Talk:Willem van der Haegen

Untitled
Was he a nobleman or was he fortunate patrcian? For the established nobility it was forbidden to conduct trade. If he was a nobleman he was either poor noblemen of the established nobility or he became a nobleman because of his wealth. The coat of arms does not look very aristocratic. For instance the helmet is depicted sideways and not face on which is more common for noble families--Radiergummischreiber (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Genealogical/Historical Research and Surname Origins
Hello ,

I totally agree with the assessment that a singular source is not enough evidence to make such substantial changes that I have made previously (re-identifying Willem van der Haegen as Willem De Kersemakere). In light of that I invite you to participate in the discussion below. During my research on the subject I have found plentiful evidence that would characterize Willem van der Haegen as indeed ‘Casmaca/Cosmacre/De Kersemakere/De Keersmaeker’. Many scholars throughout the centuries have pointed to the incongruences listed in the previous narrative of this article. I believe now that there is overwhelming evidence enough to reidentify van der Haegen, as follows:

Primary sources -


 * [Primary Source] In the official online archives of the city of Bruges, there is a civil sentence (which is an original contemporary manuscript dated from April 2nd, 1470), detailing the commercial relations of an individual named Willem De Kersemakere with various Portuguese merchants, whilst nobody has yet found any documents in Flanders referring to an individual named Willem van der Haegen. I am a native speaker of Dutch and as such was able to confirm the veracity of this information. You can verify my finding here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archief_Bank_Brugge,_Civiele_Sententi%C3%ABn,_Vierschaar,_Nr._104_van_02.04.1470,_pg._56.jpg), (Archief Bank Brugge, Civiele Sententiën, Vierschaar, Nr. 104 van 02.04.1470, pg. 56, available in the official archives of Bruges on https://www.archiefbankbrugge.be, via route: Civiele Sententiën > Vierschaar > 1470 > 56);
 * [Primary Source] In 1506 (during the lifetime of Willem, 1430-1507/9), Valentim Fernandes wrote in his manuscript 'Descripcam' (in latin) the name 'Guylelmo Hersmacher' to refer to Willem van der Haegen;
 * [Primary Source] The name Casmaca/Cosmacra has been used by scholars to refer to Willem van der Haegen since the second half of the 16th century (first by Gaspar Frutuoso in the manuscript Saudades da Terra), and afterwards by several other scholars throughout the centuries;
 * [Primary Source] The will of his wife (Margarida de Sabuya) from 1510 (registered by the notary André Fernandes), referred to him solely as Guilherme Casmaca;
 * [Primary Source] In 1646, in the manuscript 'Espelho Cristalino', Diogo das Chagas states that Frutuoso was wrong in claiming that Willem van der Haegen was the grandson of a Count of Flanders, instead arguing that there were two people named Silveira: "João de Silveyra, a very important man and great merchant (or cunning merchant)", to whom Josse de Hurtere (Joz de Utra) made many promises if he would agree to settle on the Azores, and another "Guilherme de Silveyra of the Silveyras of Brandath" who traveled to Flores and then São Jorge. In regards to the latter, Diogo das Chagas notes that the name Brandath is a linguistical corruption of Vandraga, according to the act of D. João II (concerning van der Haegen's coat of arms);

