Talk:Tuyll

"Tuyll is believed to have been the seat of the court of the region of Teisterbant, the name Holland being used only from 1101."

I removed the second part of the sentence for being irrelevant. If Tuyll is in the Betuwe that means it is not in Holland. Fnorp 12:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The page contained many unsubstantiated and vastly exaggerated claims regarding the history of the family. The early history of the family is shrouded in mystery; and the last edition of the Dutch nobility book (Adelsboek; a Dutch-type of Gotha) let's the family's history (genealogy) begin in the second half of the 15th century (not the tenth century). The wiki-entry, however, gives references leading up the tenth century; although, the name "van Tuyll" is old (like many other toponymical names), there is no evidence supporting the current misleading entry, that makes it look as if the family can trace its roots to the 10th century (this is not the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.58.246 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

USer 86.94.58.246 has vandalised the article content, punctuation and introduction (which summarises the content) without motivating his or her actions with references, whereas:

A letter of Otto I from 970 about the lordship of Tuyll is quoted from what the reference work on the oldest families in the world "Les plus anciennes familles du monde, J. H. de Randeck, Editions Slatkine, 1984."

The Teisterbant connection is from the website of the town http://www.ertussenuit.com/plaatsen/5312.htm

Some of the deleted phrases are directly quoted from books on Belle van Zuylen, a detailed reference was not given for each of them not to make the article too heavy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.41.6 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to your allegations:

I actually gave a reference: Nederland's Adelsboek, which deals with the exact genealogy of the family; the Nederland's Adelsboek is published by the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie (www.cbg.nl ; the central bureau for genealogy), a government-sponsored institution, which collaborates closely with the Hoge Raad van Adel (the highest government authority regulating titles of nobility in the Netherlands. As I already mentioned: the Nederland's Adelsboek let's the proven genealogy start in the second half of the 15th century. By starting the history of the name in the 10th century, the author of the wikipedia page (presumably a family member) misleads the reader of the article into believing that the history of the family can be traced back to the 10th century; which is obviously not true.As I already pointed out: van Tuyll is a toponym. Toponyms can be very old. However, a similarity of names does not logically imply a coherent genealogy that starts in the 10th century. There is no proof that the namebearer van Tuyll of 970 is related to later generations of van Tuyll. A similarity of name does not necessarily imply genealogical (blood) ties. A lot of other terms in the article are incorrectly translated; a lot of the possessions mentioned are not "lordships" at all. I get a feeling that a family member has vastly exaggerated and embellished his or her family history. While I acknowledge the importance of the van Tuyll van Serooskerke family in Dutch history ( being a descendant myselfof said family), I feel that the article contains many exaggerations and embellishments that amount to a false, incorrect historical portrayal of the family. Hence, a more sober, objective article would serve the ethical code of wikipedia better. Wikipedia should after all not be, a platform for family members to embellish and falsify their family history, but instead Wikipedia contributors should strive towards objectivity.

About the last edits:

The history of the page shows dozens of editors over a period of several years, and research that can be traced to several sources.

86.94.58.246 is the only one of those editors to angrily delete entire passages, instead of qualifying them by for instance writing 'according to the official Adelsboek, the genealogy only starts in x, while other sources such as a study on the 1400 oldest families in Europe, as well as other confirming sources, make a connection with a letter of Otto I "already citing the manor of Tuyll in 970", which is also quoted on the website of the village, and trace back an incomplete genealogy further, as does for instance the website http://www.vantuyll.nl/) See p.1471 of Les Plus Anciennes Familles du Monde, J.-H. de Randeck, Editions Slatkine, 1984. ISBN 2-05-100557-5.

Personal attacks against hypothetical individuals, aggressive style, hasty syntax in the final edits, which make the beginning of the article incomprehensible, as well as claims about Wikipedia, while flaunting some of its rules are not helpful here.

The beginning is now amputated to "From 1483 to 1600 Pieter and his descendants had themselves called van Serooskerke, and van Tuyll van Serooskerken from then on." instead of the more comprehensible "In 1483, Pieter van Tuyll, lord of Welland, was ambassador of Charles of Burgundy to Edward IV of England. The lordship of Serooskerke (in Schouwen) came from Philip I of Spain."

86.94.58.246 is right that the original article is indeed lacking in detailed references and careful qualifications, and is correct to point out that there is no continuous genealogy since 970, but the early history of old families is often not fully documented, and in the absence of incontrovertible evidence open to discussion, and even at times very fanciful (for instance some families tracing back their ancestry to classical antiquity. Legends are hard to separate from history as is the case with Teisterbant, the references to which have also been deleted.

