Jump to content

Talk:Herman op den Graeff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regarding Herman op den Graeff

[edit]

− May be you should try a google book search (since if you do a regular search only the nonsense produced by family members turns up). you will find that the only facts on the wiki article are that a guy called Herman up den Graeff was a Mennonite immigrant from Germany. Anything else (plantagenet, de Graeff-link to the Netherlands, Holy Grail) is COMPLETE NONSENSE. if any of the claims made (obviously made by family members) on the wiki page were true, don't you think that such an important person (remember, he was allegedly a "guardian of the Holy grail") would be mentioned extensively in historic literature on google books; obviously this is not the case.

− F.ex. the claim that he was a descendent of the De Graeff family in Amsterdam or a descendant of House of Cleves is plain B*llsh*t. Check Nederland's Adelsboek, Europäische Stammtalfen etc.

− This page is an embarrassment and insult to the quality standards of wikipedia.

− Hence i think it's better to let the public decide; that's why i suggested that the page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchRepublic12 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe you didn’t look hard enough. Have fun searching! x, A descendant of Joan Beaufort Queen Of Scots 24.235.204.129 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

−

I think your assertions deserve wider debate, so per WP:PROD procedure, I contested the proposed deletion. You are free to pursue deletion via the articles for deletion process. You may also want to review WP:BEFORE. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

− − −

− − −

  • a cadet branch of the old Dutch (De) Graeff-family.

− − the artcile points toward an an entry about the "De Graeff" family of Amsterdam. Obviously, the two names are different: "Op den Graeff" versus simply "de Graeff". Also consider the massive geographical distance, Amsterdam- Cleve, which makes the link totally improbable. In addition, I have consulted the most recent edition of Nederland's Adelsboek (1993) (a series of genealogical books edited by the Dutch government institution regulating nobility affairs, the Hooge Raad van Adel, which is composed of historians and genealogists ); in the chapter on the De Graeff family from Amsterdam, there is no reference to any "up den Graeff". Also in Dr.S.A.C Dudok van Heel's massive 2 volume, study on Amsterdam patrician and noble families from the 14th till the the 19th, "Van Amsterdamse burgers tot Europese aristocraten: (2 volumes, more than 1100 pages): no "Up den Graeff".

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− −

  • He took the Graeff-name from his mother Anna, a great-granddaugther of Baroness Op den Graeff (* 1470).

− − Again, this shows that Herman op den Graeff cannot be related to de Graeff family from Amsterdam, since the oldest known member of that family lived in the early 16th century in Amsterdam (1539 the named de Graeff is mentionned for the first time in Amsterdam), whereas this fictious "Baroness" Op den Graeff was born already in 1470, almost 70 years before the oldest member of the family in Amsterdam in mentionned.

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− −

  • Baroness Op den Graeff, 1470), who was the morganatic wife of John II, Duke of Cleves

− − This person is fictious, a fantasy created by clowns who believe that they have noble blood. First, the use of the term "Baroness" wasn't used in 1470, this is a term used from the early 17th century onwards in Germany. The series Europäische Stammtafeln, a series of books with extensive genealogies, frequently used by historians, mentions no "baroness Op den Graeff" (in the chapter on the house of Cleves) as the "morganatic wife of John II, Duke of Cleves". Also if you do a google book search, you will find no "Barones op den Graeff" (not even a Freiherrin of Freifrau, the acurate German term for Baroness), simply because this person didn't exist. There has never been an aristocratic title "Baron of Aldkerk".

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− −

  • He was a morganatic son of John William of Cleves and his wife Anna Baroness op den Graeff van de Aldekerk

− − Again, consult the authoritative "Europäische Stammtafeln, chapter on the House of Cleves: NO, "morganatic son" called Herman op den Graeff.

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− −

  • Greitgen Pletjes (or Greitje Pletjes) (1588-1643) - a descendant of the Plantagenet dynastie. & Pletjes (Pletges) is a form of the name Plantagenet.

− − This is such a laughable and ridiculous claim. How would a "descendant of the Plantagenet dynastie" end up in a small village in Germany; totally unlikely, total nonsense. Also, check out any Plantagenet genealogy: none will mention the word "Pletjes". the very suggestion that Pletjes is an alternative spelling of the word Plantagenet is embarrassing.

