Naming rules

The Rules

BdK says:

De naamgeving van de zoons (en dochters) binnen de grafelijke familie was aan strenge regels gebonden. Vooral Cordfunke heeft in zijn pas verschenen boek over huwelijk en huwelijkspolitiek van de graven uit het Hollandse Huis daarop uitdrukkelijk gewezen. Jong overleden kinderen, die niet in de bronnen genoemd worden maar op grond van het systeem van vernoemen er geweest moeten zijn, worden door hem met een vraagteken tussen de uit bronnen bekende kinderen geplaatst. In navolging van Cordfunke hebben wij bij de eerste drie generaties ditzelfde gedaan. Opvallend is, dat de naamgeving nauwkeurig aansluit bij die binnen de grafelijke familie.

He has:

I. Willem van Theylingen (Wilhelmus de Theyling), vermeld 1174,1 wellicht een zoon van Floris de Zwarte, tr. N.N., (verm.) dr. van Gerard van Theylingen (Gherardus de Theyling), de laatste vermeld 1143

1. Floris (?), jong overl.
2. Gerard (?), jong overl.
3. Willem van Theylingen, heer van Theylingen, vermeld 1198-1243, overl. 5 maart 1244. Hieruit het geslacht Van Theylingen.
4. Dirk van Theylingen, volgt II.
5. Gerard van Theylingen (Gerard Dode), vermeld 1223, 1227,3 en (1233).4
6. Simon van Theylingen, leenman van het Sticht (Utrecht), sneuvelde te Ane bij Coevorden 1227.5 Hieruit het (jongere) geslacht Van Benthem.
7. Machteld (van Theylingen), vermeld 1250, tr. Herper van Foreest, vermeld 1230.6 Hieruit het geslacht Van Foreest

Our W#149 (first mentioned in OHZ #149), and his kids, according to BdK in "Stamreeks van der Duyn" So vBenthem and vForeest sprote from him too. The former ended up with the castle, the latter...

Strict naming, so children marked with (?) are assumed to have existed under those rules, even if they haveen't been found. What were the rules again:

1. father's father
2. mother's father, #124 GvT ... so that basically like the ancient Greek did it, and like it remained until Napoleon abolished baptism (he didn't, different story)
3. self, to get a long line of reincarnations of the lord, as we so often see.
4. father's father's brother? Not grandfather, that was F2vH, greatgrandfather then? Dirk is the family's leading given name.
5. reincarnation of 2. So Gerard (2) would have died, but only after Dirk (4) had been born, and the 5th son was named to fill the empty spot.
6. ... great-great-grandfather? If one'd follow BI/Sicco legend, Simon->G1->G2->H->W. But in this scenario W#149 was vH and married Gdr vT, so that would be his wives gggfather then?
7. Machteld. Would that be the female side of 3, after his wive? Of 4, mothers fathers sister?

As for the rules: So that boils down to 1) paternal grandfather 2) maternal grandfather 3) father For daughters that would translate to -mother. 4) and 5) arent so clear, might be uncles, grandfathers...

As for the kids: 1 and 2 were never found to have existed. But (2) reincarnated, and must have live until after the birth of (4). That would mean Floris (1) was still alive when Simon (6) was born. It is likely there were some daughters in between 6 sons. If Simon would have been the 9th child (so 3 daughters), and they'd come 2 years apart, Floris would have made it past 16, and he only wasn't reincarnated because no more sons were born after his death. If he'd had 6 sisters, he would almost be marriage material.

That G came after W and D must be assumed by importance. We see the brothers appearing together in Oorkonden from around 1200. G gets delt Heemskerk. G would have been 2nd son, and thus older, thus more prominent, so he must have reincarnated, seems the assumption. So G (2) would have died around 8 yo. One could also argue that G was a basterd. Then he could have been older, (5) could take the place of (2), but could not inherit title or rechte lenen.

And Machteld, was she the only daughter? The first? Then FdZ would have bedded a Machteld?

Lets check the rules: it goes on with the brother Drossaart, vB...