If there are multiple credible sources, they should surely be allowed a qualified mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.195.116 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A FEW POINTS:

1) the book "les plus anciennes...." contains many factual inaccuracies and omissions , because the author did not conduct any primary research; it's all based on existing, secondary literature/sources (and at times very outdated, unreliable and questionable genealogical studies). This is understandable, since the book contains genealogical sketches from a great deal of different countries. There is no way the author could have conducted research in each and every country. Hence, while it might be nice to browse through "les plus anciennes...."; it cannot be regarded as the best possible source (far from it, actually) with regards to research regarding the "van Tuyll van Serooskerke" family; the Nederland's Adelsboek is much better (although also far from perfect).

2) "hypothetical individuals"; let me just bring up some circumstantial evidence: if you check the history of this particular entry, you will notice that a lot of material was added by IP-numbers in Switzerland; at the end of the "van Tuyll"-entry is also a link towards a wikipedia-entry regarding one Edgar van Tuyll (who happens to work for the Swiss company, Pictet); it doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe that he might be the author of this page.

3) As I already mentioned: a similarity of surname is irrelevant to this article. There are various unrelated families called "van Tuyll", and to place them in a chronical order in this article makes it look like these references all point to the existence of one single family. This would amount to the same fallacy as placing every historic scrap containing the name "Smith" (or some other very common name) in a chronological order and make it look like every "Smith" belongs to one single family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.78.196 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On what objective sources is point 1 based? Are there academic studies showing the work of J.-H. de Randeck to be unreliable?

Point 2 appears to be a personal issue of 195.169.78.196, which seems to be unrelated to the question. There appears to be some form of aggression driving the last edits. There is for instance also a Sammy van Tuyll in Wikipedia. What bearing does this have on adding or removing information based only on verifiable sources? Absence of evidence from one source is not necessarily evidence of absence when there is material from several other sources.

The similarity of surname argument illustrates the point very well. The question here is not based on that, but on the genealogical link some sources establish between these individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.195.116 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

First off: as I already indicated the book is not based on original research, but on secondary sources and studies (some of which are outdated). Secondly, you never see a reference for Randeck's book in any genealogical magazine or in an academic publication relating to medieval history. The series of Europäische Stammtafeln, for example, is regularly used in such publication; it might not be perfect, but it's superior to Randeck's publication. In my opinion, the very title of the book suggests already a lack of seriousness and tendency towards sensationalism. Point 2: I don't know any member of this family personally. Sammy van Tuyll was, however, not mentioned at the bottom of the "van Tuyll"-entry. I personally think it's rather laughable for family members to embellish their family history. People should just be honest about their roots. The van Tuyll family history is very respectable and interesting, and I don't think that it requires exaggerated qualifications such as "ancient nobility", "lordships", obscure diplomas from 970 and so on, that are misleading. I don't think any modern-day source indicates a coherent genealogy of the "van Tuyll van Serooskerke"-family that starts with "van Tuyll" living in the 10th till 13th century. The genealogy of the "van Tuyll van Serooskerke" starts [according to the Nederland's Adelsboek] with one Pieter Hugen Reyniersz, mayor of Zierikzee. Only his grandson started, Hieronymus, started to use the name "van Tuyll". I have seen older genealogies may be adding one or two generations more. but not more. Interestingly enough, I was browsing today in the latest edition of Virtus, a Dutch journal for the study of nobility/history. In the article "Virtus en distinctie: ridders en de republiek" the author also mentions some 17th century members of the family embellishing their family history. I guess old habits die hard. Greetings to Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.58.246 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The general descriptive phrases in the article (for instance 'ancient nobility') were directly copied from biographies of Isabelle van Tuyll (Belle van Zuylen) in order to avoid this kind of debate, but are indeed vaguely defined only. There is a translation problem from Dutch to English with the word 'lordships' as in some of these there is or was a Tuyll called a 'heer van x', but it is not clear for all of these places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.194.39 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The entry in Nederland's Adelsboek, 1906 (the oldest one available to me) starts with: "Tuyl in de Tielerwaard. De geregerlde stamreeks vangt an met Hugo van Tuyl, wiens zoon Gijsbert in 1259 werd geboren.". This is the place that was the seat of the court of Teisterbant (see the historical archives of the region). The Dutch Wikipedia http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuyll_van_Serooskerken has a different series of authors than this page and also quotes "Een zekere Pieter, telg uit dit geslacht, ridder en heer van Welland, die diplomaat was en als gezant van hertog Karel van Bourgondië naar koning Edward IV van Engeland werd afgevaardigd, kocht in 1483 de heerlijkheid Serooskerke", which you deleted from the English article but not the Dutch one. The family history needs no embelishments, but it does have as much of a claim as other families to links to an earlier period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.194.39 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

de Randeck is quoted as the reference on ancient families in the article on nobility in the most popular French encyclopedia http://www.quid.fr/2007/Noblesse/Etat_Present/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.48.70.10 (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: 1) The term "ancient nobility" is -in my opinion- misleading because it evokes the German term "Uradel"; although a rather interesting family, the family does not belong to the "Uradel" (in fact only very few Dutch families do). I doubt that a biography of Belle van Zuylen is the most suitable place to "borrow" those kind of terms from, since its center of attention is an individual's life, not the study of family.

