck’s children, Wilhelm Bruck (1849-1907) (Figure 1), along with his descendants. Happily, their destinies had a more favorable outcome. In this essay I will switch gears and introduce readers to a custom that was occasionally followed by German bridegrooms upon marriage to a woman of German nobility. Such is the case with Wilhelm Bruck who on the 14th of September 1884 married a Mathilde Margarethe von Koschembahr (Figures 2-3), a noblewoman eleven years his junior. Wilhelm Bruck was a “Justizrat,” justice counsel, and he and Mathilde had five children (see vital statistics table at the end of this post).
Let me begin by quoting from a page of a much larger document (Figure 4) explaining the transition of the Bruck surname within this branch of the family, first to Bruck von Koschembahr, then subsequently to simply von Koschembahr as the Bruck part was unofficially dropped. The citation below appears to be from a history of the von Koschembahr family probably written by Gisela von Koschembahr (Figure 5), the oldest daughter of Wilhelm and Mathilde’s first-born son, Gerhard Bruck-von Koschembahr. I found several pages of this longer document on a family tree on ancestry.com attached to Mathilde’s profile, and am trying, as we speak, to obtain the complete account:
“By virtue of his father, Wilhelm Bruck, our father (‘Vati’) was born Gerhard Bruck. Through ‘adoption’ by an unmarried aunt, Mathilde von Koschembahr (his mother’s sister) (Figure 6), he added his mother’s maiden name to his father’s name in 1924. For several years thereafter, our family was officially known as Bruck von Koschembahr (and Vati’s mother called herself that also), until by the time our family moved to Switzerland (1934), the Bruck was quietly (not officially) dropped altogether.”
In this context, I will briefly explain German titles of nobility, surnames of the German nobility and what is referred to as the nobiliary particle. As in the case of the von Koschembahr family name, most surnames of the German nobility were preceded by or contained the preposition von (meaning “of”) or zu (meaning “at”) as a nobiliary particle, simply to signal the nobility of a family.
The prepositions von and zu were occasionally combined (meaning “of and at”) In general, the von form indicates the family’s place of origin, while the zu form indicates the family’s continued possession of the estate from which the surname is drawn. Therefore, von und zu indicates a family which is both named for and continues to own the original feudal holding or residence. Case in point. An example of this can be seen in the vital statistics table at the end of this post for Wilhelm Bruck von Koschembahr’s eldest child, Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr (Figure 7), who married Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch. (Figure 8) As a related aside, since Gerhard already had the nobiliary particle von as part of his surname, he had no need to adopt his wife’s surname upon their marriage in 1914 (Figure 9), unlike his father.
Perhaps because I am only half-German and not in contact with any descendants of the von Koschembahr branch of my family, the attachment of the nobiliary particle von to my surname is remarkably uninteresting. That said, my good friend Peter Hanke, the “Wizard of Wolfsburg,” who often assists me and others in their ancestral searches, is regularly asked whether he can confirm the noble descent within a questioner’s family (i.e., “My grandmother said. . .”); the desire for a family coat of arms or an affiliation to a noble branch comes to the fore, as Peter says, which both he and I find odd.
This said, I have a few of my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck’s surviving papers, including a schematic and much abbreviated diagram of his family tree. (Figure 10) The only one of his grandfather Fedor Bruck’s eight siblings he shows on this simplified tree is Wilhelm Bruck who married Margarethe von Koschembahr (i.e., who my uncle identifies as “Grete v. Koschembahr”). Then, as if to further stress the importance he placed on connections to nobility, the only one of Wilhelm and Margarethe’s five children he shows is Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr who, as noted above, also married a noble, Cornelia Hilda von Zedlitz und Neukirch, identified by my uncle as “Freiin v. Zedlitz & Leipe.” “Freiin” means Baroness in German.
