Talk:Jan van Riebeeck

Image on notes
According to "New History of South Africa" the portrait of Van Riebeeck painted by E.C. Godée Molsbergen is the only correct likeness of him. The image on the notes is that of one Vermuyden. Also see: SA History. Regards, Morné. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.85.87 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Riebeeck disliked his role
I recall reading somewhere that he disliked his role intensely and repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to return to Holland, but I can't find any supporting evidence for this. Does anyone else have any? Meltingpot (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Was he Dutch?
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graafschap_Culemborg Culemborg (Kuilenburg) is listed as an independent nation within the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation or free city from 1318 to 1798 until it was annexed by the Batavian Republic, though it was a vazal state, it wasn't a part of the Republic of the 7 United-Netherlands, thus he shouldn't be listed as being born in Culemborg, Gueldres, Dutch Republic but as Culemborg, Holy Roman Empire. I'm not sure if the entire city was part of the Duchy of Culemborg but if no-one objects to it I'll change his country of birth, but I don't want this to be another good will edit so I'll ask any Culemborg-experts on the matter. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

i think jan van reibeek was a dutch man, the Dutch commender. He was a leader of the v.o.c company. He was sent to cape and he was told not to colonies the cape Tina Nyembezi (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * On the matter of Jan van Riebeeck's ethnicity I don't think there's any particular question. The question (which was satisfactorily answered by the IP editor above) is whether it is fair to say that van Riebeeck was born in the Dutch Republic or not -- and the answer is no, Culemborg was not part of the Dutch Republic in 1619, but part of the County of Culemborg, which was itself a part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was sold to the Netherlands in 1720 by the Duke of Sachsen-Hildburghausen who had gained possession of it by marriage via his wife's dowry, and this sale, ruled illegal at the time as it was done without his wife's consent, led to a minor war. Regardless of the particulars it definitely was not yet part of the Netherlands in 1619, although of course it was already culturally Dutch at this time. I bring this up because a recent edit by User:HapHaxion (Special:Diff/1148489074) restored the original correction, and I have just reverted it. Eniagrom (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Article vandelism
The claim about him burning Jews in 1995 must be false. 19/02/19 roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.113.168.82 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Jan
Pp 165.73.122.91 (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)