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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.58.246 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to edit articles based on verifiable references. I agree with you that more qualifications are needed in the original article, and that a letter of Otto I in 970 mentioning the manor of Tuyll does not qualify as a nobility diploma, based only on Randeck and Dutch archives, and that the continuous genealogies going back to 1125, which were used in earlier editions are no longer deemed sufficient by the CBG, which now dates the family to the 1400s. Heerlijkheid can indeed be translated lordship according to Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heerlijkheid and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uradel for the qualification of the family to that title). I also take exception to your personal remarks, as there many established references, like the following one that is modern and academic: in 1979, A group of university professors, Jean-Daniel Candaux, C.P. Courtney, Pierre H. Dubois, Simone Dubois-De Bruyn, Patrice Thompson, Jeroom Vercruysse and Dennis M. Wood edited the 10-volume "Isabelle de Charriere, Belle De Zuylen, Oeuvres Completes", published by G. A. van Oorschot, Amsterdam and financed in part by the Prins Bernhard Fonds, the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research and the Nederlands Organisatie voor Zuiver Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. Quoting directly from the beginning of the genealogy given by these authors on page 631: "The family van Tuyll van Serooskerken descends from the noble house of Tuyl of the Tielerwaard on the left bank of the river Waal. In 1125, a Hugo van Tuyll, knight is mentioned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.195.126 (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

your contribution urged me to add another reply:

1) A 10-volume edition of Belle van Zuylen's work, respectable and interesting as it may be, is not a genealogical or historical study of the family's history or its genealogy. I don't think this team of fine literature experts invested their time and intellectual capacities to produce that meager sentence that you reproduce here.

2) While I agree with you that your family probably presumably descends from a much older family from the east of the Netherlands, not all experts agree on this (and hence you should be very careful to present historic scraps in such a manner as to make it appear that they all relate to one singe family.) Let me just quote the following, from someone who describes the beginning of your family in a much humbler way. I don't agree with everything, but it's wrong to present the wiki-article as if there is a consensus on the history of your family and that the roots are to be found in a document from 970. the quote is from W.Bijleveld's book "Nederland's Adelsboek"(1949) p.174-175: (the book is written by an individual with a very problematic WW2 past, but nonetheless he was one of the mayor genealogical experts before the war): under the "Tuyll van Serooskerken", he writes:

Familie van patronymen voerende ambachtslieden op Schouwen, in de 14e eeuw daar bekend en waarvan een lid 1389 poorter van Zierlksee werd. Zijn kleinzoon kocht 1488 de heerlijkheid Serooskerke op Schouwen, waarnaar zijne afstammelingen zich noemden. Zij bekleedden hooge ambten in Zeeland en zaten in de regeering van Zieriksee en Middelburg. Een hunner, burgemeester van Tholen en geb. 1574, verleid door de gelijkheid van zijne wapenmeubels, de brakkenkoppen,met die van het oud-adellilk geslacht van Tuyll uit de Betuwe, ging zich zoo noemen, trok naar Holland en wist het zoo ver te brengen, dat zijn zoon in de Utrechtsche ridderschap werd toegelaten onder dien geusurpeerden naam. Bij org. besl. van 1814 benoemd in de NoordBrabantsche, Zeeuwsche en Utrechtsche ridderschappen. Erkend als baron op alle 1822. De oudste, z.g. Engelsche, tak staat op uitsterven. Overige bieden nog tal van stamhouders.

3)you wrote several times "according to wiki"; yeah, so what? if some guy in Poland or the Netherlands wrote on your family and it still contains a lot of mistakes, it's not an objective truth or anything; it's just somebody typing incorrect stuff. I could type on a chinese wikipedia site "the van Tuylls are direct descendants of Buddha"; obviously, such wiki-references are irrelevant, if not backed up by serious sources.