Willem, heer van Brederode, vermeld 1244 tot 1285, ridder, overl. 3 juni 1285, tr. Hildegonde van Voorne, dr. van Hendrik, heer van Voorne, en Mabelia van Cysoing.

1. Jan (?), jong overl.
2. Dirk van Brederode, vermeld 1251 en 1268, ridder.
3. Floris van Brederode, volgt III.
4. Aleidis van Brederode, overl. 26 juni (ca. 1262), tr. 1e (verm.) Hendrik van Naaldwijk, tr. 2e ca. 1250 Gerard, kastelein van Keizersweerd.

Rules 1, 2, 3 identical, Jan is assumed to have existed. He must have lived until after the birth of Floris. Rule 4 would then be grandfather, FdZ. Or W#149 would have had a brother Floris. Or he was named after DvB's older brother (1). There likely were daughters in between, no reincarnations. And Aleidis, was she the only daughter? The first? Then the Gerardsdr would have been Aleidis? Rule 4 still isn't clear. No rule 5.

Does that hold on III in that tree? Only 3 sons, no reincarnations, so no 4th and 5th rules. Based on 2) the unknown wife of FvB would be Jansdr then. The girl on 4) would, if 1st daughter, been after Floris's mother, Alverade. She was mother of a Machteld, but that could have been after fathers mother.

Application of those rules to FdZ, [W#149], W#202 and DWvT

BdK told us the name Willem was introduced into the vHolland line by Ada van Schotland. She married F3vH in 1162, he adopted her CoA, and they had a 2nd or later son Willem, that would have been... 6 years after marriage, 4th child. FdZ had died a generation earlier, and can't have named his child after that Willem. So it must have come from mothers side then. So FdZ bedded Machteld Willemsdr?

The tree according to BdK first

 D5vH x O
     |
F2vH x PvS               SvT
     |                   /?
   FdZ            GvT#124?
    |          /       \
W#149 x N Gdr vT       HvT#142
   /         \
W#202        DvB

FdZ

Floris de Zwarte would have been the younger son of the count, so his descendents could have worn the CoA of the count with a barensteel. BdK shows it must have been in this generation that CoA split. It is important to remember that his brother D6 became count, his son F3 married Ada van Schotland in 1162, and adopted royal Coat of Arms. Only after that, the related families could have adopted their versions of it. No seal with a coat of arms was ever seen of #149, neither did Dirk Drossaert, W#202 is the first that we have seen using it (H.J.J. Vermeulen, Bouwsteen en Toetssteen, V.5.2).

Of Floris de Zwarte, very little is known. That leaves the possibility he had children we do not know of. FdZ would have named his first son F, fathers father. So he had more then one son? And W#149 would then have been the 2nd son? Or was W#149 illegitmate, FdZ and Machteld weren't married, so her son would be named after mothers father? BdK says: Tot welke familie zou de moeder van Willem van Theylingen (1174) behoord hebben als gade van Floris de Zwarte? Hiertoe moqe de volqende suggestie aangereikt worden. De voornaam Willem vinden wij in de Hollandse oorkonden vóór 1150 niet terug, zodat we buiten Holland moeten zoeken. Zou een dochter of kleindochter van Wilhelmus, graaf in Isla-et-Lake, overleden ná 1122, geen geschikte huwelijkspartner zijn geweest voor Floris de Zwarte? Theodericus de Upgoye, vermeld 1108-1131 en zoon van Wilhelmus, was burggraaf van Utrecht. De functie van burggraaf ging over op Herman van Kuik. Had Floris de Zwarte rechten en moeten we achter de moord toch meer zoeken? In ieder geval blijken de Van Theylingens later banden met Utrecht te hebben.

FdZ was murdered in 1133. From his remains it was determined he had been 29-30 old when he died. That doesn't fit his DoB of 1115. If that is corret, and he married by 22 he could have had up to 5 legitimate children. He was actually count in 1129, and it is unlikely the familiy would have even attempted to make sure he produced a heir: marriage arangements were likely. They even seem to be at the heart of the conflicts he fought: his plans to marry Heilwive de Rode led to a conflict with Herman and Godfried van Kuyk, who had him killed.

