Geertruijd van Bronckhorst (von Ahaus), Vrouwe van Bronckhorst - Confused with daughter-in-law?

Justin Durand tagging you as the original manager.

A side issue is the title/suffix.

Heer van Bronkhorst Willem I van Bronckhorst is not documented as Heer, both Medlands and Wikipedia state this fact. Wikipedia opinions that it was probable.

If there is no evidence that Willem was Heer (and therefore no evidence that Geertruid was Vrouwe) I think we should remove the suffixes from both their profiles.

Showing all 3 posts

I had her as Geertuijd, no maiden name, no parents, married to Willem van Bronckhorst.

Source: Herbert Stoyan database at University of Erlangen.
http://wwperson.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

That database has been offline for several years now. It's now available on CD but I don't have a copy:
http://genwiki.genealogy.net/WW-Person

A little about Stoyan:
http://wwwdh.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/IMMD8/staff/Stoyan/
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stoyan

This was my go-to source for German and Dutch genealogy in the old days.

Carl Gustav Verbraeken what spurces are you using for these profiles?

Spruces =》sources

Genealogieonline.nl

This tree matches what I have:
https://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboom-hintjes/R5089.php

Well that's "nice" but you realise that https://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboom-hintjes/R5089.php is a copy&paste of a MyHeritage tree, so about as worthless as internet trees get.

The impression that I have from reading http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DUTCH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc457229112 is that the is a scatter of surviving documentary references to various Heeren van Bronckhorst which people have then pieced together saying well X+Y must equal Z
That's reasonable to a certain extent but these trees have birth and death dates for every generation, how on earth can these dates be known, and if they are ficitional how can we trust anything from that page?

Again according to http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DUTCH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc457229112

Adam de Brunchorst is only known from a charter dated to 1127/31, the next known record of the family is Gislbertus de Brunkhorst who witnessed a charter dated 1176.

Dutch wikipedia points out that some people think Adam was Gijsbert's father but there is no evidence but on Geni it is given as a fact that this is the relationship.

Hypothetically, Adam could have been 80 years old in 1127 and Gijsbert could have been 15 years old in 1176.
There could be an Adam II, Adam III, Adam IV and Adam V between them! We have no way of knowing this.
Conversely, Adam could have been 15 years old in 1127 and Gijsbert 66 years old in 1176. Gijsbert could be Adam's older brother for all we know! :)

Yes. My point is that I got my info from Stoyan (as I said) and this info matches Stoyan. That should give you a good lead about whether you want to pursue Stoyan's sources, or disregard him entirely.

What about Europäische Stammtafeln or Sloet (1872)?

I don't see how i could form an opinion of Stoyan if his work is not available online, https://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboom-hintjes/R5089.php might match him in the parts you have checked but there's no way to confirm that other than asking you about each profile :) I think we'd both get bored of that fairly quickly.

Wikipedia isn't much of an authority but when even they are casting doubt on the veracity of this line i think that's worth listening to, coupled with Cawley's complete lack at even attempting to create a narrative which speaks volumes in and of itself.

I've been pondering and i think some pruning is needed, i think a "Heeren van Bronckhorst "project with a brief explanation and then a copy and paste of that chapter of Medlands with all the named persons being hyperlinked into the text as well as added to the project. Then cut unproven relationships with RL and CNs to tdirect people to the project.

Isn't this what the recent discussions have been about? These people aren't fakes, they are real but their relationships to each other while not fictional are definitely speculative.

Disclaimer: I don't know about the rest of you but these people show on Geni as my direct ancestors, "Adam van Bronckhorst van Rekem is your 26th great grandfather" except if he isn't?! I would prefer a boring blank space in my tree than an unproveable guess.

>> I don't see how i could form an opinion of Stoyan if his work is not available online,

I think I must be being too cryptic here ;)

I'll slow down, take a deep breath, and ramble a bit.

You asked me specifically about this line. Everything I have anywhere near this area of the tree is from Stoyan. I don't have much. I wasn't trying to have much. When I lived in NYC I had easy access to Europäische Stammtafeln and other sources so I had never worried about it. Then I moved to Boulder (Colorado) and didn't have the same easy access.

This was in the early days of the Internet, so when Stoyan's database came online whenever I had some time to kill I copied some of the main lines just so I would have them. I didn't think the Internet would last. I thought I was in a cultural desert forever. And anyway, Stoyan's search utility was a pain in the butt to use. It took less time to enter a whole line than it did to do even one search.

So, I just hit the highlights. Because really I would be able to check the info next time I was in NYC if I thought I needed to.

When you asked, the best I can tell you is I have this data, from this source that won't be easy to check unless you decide to buy the CD. Maybe you will but I probably wouldn't, so I'm guessing you might not either.

So, to be helpful I did a little searching. This one database, as poorly sourced as it, nevertheless matches what I have from Stoyan. Cool. That might be helpful to you. You would know this particular version matches something that came from a "good" although certainly not infallible database. Could be it came from ES. It's too long ago. I don't remember, and I never went back to NYC to check any of it. (For other reasons, yes. For genealogy, no.)

I hope next time you do a better job of reading my mind about why I'm saying stuff ;)

>> I would prefer a boring blank space in my tree than an unproveable guess.

I'm pretty sure that's our common goal.

I don't think I would cut these lines based on Cawley. Far too early. He still hasn't fleshed out much of his information. If you watch over time you see him starting with skeletal information that gets more detailed over time. My sense is that he has an outline of this area but will add much more over the next few years.

I would almost bet that this line is analogous to an Austrian line I've been looking at. Not much in Cawley. The guy I'm working with keeps pushing deeper. He's found a 16th century source that lays out a slightly different version of the tree that's all over the Internet. And an 1854 academic publication that elaborates a bit, based on the theories of a professor.

I'm very hesitant either to build or prune. I want to find a modern academic source. The 16th and 19th century are just too chancy for reliable genealogy. For all I know, the line could be a 16th century invention. Someone, somewhere needs to tie it all together with primary sources or I'm going to remain skeptical on all sides.

》I hope next time you do a better job of reading my mind about why I'm saying stuff

You and my wife both