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− −

− − The Synod of Dordrecht had nothing to do with the Mennonite faith; check the the wiki entry, it doesn even once mention the word "Mennonite".

− − this claim should be discarded as nonsense.

− − Since I have debunked all the fantastic claims regarding connections to aristocratic families, all the nonsense regarding "Royal and notable Relatives", "Guardians of the Holy Grail" and other Dan-Brown-type b*llsh*t is to be removed from the entry as well.

− Herman up den Graeff, was a mennonite from Krefeld, whose descendents live in the US (and obviously have a lot of fantasy and very little knowledge of history); no more, no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchRepublic12 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

− − − I happen to agree that most of the claims are nonsense. This happens to be an ancestor of mine, so I would like to correct one piece of information. Herman Op den Graeff, was a Mennonite Bishop. He attended a meeting of Mennonites in Dordrecht in 1632. While there they wrote and and signed a document known as the Confessions of Faith. http://www.rocmc.com/mennoniteconfessionoffaith.html This was different from the Synod of Dordrecht. That was held by the Dutch Reformed Church in 1618/19. So while the claims about being a royal bastard are false, and most likely the ones that the story "Lohengrin" a German "fairy tale" of sorts are based on Herman, he did indeed sign a very important religious document. His grandsons that immigrated to Pennsylvania continued in the Mennonite faith until they had a falling out with the church, and at least one of them went over to the Quakers. The person who proposed both of these stories took the symbols in the stained glass windows as a secret message of his heritage. I think they just enjoyed pretty things. Vadutchgirl (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

−

User:DutchRepublic12 is absolutely right. The origin of Herman op den Graeff is a chimera. There is no reputable source that could confirm this. The tale is based on an interpretation of the stained glass windows from Herman's house as a secret message from his origins. The windows have been stolen after the 2nd World War from the museum in Krefeld and have appeared in 1981 on an auction again. The state no longer corresponded to the original state. A window with text was e.g. replaced by an image of Mary. Since we do not know in detail what else has changed, cannot be made any statements about the coat of arms. --84.62.73.165 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No proof in Literature, not cited

[edit]

This part is removed from the article, because there is no proof given by literature. As you might see above several authors tried to install their version of history to polish up their own lineage. So every not cited part of the article is potentially a fake. Until this part is not properly cited it shouldn't be reinstalled.

He married on August 6, 1605 Greitgen Pletjes (or Greitje Pletjes) (1588-1643). The couple had the following children:

  • Trinken (Dinken) (1607-~1608)
  • Hester (~1609-1657)
  • Abraham (~1610-1656), married Eva von der Leyen.
  • Trinken (1612-~1658)
  • Hallerkin (Hillekin?) (~1614-~1691)
  • Isaac (28 Feb 1616 - 16 01 1679), married Margaret Peters Doors (Margaretha 'Grietgen' Doors) (1621 - 11 Nov 1683)
  • Jacob (~1617-~1618)
  • Alletjen (1619-1619)
  • Child (1620-1620)
  • Dirck (Derek) (1621-~1655)
  • Daughter (1622-1622)
  • Alletjen
  • Andreas (1625-)
  • Fricken (Frinken)
  • Susanna (~1629-~1714)
  • Andreas (1631-)
  • Jacob (1634-1634)

--Gabriel-Royce (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Ferdinand Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor

[edit]

Biography

[edit]

"Herman op den Graeff was perhaps a legitimate or illegitimate of John Wilhelm de la Marck. John William was a Bishop of Münster between 1574 and 1584, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg between 1592 and 1609 and a Count of Mark between 1592 and 1609. John William was married to Anna op den Graeff van de Aldekerk (1557-1613), daughter of Herman op den Graeff van de Aldekerk (* 1520) and Amalia of Cleves. Herman took over his mothers name Op den Graeff. This family sprang from Wolfgang von Graben, member of the Von Graben von Stein family, Graeff being the Dutch spelling in the 14th and 15th century. This marriage is unproven in the official records, although there is evidence supporting it."