Continuing. Gisela von Koschembahr, whose family history I cited above, describes the position of her family in the order of German nobility, and, again, I quote what she has to say:
“It may be useful here to delineate the relative position of the von Koschembahrs in the order of the German nobility—(or ‘Adel,’ a Medieval German word meaning ‘edel’ or noble). The German nobility, as that of other countries, originally comprised the most able-bodied and distinguished (in the service of a king or prince=‘Fürst’) families in the nation; later it came to mean a class endowed with special personal property and tax privileges. While these official privileges were abolished in Germany (and Austria) at the end of World War I, the nobility continues to be—regardless of the individual family’s financial status—highly regarded, socially prominent, and exclusive among themselves. The order from top down is as follows:
Herzöge (dukes)
Fürsten (princes)
Grafen (counts)
Freiherrn (barons)
Uradel (genuine nobility)
Briefadel (nobility by letter)
(The writer acknowledges there may be another category ‘Adel’ between Uradel and Briefadel.)
The von Koschembahrs belonged to the next-to-last category, the Uradel, hereditary nobility since the 10th century, including in modern times all families whose origins as nobility are recorded in public documents before 1350. Uradel, like Freiherrn and Graf, was bestowed by a duke or prince upon a member of his entourage who was especially deserving for services rendered or distinguished in some other way. Land grants and/or decorations usually accompanied bestowal of the title of the title (although less extensive or valuable as for higher grades of nobility), and the family’s name was henceforth preceded by ‘von.’ The last is also true of the ‘Briefadel,’ but it was bestowed by letter; in more recent times, and unlike the other forms of nobility, could be purchased with money from a sovereign in need of funds. Due to the Uradel’s greater age, the meaning of the family names is usually unrecognizable.”
Without getting too deeply into it, let me briefly emphasize and supplement what Gisela von Koschembahr wrote about German nobility. They along with royalty were status groups having their origins in medieval society in Central Europe. Relative to other people, they enjoyed certain privileges under the laws and customs in the German-speaking areas until the beginning of the 20th century. Historically, German entities that recognized or conferred nobility included the Holy Roman Emperor (A.D. 962-1806), the German Confederation (A.D. 1814-1866), and the German Empire (1871-1918). As Gisela alluded to, the sovereigns had a policy of expanding their political base by ennobling rich businessmen with no noble ancestors. Germany’s nobility flourished during its rapid industrialization and urbanization after 1850 as the number of wealthy businessmen increased.
The monarchy in Germany, as well as in Austria, was abolished in 1919. In August 1919, at the beginning of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), which would eventually be displaced by the Nazis, Germany’s first democratic government officially abolished royalty and nobility, and the respective legal privileges and immunities having to do with an individual, a family, or any heirs. In Germany, this meant that legally von simply became an ordinary part of the surnames of the people who used it. According to German alphabetical sorting, people with von in their surnames, both of noble and non-noble descent, were listed in phone books and other files under the rest of their names (i.e., in the case of Gerhard von Koschembahr, had he returned to Germany after WWII, his surname would have been found under K in the phone book rather than under V).
In closing I would simply note that among some members of my extended family descended from Wilhelm and Mathilde’s children, the “disappearance” of the Bruck surname in this branch of the family is a persistent irritant and constant source of ancestral confusion. Their descendants would be my third or fourth cousins, one or two generations removed, but since our surnames are different mostly because of a random decision, I have no contact with this branch. So, I ask myself, “What’s in a name?”
VITAL STATISTICS FOR WILHELM BRUCK, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR FIVE CHILDREN
NAME
(relationship)
VITAL EVENT
DATE
PLACE
SOURCE OF DATA
Wilhelm Bruck (self)
Birth
23 February 1849
Ratibor, Germany [today: Racibórz, Poland]
Family History Library (FHL) Ratibor Microfilm 1184449 (births)
Note: In this post, I discuss the proof I have found for conversions from Judaism for German family members, some of which unavoidably consists of indirect evidence. This topic naturally involves touching on the political, economic, and social context under which such conversions took place.
There is a long history of Jewish conversion to Christianity, both voluntary and forced conversion. Forced conversions of Jews go back to Late Antiquity, the boundaries of which are a continuing matter of debate, but the period between roughly the 3rd and 8th centuries A.D. Royal persecutions of Jews from the 11th century onward typically took the form of expulsions with exceptions. Jews were forced to convert to Christianity before and during the First Crusade (1096-1099) including in parts of what are today France, Germany, and the Czech Republic.
