Johan van Oldenbarnevelt
NOTE TO OUR READERS:
Please keep in mind that your comments as submitted to our website are publishable. Please let us know if you wish your comments kept private. We do like to respond to you, so also, please, provide us your U.S. Postal mailing address so that we may follow up in the event the email system fails to provide you our response. Thank you so much for your participation!
IMS Malloy, Web Manager
We will be removing statements regarding the unproven connection to Johann Van Olden Barneveldt in response to deeper research which has yielded no documentation (other than previous treatises which do not provide sources and whose authors have not been identified.)
Our responsibility to verify our data and keep our website as accurate and reliable as possible holds us to a finer line that many have taken. We await further findings into the background of our Pieter Van Stoutenburg and thank those who have brought us clearer information, among whom is Keith Baigrie, a portion of whose most interesting correspondence follows:
I have …previously taken your site to task over the claims therein for your Pieter Van Stoutenburg. A name in old Dutch which merely signified that the person was named Pieter (VAN=FROM) Stoutenburg. Nb at the same time your Pieter appeared in New Amsterdam it should be mentioned that there was a Dutch born Peter Barneveld living in London as an inn keeper.
Willem Van Olden Barneveld "notionally" Lord of Stoutenburg He was given the title on his marriage to Marnix by his Father Johan who had bought the title for 2000 Guilders from his wife’s Maria van Utrecht’s family.
After Johan’s execution in 1619 Prince Maurice proclaimed that "he had never given permission for this transfer of title and arms" and it is a matter of record that he declared the transfer void and a couple of years later the title was sold to another person. As a matter of interest Maurice sequestrated back to himself all Johan’s family possessions including all his titles and property.
It should be noted that New Amsterdam was then owned by the Dutch East India Company which itself was founded by Johan Van Olden Barneveld and the Prince of Orange and may well have been a factor in the Prince organizing the judicial murder of Johan on a trumped up charge with a trumped up trial and trumped up Jury. So it surely could be assumed that if Prince Maurice and his heirs then owned New Amsterdam, it is very unlikely that a Pieter Stoutenburg/Barneveld would have been tolerated as treasurer, indeed to say the least, they would have put him in prison.
Lastly William van Olden Barneveld, who was declared dead in Brussels 1634 and in his last will and testament he left his "best family bed" (a VERY significant gift in those times), to his maidservant, his coach and horses to his coachman, and to his personal servant nothing! (As he knew he was a spy for Maurice). I was told by the R.C. Priest that William was actually buried in the crypt of the chapel in Brussels as was set out in his will.
So please can you amend this website based on the findings of an early local ecclesiastic court in the US, who in turn based their findings on a paid lady genealogical ‘agent’ who seems to have perhaps decided to write whatever she was paid to "discover."
I look forward to your comments.
Keith Baigrie
(Devon England)
devon england, disputed content, dutch east india company, dutch history, ecclesiastic court, genealogical agent, hyde park, johan van oldenbarneveldt, keith baigrie, lord of stoutenburgh, maria van utrecht, new amsterdam, old dutch, oldenbarneveldt connection, peter barneveld, pieter stoutenburg, prince maurice, prince of orange, rc priest, us court, willem van olden barneveld
April 12, 2010