The fact that many Protestant genealogical records were destroyed during the Protestant-Catholic civil wars provides for the confusion concerning the attempts to reconstruct this genealogy. Samuel W. Pennypacker lent credibility to the Scheuten Manuscripts, an early genealogical reconstruction, supported by the coat-of-arms op den Graeff possessed. Other reconstructions include Gabriel Bincelint of Germany from 1662 tying op den Graeff into the House of Graben von Stein through Wolfgang von Graben. From von Graben descends the Graeff line of the Netherlands, who were linen merchants, the same occupation of op den Graeff.
Many of the reconstructions are supported archeologically, but the ultimate archeological reconstruction of genealogies which have been lost is DNA. There are colonial Americans of possible noble birth such as Mary Dyer, alleged daughter of Lady Arbella Stuart, whose ancestry could ultimately be determined for good through the science. This is what the genealogists should be most focused on. DNA is a primary archeological reconstruction source and most desired encyclopedically. With such, the secondary archeological and reconstruction sources largely relied on here became adequate supplemental citations.
Until then, this page should be reverted back to the focus of op den Graeff's religious history and colonial American descendants.
National Ancestral Council (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coat of arms

[edit]

the coat of arms look like this [1] there is no swan. --Inrath (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name Ways

[edit]

A comment was made early on that "Op Den Graeff" and "De Graef" were obviously different names. That may be so, but the spelling of names in general is very malleable, and its quite easy for one spelling to transform into another, even in the same document. There are many variants of the Op Den Graef surname in German documents. Part of that is because of non-standardized spelling, part due to re-transcription errors as the documents are recopied, and published in different forms, part is because the initial scribe wrote the name as he thought it should be spelled, or as he heard it, etc. While I doubt that "Op Den Graeff" and "De Graef" have any provable genealogical connection, its not all that obvious that the names are not variants of each other.

As to the story that the Op Den Graef family has a royal connection, that's the kind of thing genealogists love to find. Often, when such an opportunity arises, reason goes out the window, and possibility becomes belief, and belief becomes fact, and the fact is only awaiting finding that key document to show its true. Genealogy is a very popular hobby, but different people have different levels of skill and sophistication about research. There's also a lot of insistence that "I'm right and to the extent you disagree with me, you're an idiot." That often comes out in the form of making wild statements, ad hominem attacks, and hyperbole. Not unlike some of the postings above. Ultimately, a good argument for or against something doesn't need those kinds of trappings. If its a good argument it will stand on its own merit, without saying things like "obviously wrong". If someone has to resort to those kinds of arguments that suggests to me that they can't make a decent argument for it in the first place.

Those genealogists who think (or perhaps "believe" is the better term for it) that the Op Den Graef family has a royal connection probably begin with their interpretation of the name, focusing in particular on the terminal name element "Graef". This will often be read as meaning "Count", and then taking the name as a whole, as meaning "of the Count". This is most likely a very bad interpretation of the name. While the high german word for count is "Graf", there is no high german equivalent for "Op". The word "op" does exist in both Dutch and low German, but means not "of" but "on". In low German and Dutch "Graef" translates to "grave". Hence the name "Op Den Graef" comes out in either of the later two languages as "on the grave". Admittedly, that makes only slightly more sense than "on the count", but its an interpretation consistent with the translation of the name as written. There are a goodly number of similar surnames in period records of Germany, including for example "Op Den Berg" meaning "on the Mountain". The fact that they attempt to connect the Op Den Graef's to the Johann William (1562-1609), of Julich-Clves-Berg, is somewhat peculiar, given Julich-Cleves-Berg was a Duchy, not a County, and its leader was Aa Duke, not a Count (Graf).

In anycase, the fundamental mistake in trying to find a connection for this family to royalty was made, I suspect, in interpreting the terminal part of the name as "count". That does not seem a likely interpretation, but that's is, I think, the starting place for those genealogists who have sought a connection to the noble lineage of Julich. The fact is that after a very long time spent in researching this (40 years according to one recent genealogist) a documentary connection to the Counts of Julich has not been found. perhaps the documentation is out there, but without some such support, the argument that the Op Den Graefs come from a morganic line of the Counts of Julich, does not stand up well.

TwelveGreat (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herman op den Graeff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herman op den Graeff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herman_op_den_Graeff&oldid=1253737651"