Fair enough, I put more qualifications in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.193.14 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision of medieval history Revised the bit on the unrelated medieval family. That connection has long been refuted, and the sources the writer of this page uses (presumably a family member) are either outdated (i.e. old versions of Nederland's Adelsboek) or irrelevant (i.e. a literary study) Paragraph from the doctoral thesis of Arie van Steensel, Edelen in Zeeland (2010) concerning the non-aristocratic roots of the van Tuyll van Serooskerken family as well as its fictious descent from the Van Tuyll family from Guelders:

De familie Van Tuyll van Serooskerke deed eveneens grote moeite om de herinnering aan hun niet-adellijke afkomst te verhullen. Volgens een achttiende-eeuwse tekening van de grafzerk van Jacob van Serooskerke († 1530) in de Sint-Lievensmonsterkerk te Zierikzee werd hij als ridder afgebeeld en op de hoeken van de steen werden de wapens van Ravenschot, Tuyll, Haamstede en Kats aangebracht. In de kerk werd in de zeventiende eeuw een wapenbord opgehangen, waarop hij ‘nobilis vir’ wordt genoemd (afbeelding 7.6).65 Zijn zoon Jeronimus († 1571) en diens vrouw Eleonora Micault († 1539) staan op een gebedsportret uitgehouwen op een grafmonument uit het begin van de zeventiende eeuw in de Grote Kerk te Bergen op Zoom. Aan beide zijden staan de acht kwartieren van het echtpaar afgebeeld, met als eerste twee, de wapens van Tuyll en Ravenschot. De Van Serooskerkes waren nazaten van de Zierikzeese burgemeester Pieter Hugenz. Het is zeker dat hij en zijn zoon Jacob geen edelen of ridders waren, ondanks hun huwelijken met dames uit gevestigde adellijke geslachten. Jeronimus van Serooskerke werd door Karel V in 1545 tot ridder geslagen. Voor de afstamming uit de geslachten Van Tuyll en Van Ravenschot is bovendien geen archivalisch bewijs te vinden. Deze verwantschap is vrijwel zeker fictief en berust op pogingen van nazaten uit latere eeuwen om hun claim op adeldom te legitimeren.

See of course as well the newest version of the Nederlands Adelsboek, in which the fictious roots to the medieval family from Zeeland are not mentionned.)

--Catastroppphe (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The latest edits appear to be tainted by the biases they presume to correct, the editor seeming to support the same views as a previous editor who deleted references that were not to his or her liking rather than completing the article with diverging points of view. There is also the same tendency to make personal comments about the numerous other editors of the page. Allegations are made in the latest edits based on nondocumented suppositions (using words like claimed, borrowed, disguise) derived from pushing to the limit a lone doctoral thesis, and that are not used in the latest official edition of the Adelsboek or other references previously included in the article such as other foreign and Dutch genealogical studies (J. H. de Randek Les Plus Anciennes Familles du Monde, Slatkine, 1984 or van Lynden 1987 summarised here http://www.vantuyll.nl/historie.htm). It the van Tuyll family "traditionally" "claimed" anything they were in company of the High Council for Nobility and many genealogists. The doctoral thesis quoted appears to make the curious argument that archeological evidence on tombs being contrary to the author's point of view it must have been falsified. It is unlikely that the usurpation of a noble name by a non-noble married to a noble would have gone through from the 16th century without any protests up to the 20th century, when this thesis was first advanced by the now discredited W. Bijleveld. The thesis also glosses over references to the van Tuyll van Serooskerken name being in use pre-1500 (for instance there is a document on Philipp II of Spain bestowing Serooskerke on a van Tuyll in 1483). It has been long known that the genealogy is not complete, but that precisely does not allow one to conclude definitely either way, and the Adelsboek genealogy is much more nuanced. The latest editor having apparently an interest in genealogy is invited to amend unverifiable suppositions from his edits in the interest of the maintenance of the high standards Dutch genealogists appear to strive for. It is puzzling that the editor beging apparently able to read Dutch should not attempt to change the Dutch Wikipedia page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User20130405 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)