The mass conversion event which took place on the Iberian Peninsula in A.D. 1391 when tens of thousands of Spain’s Jews converted to Christianity because of pogroms is the one readers will be most familiar with. Practicing Jews who refused to convert were expelled by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella in the Alhambra Decree of 1492, following the Christian Reconquest of Spain. The net effect of the Alhambra Decree and persecutions carried out in earlier periods is that over 200,000 Jews converted to Catholicism and between 40,000 and 100,000 were expelled. In adjoining Portugal, by contrast, where an edict for Jewish expulsions was also ordered four years later in A.D. 1496, most Jews were not allowed to leave but were forced to convert.
Though conversions continued over time across many other parts of Eastern, Central, and Western Europe, forced conversions were apparently less common in the 20th century and were later more often the result of Jews choosing to convert to integrate into secular society. In Germany, which is the focus of this Blog post as it relates to my family, conversions occurred in three main periods. The first began during the Mendelssohnian era, named after Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), the German Jewish philosopher to whose ideas the Haskalah, the “Jewish Enlightenment” of the 18th and 19th centuries, is attributed. A second wave occurred during the first half of the 19th century. And the third and longest period of conversions was a result of antisemitism and began roughly in 1880.
Conversion among German Jews was not an uncommon phenomenon in the 19th century owing to the myriad restrictions and myths that confronted them, and stymied their hopes, ambitions, dreams, and careers. In a sense, conversion to Christianity was the easy way out. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), the noted German poet, writer, and literary critic, who himself converted, was reputed to have said conversion was his “ticket of admission into European culture.” Across most of the German states that united to create “modern” Germany in 1871, dominated by the state of Prussia, Jews were often rewarded for renouncing Judaism by being given influential positions and financial incentives. Whereas, during the 17th century, most converts were poor, by the middle of the 18th century, the converts were richer. The departure of the wealthier converts deprived the Jewish community of part of its operating budget. In any event, it is estimated that by the 20th century, close to one million Christians in Germany were of Jewish origin. According to Deborah Hertz’s book, “How Jews Became Germans: The History of Conversion and Assimilation in Berlin,” the majority of converts were infants whose parents wanted to spare them “conflicts” as adults. She notes that 60 percent of converts between 1800 and 1874 were under five years of age.
Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums), which excluded Jews and other political opponents of the Nazis from all civil service positions, was one of the first anti-Semitic and racist laws to be passed by the Third Reich, enacted on the 7th of April 1933. The law initially exempted those who had worked in the civil service since August 1, 1914, those who were veterans of World War I, or those with a father or son killed in action in World War I. The Civil Service immediately impacted the education system because university professors, for example, were classified as civil servants.
With the seizure of power by the Nazis, the new government enacted laws that required all citizens to document their genealogy in full. The regime sought to identify Jews who had converted to Christianity over the preceding centuries. With the help of church officials, a vast system of conversion and intermarriage records was created in Berlin, the country’s foremost Jewish city. These records, the Judenkartei, the Jewish Register or File, begin in 1645. Work on creating this file had started before the Nazis even came to power under a private initiative which sought to uncover proof of the Jewish ancestry of university and college professors and judges. By 1932, this file had already collected 400,000 genealogical records of Jews in Germany. The constantly expanding file was taken over and expanded in 1933 by the Reichsstelle für Sippenforschung (RfS), renamed Reichssippenamt on the 12th of November 1940, the Reich Office for Clan Research.
Readers who have accessed ancestral records for their German Jewish relatives may have noticed notations in the upper left- or right-hand corners or along the margins of vital documents. Beginning August 17, 1938, Jews had to add “Israel” (males) (Figure 1) or “Sara” (females) (Figure 2) as their middle name. Similarly, on passports, which allowed German Jews to leave Germany, when they still could, but not return, a large “J” was imprinted. (Figure 3) These and other measures instituted by the Nazis were intended to officially separate Jews from the German populace. While German Jews still converted after the Nazis seized power, as I will illustrate in the case of my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck, readers can easily surmise this was futile.
