Beisem / Berchsen / Berchsem / Bergecem / Beyssem / Veltem-Beisem

Stone baptismal font of the 15th century listed and illustrated in BALaT KIK-IRPA [https://balat.kikirpa.be/object/35967] [accessed 21 Aoril 2026]: "doopvont [...] arduin [...] Date: 1401 - 1500 [...] hoogte: 108 cm". The entry for this church in the Duch Wikipedia [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sint-Michielskerk_(Beisem)] [accessed 21 April 2026] reports a Gothic font of the 16th century font in it: "Het gotisch doopvont is 16e-eeuws" [cf. supra].
A communication to BSI from Pol Herman (e-mail of 12 March 2026) informs: "Beisem, Sint-Michielskerk. The oldest known spelling dates from 1117: Bergecem. Later Berchsem (1351), Berchesen, Beyssem. 1117: Burchard, Bishop of Cambrai, donates the altar of Beisem to the priory of Bornem. This priory had just been founded by the archabbey of Affligem. 1120: Odo, Bishop of Cambrai, donates the church of the village of Berchsem to Affligem. From the 12th to the 16th century, the Abbey of Affligem held the right to tithes in Beisem. Beisem was an appendage of Meerbeek and did not have its first own priest until 1763. The first Romanesque church building in Beisem stood on the Bovenberg, two kilometre uphill to the south of the present village. By the end of the 17th century, the old church on the Bovenberg had fallen into ruin and become a hideout for thieves. In 1688, the Lord of Beisem initiated legal proceedings against the tithe collector, the Priory of Terbank, to rebuild the church. In 1761, an agreement was signed between Viscount de Robiano and the Prioress of Terbank. The new church would not be built on the Bovenberg, but in the valley. Not only was this cheaper in terms of bringing in materials, but the valley had become the most suitable location because most houses were now concentrated there, while not a single house remained on the Bovenberg. Church building in the Classical style, built in 1762. Baptismal register from 1604 onwards. Octagonal, limestone, gothic, Hainaut-style baptismal font. Literature mentions 16th c., but the archaic style would suggest that KIK-IRPA is right : 15th c. https://balat.kikirpa.be/object/35967 "