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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, while the deleted so-called "literary" reference is a several volume study one of which contains the history of the van Tuyll family written by several university professors). 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 official Adelsboek genealogy does not make unsubstantiated suppositions using words such as claimed, borrowed, disguise, and on the contrary used to support the descent from the old van Tuyll family. The latest editor having apparently an interest in genealogy is invited to remove these unverifiable suppositions from his edits in the interest of the maintenance of the high standards Dutch genealogists appear to strive for. It is interesting that the editor being apparently able to read Dutch should not attempt to change the Dutch Wikipedia van Tuyll page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User20130405 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing to the limit a lone doctoral thesis? That thesis was written by historian who is part of a wider project on the Burgundian period and has written articles for leading Dutch genealogy journals. Contrary to the vanity genealogy of Randek and your literature professors recycling secondary sources, he studied primary sources in the actual archives . And he is most certainly not alone in his assessment that the Van Tuyll usurped their name from an unrelated family. You should contact him arievansteensel.wordpress.com/about/ Ask him about your history, and ask yourself, how did this academic get to this conclusion? He wouldn't have had any interest in falsifying your family tree. His primary interests are facts. There is also a recent issue of the CBG Jaarboek claiming that the van Tuylls embellished their arms and history, based on primary sources. Are you suggesting all these academics and historians are wrong?

With regards to the Nederland's Adelsboek, have a look in the latest version. It doesn't mention any of the fantasy ancestors you add nor does it make a reference that you might be related to that medieval family. The Nederland's Adelsboek edition you refer to is close to a hundred years old, completely outdated and was written when vanity genealogy was very common. And if it is any consolation to your shattered dreams of descending from knights, compare and contrast a Nederland's Adelsboek from the early 1900s to a modern day one. You will find that your family is not the only one whose genealogy has been drastically changed. Also, correcting a genealogy does not discredit the achievements of your family in the least bit. It just means that you have non-noble roots, and that your ancestors felt it necessary to embellish their family tree. big deal. that happened countless times.

Feel free to get in touch with the editors of the Nederland's Adelsboek. I am sure that they will be happy to tell you that what you are claiming is just plain wrong. www.hogeraadvanadel.nl/ Also try the editors of De Nederlandsche Leeuw www.knggw.nl

The Dutch version had not caught my attention yet. It should obviously be changed as well.

You are not doing yourself or your family any favour by spreading these myths. I understand that it might be disappointing to hear that your ancestors usurped a name and another family's history, but there is no need to get offended. just get over it and study this stuff in a bit more detail. It doesn't diminish your familiy's achievements. Genealogical falsification used to be very common in the past. Your family is not the only one.

You write: "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)." Fact of the matter is that you are not familiar with this document otherwise you would know that the name "van tuyll" doesn't appear in that document (and  Philipp II of Spain wasn't even born in 1483). And even if the name van Tuyll existed in pre-1500  (which it does) that doesn't mean anything. Having identical names doesn't mean that one is related. People with the name Smith existed before 1500, but that doesn't mean that everyone with that name is related with each other.  Your family didn t carry the name van Tuyll before the 16th century as the historian Dr. J. Smit points out.

You write: "The descent not being fully documented, the latest edition of the Adelsboek now starts the history in the 15th century" . No, it doesn't mention it, because it has been proven to be nonsense based on a falsified family tree.

You write here: "this thesis was first advanced by the now discredited W. Bijleveld." This thesis has been around longer, Mr. Belonje, couldn't establish a link in 1939 either. And what makes you think that Bijleveld is now discredited? This genealogist's works are still used regularly.

You write: "If the van Tuyll family "traditionally" "claimed" anything they were in company of the High Council for Nobility and many genealogists." Absolutely wrong. the High Council of Nobility does not support your view at all. check the recent edition of Nederland's Adelsboek that they edit and publish. and "many genealogists". Who do you mean exactly? The most eminent genealogists of Netherlands who have studied your family (e.g. Bijleveld, Smit, Belonje) are all clear that there is no link between your family and the Guelders family.

Let me also cite passage from Jan N. A. Groenendijk (1996): A Van Tuyl Chronicle: 650 Years in the History of a Dutch-American Family page 478. it gives an overview on how the vanity genealogy of the Van Tuyll van Serooskerken was debunked and was proven to be falsified.