As I contemplated the question of conversion from Judaism among my immediate and extended ancestors, I began to wonder what evidence I could find in the ancestral records proving my relatives’ “alienation” from their Jewish roots. In my limited experience, finding such documents is not easy. In the case of some of my ancestors but not all of them, conversion was a “pragmatic” decision, as I’ve alluded to. Again, citing the poet Heinrich Heine, he declared that he was “merely baptized, not converted.” Quoting from a letter he once wrote:
“From my way of thinking you can well imagine that baptism is an indifferent affair. I do not regard it as important even symbolically, and I shall devote myself all the more to the emancipation of the unhappy members of our race. Still I hold it as a disgrace and a stain upon my honor that in order to obtain an office in Prussia—in beloved Prussia—I should allow myself to be baptized.”
In re-reading the memoirs of Dr. Josef Pauly (Figure 4), husband of my great-great-aunt, who had likely been baptized Catholic as a child and whose recollections I discussed in Post 56, I wonder whether he may not have been implying the same sentiment when he wrote:
“I believe in God as the creative force of the universe, to an immanent [NOTE: (of God) permanently pervading or sustaining the universe] consciousness, to a moral world order, to the invisible God of the world as the Jewish religion has revealed it first, whose goodness is identical with the eternal laws.”
As I began to search through my files and recollect what evidence for conversion I had found for my ancestors, I initially concluded that most of the “proof” was indirect, such as in the case of my father which I discussed in Post 38. However, upon further consideration, I realize I have found considerably more direct validation than I initially thought. Beyond the obvious instances where the graves or burial records of my forefathers interred in existing and destroyed Jewish cemeteries survive, proving they did not convert, I found corroboration for several ancestors confirming they were baptized.
The earliest instance is the case of my great-great-aunt Amalie Mockrauer (1834-1918). (Figure 5) On ancestry, I uncovered a record showing she was baptized in Dresden, Germany, 21 years after her birth, on the 13th of April 1855. (Figure 6) This was undoubtedly in anticipation of her marriage to Leopold Julius Wolf von Koschembahr (Figure 7) later that year on the 26th of September 1855 in Saint Clement Danes, Westminster, London, England, an Anglican church. (Figure 8)
Initially, I thought Leopold von Koschembahr was also of Jewish origin because his grandson, Gerhard Bruck von Koschembahr (i.e., Gerhard’s father, Wilhelm Bruck, took his baroness wife’s surname) (Figure 9), departed Germany for the United States via Switzerland in 1938 with his 12 children. However, I learned from a New York Times article dated the 2nd of October 1938 that Gerhard departed Germany NOT on account of his grandfather’s Jewish roots but because his great-grandmother, on his mother’s side, was non-Aryan. (Figure 10) This gives credence to the concern descendants of Jews whose ancestors had long ago converted or had never converted felt when the Nazis started tracing their ancestral origins. In the case of Leopold von Koschembahr, I found his baptismal record showing he was baptized on the 5th of December 1829 (Figures 11a-b), proving he was not Jewish at birth. As readers can discern from this example, confirming or refuting the Jewish origins of one’s ancestors can be like solving a complex puzzle.
Moving on to other family members, let me briefly discuss the evidence for conversion for my uncle by marriage Dr. Franz Müller, my uncle by blood Dr. Fedor Bruck, my father Dr. Otto Bruck, and Dr. Adalbert Bruck, the great-grandfather of a fourth cousin.
The Centrum Judaicum Foundation is housed in the New Synagogue Berlin which was consecrated on the Jewish New Year in 1866, at which time it became the largest Jewish house of worship with its 3,200 seats. While the synagogue was spared major damage on “Kristallnacht,” it was severely damaged by Allied bombing during WWII. In 1958, the main room of the synagogue was demolished, so that today only the parts of the building closest to the street remain structurally intact.
