My original family name is dutch and it had a Van in it. For example, Van Amstel, I know Van means “from”.
I’ve also been told Van is usually associated with families from Dutch nobility. But haven’t been able to confirm this.
Anyone know for sure if this is generally true?
Genealogy has turned up a coat of arms for my family and records of land ownership from the 1600’s. Is that more indication of nobility?
Not that it matters. My branch of the family tree were Louisiana sharecroppers. Didn’t even own the land they farmed. There are some wealthy branches but ours shriveled up at least six generations ago.
Not nobility at all. “Van” just means "of ", indicating where or whom you are from. Over 40 percent of all Dutch surnames are preceded by "van’.
Noble names are indicated by: “van Name tot Othername” or by double names that arent married names.
“Van der Bilt” not noble, just means “of the market”
“van Dam” not noblem, just means " of the dam"
“van Bredevoort” not noble, just means “from the city of Bredevoort”
“van Dam van Bredevoort” probably a family that used to be noble.
" van Dam tot Bredevoort" quite probably noble.
Wikipedia has (of course) a page listing Dutch noble families. Many of them do have a “van” in their names but, equally, many of them don’t.
Note that the Kingdom of the Netherland was only established in 1813, and the majority of families with pretensions to nobility will have pedigrees going back well beyond that. They may, therefore, hold titles granted by the French kings or by the Emperor, or feudal titles which “just growed” in one or other of the provinces of the Low Countries. Conversely there are a couple of Irish families who have been awarded Dutch noble titles by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. All in all it’s quite a mixed picture, entirely lacking the order, system and centralization of, say, the British peerage.
The real issue with respect to a Dutch family, I think, is not “are they noble?” but “were they powerful and, if so, how powerful, and where?”, and answers to questions about nobility will more or emerge from those questions.
What UDS said. Besides, being noble is thought of as a little elitist in egalistic Holland; flaunting it is considered to be in bad taste. The list of Dutch noble families is in the Red Book.
Nobility is still indicated by a title, for instance, jhr. That stands for " jonkheer" and it is, I think, the lowest Dutch title. An old boss used to be a jhr, as well as the dad of my kids playmate.
Another indication is the list of Dutch patrician families, the Blue Book. Here’s the wiki, and it links to a list of names you could look up. My family is on that list. That was fun, because I bought the book that came with that list and it had descriptions of all my ancestors in it, up untill my branch of the family with me and my siblings.
Oh please, everyone has a coat of arms on the net, like eveyone’s previous incarnation was a sixteenth century courtesan and never “Mick, the local goat fucker”.
Couldn’t that be true, though? The further back you go, the more likely you have a certain ancestor. Plus, what makes you think that the poor people would have had their family survive, with all the poor conditions?
I mean, seeing as I’m not part goat, I’m pretty sure I’m not descended from Mick.
Beethoven was involved in a custody dispute over his nephewwhere the difference between “van” in Dutch" and “von” in German had legal significance - decided whether he could sue in the court for nobles or the court for commoners - he ended up in the court for commoners:
I can see how my aunt mixed up Van and Von. She’s been researching the family since the 1970’s. It’s easier today with the Internet. Although there’s also a lot of misinformation out there too.
She originally found our coat of arms in an old Parish church in Louisiana. A lot of our distant family from the 1800’s is buried there. The coat of arms has turned up several times in research and it’s been consistent.
Quite. It means “young lord”, same as Junker in German. Originally it was a title for the younger sons of landed gentry, whom would not inherit estate and often sought professional careers as army officers. By the 19th century there were so many of them that they held considerable influence over the military and formed a noble class of their own.
The thing about coats of arms is that in most cases, they are awarded to individuals, not whole families. Often, a son who is also entitled to arms will use a version of his father’s coat, so they do tend to be passed down. However, if you had an ancestor with a particular coat of arms you can’t assume them as your own.
Of course, there are no laws of heraldry in force here in the US, so here you can display whatever coat you feel like, as long as it isn’t a protected trademark or something like that.
There are some wealthy branches but ours shriveled up at least six generations ago.
That’ll help a lot in our family research.
That was fun, because I bought the book that came with that list and it had descriptions of all my ancestors in it, up untill my branch of the family with me and my siblings.