W#149, if he was the son of FdZ, must have been born <1134 then. That's 22 years earlier then I had him before. He'd align with Hugo vT, his wife's brother, that suits the story (of him marrying the sister of Hugo).

W#149

For W#149 we stick to BdK for now.

He would have been 38 when H#142 died, and vT fell to the sister of Hugo, who apparently hadn't any surviving offspring by then...

Wait a minute! When WDW died in 1283 without sons, just weeks after his father DWvT had died in 1282, his brother Jan did not get it, nor any of his sisters. Maybe Jan would have been qualified as in a direct male line, but he seems to have been a bastard: JO says Dit laatste betekent een jongere tak; bij bastaardij staat er namelijk een schuine balk op., and Vermeulen mentions Jan van Teilingen, jongere zoon van Dirk, (1276-1304†), voerde in 1296 83 een leeuw met een schuinstaak. vT returned to the count:

Dirk overleed in 1282, en zijn oudste zoon overleed een paar weken later zonder een mannelijke erfgenaam na te laten, waardoor de hoofdtak van het geslacht Van Teylingen uitstierf. Het stamslot verviel aan de grafelijkheid.

So Gerardsdr couldn't have inherited it, so W#149 did not aqcuire vT by marriage, because it returned to the count. Who might have given it to his 2nd degree cousin, that might not have inherited much from his father. So, he might not have married a Gerardsdr then, maybe she even never existed. He did seem to have a son Gerard (how do we know that?), that might have been named after mothers father, but that could be anyone.

W#149 would have married Aleidis? Gerardsdr before 1172 then. She is said to have died young, or soon after that, or not being the mother of any of his children. Unclear based on what. He could have married her by 1156. Or have had another wife from 1156-1171.

I now doubt Arend was his son, see De heren van Rijswijk.

If have children of him 1175-1204. That was made to fit a DoB of 1156, and the brothers W&D being young adults when they enter the stage in oorkonden around 1205-1225 (was it?). If his DoB is to be <1134 he would have fahtered his children aged 41-70. Possible maybe, if he had a younger wife. He was attributed several, Agnies van Bentheim, Maria van Castricum, Margarete van Lippe, but BdK doesn't go there.

That 22 year shift would also leave room for another generation, and an in between Willem would likely have gone unnoticed in OZH, and it might also be helpful dividing all the spouses. Maybe the pendants (hangers) on the barensteel could tell us something? I have seen 3 and 5, might that indicate the numer of generations since the split? Vermeulen: W#202 had 5, DW had 5, DSW had 3 lions with 3 each. WDvB had 5.

W#202

I have AvL for a wife, and she has father W, grandfather Arnold.

Then according to the rules his sons would have been 1) W 2) W' 3) W 4) F 5) A Three sons Willem wouldn't be practical. Willem, Bill and Willempie? Would they have just skipped the 2nd and 3rd?

To get a Dirk, Simon, Floris, Willem as in NL26...

We'd need 6) Dirk, after father's brother. Could be an adaptation of rule 4 or 5. 7) Simon, would be very hard to fit a Simon in based on the rules, unless we get to greatgrandfathers. 8) Floris, who'd be the reincarnation of (4) 9) For Dirk to be the oldest we need to reincarnate 1,2,3 into a younger Willem.

That would be 9 sons, 7 if we have 1,2,3 as a single one. There would have likely been at least 4 daughters too, making it 11 kids, would have taken 20 years.

DW

On with Dirk then... his wife was Gertrudis, her father likely a Jan, for he had sons W and Jan. Daughters Machteld, Christina, Willem, Ada, and N.N. vHagestein. Rules would dicatate:

1) Agnes 2) Gertrudis' mother 3) Gertrudis 4) Agnes 5) Gertrudis' grandmother.

So... vHagestein would have to be a Agnes. Gertrudis mother a Machteld, Christina or Ada? And sons being sparse, they named a daughter after father's father?

Conclusion

The rules only partly explain the names in this branch, I wouldn't say they match closely.