The roots of the family van Tuyl van Serooskerken were until now based on an old genealogy, probably made in the 18th century. According to this source, a certain Reynier van Tuyll left Gelre and married in 1469 in Steenbergen (West-Brabant) Sibelia van Havene, daughter of Heer Adriaen, knight, Heer of Nispen. His son Pieter moved to Zeeland and became the ancestor of the family Van Tuyll van Serooskerken (note 19. Rijksarchief Utrecht, Huisarchief Zuylen, Genealogie Familie Van Tuyl van Serooskerke). The relation between Reynier and earlier Van Tuyls was for long vague and there was no evidence for the ancestors mentioned by Polvliet and Rietstap. The only "proof" was an intriguing charter from 1603 in which Willen van Tuyll van Bulckensteyn and Hendrick van Tuyll van Serooskerken (1574-1627) (note 20: he was lord of Stavenise, Rijnhuizen, TIenhoven and Kempen's Hofstede, member of General and Council of State, special envoy to the British court) decared that they had the same ancestor, the same coat of oarms and bear the same name (Note 21: Rijksarchief (RAU), Huisarchief Zuylen (HAZ), nr.890. The charter was not mentioned by Polvliet or Rietstap). On what evidence this declaration was based, was not mentioned. Recently, however, dr. J.G. Smit, editor-in-chief of De Nederlandsche Leeuw, the official magazine of Het Koninklijk Nederlandsche Genootschap door Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, revealed new and important facts. His conclusion is that a member of the family around 1600 presented a falsified marriage contract, (note 22 RAU, HAZ, nr.818-822), in order to prove a relation with the family Van Tuyl van Bulckensteyn. According to Smit, the oldest proven ancestor is Pieter Hugensz, alderman of Zierikzee, who in 1483 bought Serooskerken from Archduke Maximiliaan of Austria. His son called himself Jacob van Serooskerke Pieter Hugensz. (note 23; later of 25 October 1995 from J.G. Smit to Rochus van Tuyl).

So let's compare. The outdated, obscure sources you use for your fantasy ancestors:

Nederland's Adelsboek (1906): outdated, the whole book was full of vanity genealogy.
De Randeck "les plus anciennes families du monde" (1984): no original research, secondary sources, French(?) guy with no detailed knowledge of the Netherlands What else did this guy publish besides this? This book is never used in any academic publications, because it's outdated and it's sole purpose was to show how old certain families are i.e. vanity. That is a totally unacademic motive. Compare that to a serious reference for aristocratic genealogies, like the Europäische Stammtafeln, which is referred to countless times in academic publications. Perform a google scholar search for Randeck and one for Europäische Stammtafeln (which has its own wikipedia article) and you will see that this Randeck is not in any way a serious reference.
Literary book on Isabelle de Charriere: written by literature professors, genealogy not based on primary sources. none of those guys is known as a genealogist.
Van Lynden, History of the van Lynden family. The person you call a "genealogist". What genealogical articles has he published besides this manuscript? The genealogy of the Van Lynden itself isn't even properly researched and was full of mythifcations until an article by Nico Plomp, noted genealogist, debunked it in Centraal Bureau door genealogie Jaarboek. There is not even copy of this manuscript on the Van Tuyll family in the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie where they keep thousands of genealogical publications.

Sources supporting the fact that there is no link between the two families and/or exposing the traditional genealogy as a forgery:

W.J.J.C. Bijleveld's encyclopedia of Dutch aristocratic families: a very respected genealogist wrote countless articles in the peer-reviewed De Nederlandsche Leeuw and other genealogical publications.
Mr. J. Belonje, "Bulckensteyn" in Bijdragen en Mededelingen Gelre 1939. A very respected genealogist wrote countless articles. Published a study on the Van Tuyll van Bulckesteyn family, studied primary sources for this, and was unable to establish a connection with the Van Tuyll van Serooskerken family.
Dr. J.G. Smit, "Raadsels rond een Zeeuws wapenbord" in peer-reviewed De Nederlandsche leeuw, jaargang CXII, nr. 7-9 juli-september 1995 p. 241-243. a very respected genealogist wrote countless articles. wrote an article, based on primary research, in which he states that the there is no connection and that the hypothesis is based on "falsified marriage contract."
Dr. Arie van Steensel, doctoral thesis, based on primary sources, on the nobility of Zeeland (2010)
Nederland's Adelsboek 95 (2010) Ta-Tw (Why do you keep on referring to a version that is over a 100 years old instead of having a look into the most recent issue on your family. This is a bit like referring to a pre-Newton book when talking about physics, totally irrelevant).

This shouldn't even be a discussion. --Catastroppphe (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]