Documents addressing the history of Jews in and around Berlin are archived there, including surviving records on conversions that took place in the city. In the case of my uncle by marriage Dr. Franz Müller, married to my aunt Susanne Müller née Bruck murdered in Auschwitz, the Centrum Judaicum has an index card on file indicating he converted on the 25th of November 1901. This did not prevent him being dismissed from his position as Humboldt University professor when the Nazis came to power in 1933 in accordance with their Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service.
In the instance of my fourth cousin’s great-grandfather, Dr. Adalbert Bruck, the Centrum Judaicum could find nothing in their archives about him, so referred my cousin to the Evangelische Zentralarchiv in Berlin, the Protestant Central Archive in Berlin. In principle records of all Jewish conversions to Christianity in Berlin are kept here, though many did not survive WWII. According to a letter sent to my cousin, Dr. Adalabert Bruck’s record survives indicating he converted on the 27th of November 1890; however, his wife Anna Bruck née Flatow’s information survives only indirectly in the form of a 1930 document showing she supposedly converted on the 17th of February 1900. (Figures 12a-b)
The conversion of my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck, who has been the subject of several Blog posts because of his incredible tale of survival in Berlin during the entirety of WWII thanks to family and “silent heroes,” adds another element to my uncle’s compelling story. The register documenting his conversion survives and indicates he was baptized in Berlin on the 11th of June 1939 at the Messias Kapelle, a Lutheran Church. (Figures 13a-b, 14) Two godparents are named in the register, a “Herr Engelbert Helwig” and a “Herr Roderich von Roy.” Ancestry shows Englebert Helwig to have been a Holocaust survivor, and Roderich von Roy to have been born on the 3rd of August 1895, exactly two weeks before my uncle. Did my uncle know these people beforehand, or were they just random parishioners who attended the Messias Kappelle selected to be his godparents? We may never know.
Lutheran is a denomination among the Protestant, in fact it is the oldest of the denominations to break away from Catholicism and is traced to the founder of the movement, Martin Luther of Germany. (Figure 15)
Hoping to find a picture of the Messias Kapelle, I did a Google query and stumbled upon a fascinating article written by Christiane Jurik, Editor-in-Chief of Ariel Ministries, discussing the origins of the Messias Kapelle and its role in German Jewish baptisms. I quote:
“Historically, most baptized Jews in Germany joined the Lutheran Church. There, even those who were true believers in Yeshua were mostly met with indifference; sometimes with suspicion; or worst, with anti-Semitism. In order to avoid this treatment, some Jewish believers started looking for places of worship where they could stay among themselves. In 1901, the Berlin Society purchased a property in one of the most urban boroughs of the city, called Prenzlauer Berg. The ministry not only moved its headquarters to the building but soon started construction work of what became known as the Messias Kapelle (‘Messiah Chapel’). Three days before Christmas of 1902, the chapel opened its doors to the Jewish believers of Berlin.
While the goal of the Berlin Society had been to offer a haven for Jewish believers, its work was closely affiliated with the Lutheran Church. In fact, the chapel officially belonged to the union of Protestant churches that also included the Confessing Church, whose most famous member was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. However, in 1930, the Lutheran Church revoked its support of the work of the Berlin Society and withdrew its pastors from the chapel. From then on, the Messias Kapelle was run by laymen.
In 1935, the Lutheran Synod forbade the baptizing of Jewish people. One of the pastors in Berlin expressed the general sentiment: ‘I am convinced that the family who told me it would be a horrible thought for them that the hand that baptized a Jew would touch their child is not alone.’
Yet not everyone obeyed the new directives of the Synod. The Messias Kapelle at this point separated itself completely from any state-run institution and in turn became the most important place of Messianic baptism in Berlin. According to the baptismal records of the time, over 700 German Jews got baptized there in the years between 1933 and 1940.
On November 11, 1938, during the Kristallnacht, the Messias Kapelle and the seat of the Berlin Society were trashed by the Nazis. Still, it would take until January of 1941 for the ministry and the chapel to be officially closed permanently. Ten months later, the first deportation of Jewish people began in Berlin. Records prove that of the 700 Jewish believers who had been baptized in the Messias Kapelle after 1933, 86 were hauled off to the ghettos of Lodz, Riga, Minsk, and Warsaw. Only two of them survived the Holocaust. It is unknown what happened to the rest of the congregation.”