2) the phrase "heer van" is indeed very difficult to translate; the term "lordship" is , however, not correct. may be the term "estate owned by..." is more accurate.

3) My information is from the Adelsboek Nederland (1952): and it contains none of what you say. The entry from the 1902 edition date from an epoch where genealogy had a different status in society and had less scientific aspirations. A lot of the genealogies published in that time were based on old manuscripts from the 17th and 18th century and are very unreliable. Most of the genealogies published in the first few editions were completely reviewed and rewritten in later decades; for example, the genealogy of the Clifford family started in the earliest edition in 1066 and in the latest edition it has been reduced to the beginning of the 16 the century. the 1952 edition mentions that Peter Hugen Reyniersz was a "burger of Zierikzee seder 1472", "burgemeester van Zierikzee 1476 en 1487" and that he was "raad en rentmeester-generaal van Beoosterschelde 1477-1492" It doesn't state that Pieter was a diplomat or knight; none of that.

4) Genealogy in France is far less developed and generally speaking of a lower quality than in Nothern countries, notably the Netherlands and Germany; in those countries, genealogy is tremendously popular, there are more publications and journals on the subject, and they are of better quality. You don't have series such Gens Nostra, Nederlandsche Leeuw, NEderland's Adelsboek, Nederland's Patriciaat. It's only typical for a mainstream publication such as a French encyclopedia to use such a dodgy book as that of Randecke, because the major series on (medieval) genealogy is published in German (Europäische Stammtafeln) and there is nothing to compare it with in French. If you use "google scholar", you will find that Randecke's book is never mentionned, where as, for example, Europäische Stammtafeln is used several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.58.246 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these interesting clarifications of your point of view and taking the time to open a dialogue. Some family members felt that the tone and content of your side of the discussion was extremely subjective to say the least (words such as unsubstantiated, vastly exaggerated, mislead, embellish, falsify, allegations, etc) whereas the article only quotes sources, though the later versions of the Adelsboek have chosen -as opposed to earlier versions or to the more flexible French, Italian or Polish genealogies found all over Wikipedia- to take into account only the strictest continuous line of descent, though several other older ones exist (as explained in the Dutch Wikipedia, as also researched by the author of the most recent (1987) family tree a genealogist who had no personal interest, a Graaf van Lynden, who did find substantial documentary evidence of a descent from Pieter van Tuyll van Serooskerke (who through his marriage became close to Charles of Burgundy, and was indeed ambassador to the court of Edward IV), as well as a link to the manor mentioned in the 970 letter of Otto I.

REPLY

1) most of the sources used in the article are either irrelevant (whitehouse, ertussenuit.nl etc) or outdated (Randecke Nederland's Adelsboek 1906). I still think that the material was arranged (consciously or unconsciously) in such a manner as to make the family history look more prestigious; the terms "embellish", "exaggerated" are appropriate, in my opinion. the qualification "ancient nobility" does not apply to the family, the term lordship is incorrect for most of the properties mentioned, and to have mentioned the letter from 970 under the segment "diplomas" together with other grants of arms/ patents/ diplomas is definitely misleading.

2) I am not familiar with the work of van Lynden, so I can't say much about it (the van Lynden history was actually dissected in a recent CBG Jaarboek, also because a lot of mystifications and falsifications had led to an inaccurate family history) While I agree with you that there are a lot of indications that the van Tuyll family has been in existence for a long time, I think it's incorrect to give so much space and weight in the article to these "ghost" centuries preceding the earliest verifiable ancestor, Peter Hugen Reiniersz (apparently never mentioned with the name van Tuyll). I think your family is very much comparable to that other family of mayors from Zierikzee, van Borsselen. While there are a lot of fragments and hints pointing towards a possible connection, there has been no definitive proof linking the history to the older main branches of that family.

Ok, this is my last post, since I am getting a bit tired of this not very fruitful discussion; i think you would serve the memory of your family better by presenting an accurate, more sober history than by referring to obscure letters from 970 that make it look like the van Tuyll are the oldest dynasty in the world (whereas any decent genealogy starts at least 300 to 400 years later).