A few observations. Among the survivors baptized in the Messias Kapelle was my uncle who lived until 1982. Beyond the obvious interest in self-preservation for the 700 or so Jews who got baptized in the Messias Kapelle during the Nazi era, the fact they could be baptized here as late as 1939, worship among other Jewish converts, and be told about the Jewish Messiah may have had appeal. While it’s unclear whether the chapel has been deconsecrated, the author of the above quote tells us that a marketing and public relations firm now owns it and that the worship hall, altar, and a marble relief resembling a Temple survive. It’s sad this is not a recognized historic monument.
Growing up my father never spoke about religion and religion was never part of my upbringing. In fact, I was baptized as a Catholic by my grandparents at six years of age in Lyon, France, at the request of my parents almost as an afterthought, hoping it might protect me in the event of another Holocaust. However, as most readers will surmise, as a half-Jew, I would have been considered a mischlinge of the first degree according to the Nuremberg Laws. Not good enough to survive being murdered.
Aware my father had attended dental school in Berlin, I checked with the Centrum Judaicum in Berlin to ascertain whether they might have a record of my father’s conversion, but they do not. Knowing my father’s penchant for procrastinating, I have always suspected my father never placed a high priority on getting baptized and converting until it became an absolute necessity. And, in my opinion, that only became necessary after he moved to the town of Tiegenhof [today: Nowy Dwór Gdański, Poland] in the Free State of Danzig where he opened his dental practice in 1932. As I discussed in Post 38, the evidence for my father’s conversion comes in the form of a receipt for payment of quarterly church taxes to the Evangelische Kirche in Tiegenhof. (Figure 16)
My second cousin twice-removed, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck (1872-1937) (Figure 17), subject of several recent Blog posts is thought to have converted in Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland]. Dr. Barbara Bruziewicz-Mikłaszewska, professor of dentistry at the University of Wrocław, who has written about Dr. Bruck, cites a file from the University’s archives saying he converted in 1916 (i.e., University file: sygn. S99, s. 62, nr sprawy AU – 481/46/2001). As we speak, I am working with one of Dr. Bruziewicz-Mikłaszewska’s colleagues to obtain verification of the date of Dr. Bruck’s baptism. Unlike his father and grandfather, who are buried in the Old Jewish Cemetery in Wrocław, Walter’s place of internment in Wrocław is unknown but was undoubtedly in a Christian cemetery that likely no longer exists.
As I mentioned above, in principle all surviving records of Jewish conversions to Christianity in Berlin are archived at the Evangelische Zentralarchiv. For conversions that took place outside of Berlin, however, there is no central repository of this information that I am aware of. Thus, the only possibility of tracking down comparable information for one’s Jewish ancestors is to know the town and parish church where the baptism occurred, and then hope the registers have survived.
REFERENCES
Bruziewicz Mikłaszewska, Barbara. Outline of the history of university dentistry in Breslau/Wrocław. [Polish: Zarys dziejów uniwersyteckiej stomatologii we Wrocławiu]. 2010, University of Wrocław, PhD.
Note: In this post, I relate the story of uncovering multiple copies of a family portrait rendered in the Biedermeier style in what I estimate was the early 1830’s.
During a recent email exchange with my 92-year old third cousin, Agnes Stieda née Vogel (Figure 1), subject of several earlier posts, I casually mentioned other topics I want to eventually write about on my Blog. This includes one illustrious branch of my Bruck family, the von Koschembahrs, about which more is said below. This prompted Agnes to tell me in passing she has a family portrait of them hanging in her apartment in Victoria, Canada. A short while later she sent me several photos. (Figure 2) They show a touching depiction of two children, one holding a rabbit, painted in what I would learn was the Biedermeier style. Agnes quickly added this is a revered painting within her family.
Other than knowing it portrayed two von Koschembahr children, no doubt from the period when the Biedermeier style was in vogue in Germany between 1815 and 1848, Agnes had no further information as to the painter, the subjects, nor the exact year it was painted. Obviously curious whether the painting or the boy and girl might be known to other members of my extended family, I decided to send a copy of the photo to another of my German third cousins, Kurt Polborn. (Figure 3) He is a close descendant of the von Koschembahrs, and I thought he might recognize the artwork. And, indeed he did. He promptly told me they depict Leopold von Koschembahr (1829-1874) (Figure 4), and his slightly older sister, Mary von Koschembahr. Judging from the approximate age of the children, and Leopold’s year of birth, 1829, I estimate it was done in the early 1830’s, well within the timeframe the Biedermeier style was popular.
Let me briefly explain to readers how my Bruck family is related to the von Koschembahrs. The first-generation owner of the family hotel, the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland], the town where my father was born in 1907, was Samuel Bruck (1808-1863) (Figure 5), my great-great-grandfather. Ownership of the hotel was acquired by his son, Fedor Bruck (1834-1892), my great-grandfather. (Figure 6) Fedor’s youngest brother was my great-great-uncle Wilhelm Bruck (1849-1907), (Figure 7) who married a baroness, Margarete “Grete” Mathilde von Koschembahr (1860-1946) (Figure 8), sometime before 1885; Leopold and Mary von Koschembahr were, respectively, Grete’s father and aunt. The term “von” is used in German language surnames “either as a nobiliary particle indicating a noble patrilineality,or as a simple preposition used by commoners that means of or from.” On account of his wife’s noble patrilineality, Wilhelm Bruck added her surname to his upon marriage. Thus, in Germany, this branch of the family was known as “Bruck-von Koschembahr,” but upon their arrival in America they completely dropped the Bruck surname. Suffice it to say, this complicates the family tree.
During my conversation with my third cousin Kurt Polborn who’d identified the von Koschembahr children, he mentioned in passing the painting belongs to his aging von Koschembahr uncle, Clemens von Koschembahr, living in Ohio. Clemens is about to turn 94 and is the grandson of Wilhelm Bruck-von Koschembahr and the sole surviving child of Gerhard von Koschembahr (1885-1961) (Figure 9) and Hilda Alexandra von Zeidlitz und Neukirch (1891-1954), who immigrated to America in 1938 with their 13 children. (Figures 10a-b, 11) Kurt’s claim that the family portrait of the von Koschembahr children is still in the family, while entirely reasonable, left me puzzled. (Figure 12) What then is the version owned by Agnes, an original or a copy? I would add that Clemens, being told that another version of this family portrait exists, was quite surprised.
Things got even more puzzling when I probed into this more. Agnes remembered having visited her cousin Klaus Pauly (Figure 13) in Germany and hanging in his house was yet another copy of this same painting! Curious as to how many copies of this painting might exist, I immediately sent an email to Klaus’s son, Andi Pauly (Figure 14), whose name I’ve often mentioned. The existence of this copy, at least, could be explained. During one of Klaus’s visits to see Agnes, he’d greatly admired the painting and tried to talk her out of it. Agnes, naturally, was unwilling to part with this family heirloom, but, Klaus, undeterred, photographed the “original,” and upon his return home turned it into a full-size photo which he framed. Problem solved!
Still, the existence of two seemingly high-quality versions of the Biedermeier-style portrait is intriguing. It seems unlikely the von Koschembahrs would have allowed the original to leave the family, so I’d argue that version is the one owned by Clemens von Koschembahr. Admittedly, while I can only gauge this from low resolution images, it would seem the older looking of the two copies is also that one. Unfortunately, neither copy of the paintings is signed; Kurt explained this was not uncommon in paintings done of royals and aristocrats of the time, where the “star,” so to speak, was the king, queen, or noble. The creates an obvious problem where originals can easily be forged and claimed as authentic. Absent a professional side-by-side comparison, the question of which is the original portrait will remain an open one. Things, though, could get even more confusing should yet more high-quality versions of this portrait emerge from other members of the family! This may not be as implausible as it sounds given the endearing quality the von Koschembahr artwork possesses and the possible desire by others to have had their own copies.