Secondary Sources -

I also would like to state the following:
 * [Secondary Source] In the late 19th century / beginning of the 20th century, António Ferreira de Serpa (Portuguese historian), refuted the noble origins of Willem van der Haegen and also mentioned his wife's will and the name Casmaca in many of his writings (books and papers);
 * [Secondary Source] In 1900, in his book 'A History of the Azores Islands, Vol. 5, p. 140' James H. Guill makes certain allegations pertaining Willem van der Haegen's origins (Guill claims that Willem was a grandson of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy). However, he does not cite any sources for this information. Marcelino de Almeida Lima (Azorean journalist and historiographer) also brings up the rumor that van der Haegen was the grandson of a Count;
 * [Secondary Source] In 1944, Eduardo de Campos de Castro de Azevedo Soares in Nobiliário da Ilha Terceira, Vol. 2 claims that colonizer known as Guilherme da Silveira was from Maastricht, which previously belonged to the Duchy of Brabant, where there was never any family by the name Vandraga/Van der Haegen;
 * [Secondary Source] In 2006, Jacques Paviot wrote in his article 'Les Flamads au Portugal au XV Siècle (Lisbonne, Madère, Açores), in the journal 'Anais da História de Além-Mar' (Universidade Nova de Lisboa): "A final important point is worthy of mention as to its [Guilherme da Silveira's] true origin. The first contemporary mention - while he was still alive- is in the manuscript of Valentim Fernandes, in the form Guylelmo Hersmacher. For his part, Gaspar Frutuoso writes somewhere: << Guilherme da Silveira que outros chamam Cosmacra >> (...) Now, on April 2, 1470, we find in Bruges, the bourgeois (and no doubt a merchant) Willem de Kersmakere, who, with Jan Colne de Jonghe, was was doing bussiness with several Portuguese merchants. There is no doubt that he has become Guilherme da Silveira, who has usurped the name of a large Portuguese family";
 * [Secondary Source] In his 2009 book 'Genealogias das Quatro Ilhas: Faial, Pico, Flores e Corvo', Jorge Forjaz says that the translation from Willem van der Haegen to Guilherme da Silveira was very questionable;
 * [Secondary Source] In 2010, Pedro da Silveira wrote in 'Boletim do Núcleo Cultural da Horta', in his article 'Variações à Roda do Descobrimento das Flores e do Corvo': " (...) then here it is, in his surname, and not in his nickname, de Casmaca, which I dare consider indication of great deeds by Guilherme da Silveira in the Azores. Casmaca or Cosmacra is without give or take the linguistical corruption of the common noun, still used in Afrikaans, Kaasmaker, which in Portuguese translates to cheese maker";
 * [Secondary Source] In 2011, the Belgian genealogist André Claeys, who was also archivist of Bruges, asserted in his book 'Vlamingen op de Azoren, Vol. III, p. 2-5' the existence of a civil sentence dated from April 2nd 1470 in which a person named Willem De Kersemakere was recorded to have made commercial transactions with several Portuguese merchants. In the same book, Claeys also cites the will of Willem van der Haegen's wife (Margarida de Zabuya) in which Willem is referred as Guilherme Casmaca, claiming that the colonizer until then known in Azorean History as Willem van der Haegen was in fact the aforementioned person named Willem De Kersemakere and then going on to refute the claims made by James H. Guill concerning Willem's and Margarida's noble origins. Claeys' research on Willem van der Haegen and on several Flemish-Azorean lineages was published on the official website of the Public Library and Regional Archives Luís da Silva Ribeiro (https://bparlsr.azores.gov.pt/arquivo_regional/pesquisas-genealogicas/), which according to the Azorean Regional Secretariat of Education and Culture is one of the three libraries responsible for the genealogical inventory of the Azores;
 * [Secondary Source] in 2012, José Guilherme Reis Leite wrote in 'Boletim do Instituto Histórico da Ilha Terceira', in his article 'Os Flamengos na Colonização dos Açores', "(...) nevertheless unsuspicious sources point to the contrary. In the will of his widow, Maria Sabuiu,(...) he is called Guilherme Casmaca, that is a linguistical corruption of Kasmach, which in Flemish simply means cheese maker";
 * [Secondary Source] In 2017, Jorge Forjaz (Portuguese historian and genealogist) gave a lecture which among other things said: "On the other side it is noteworthy that in the context of this surname, another one arises later, Casmaca. (...) in the will of Margarida Sabuio, the notary André Fernandes says she is the wife of Guilherme Casmaca. Certain authors also say he was from the generation (lineage) of the Kasmach of Flandres, originally from Maastricht and Bruges. The surname Kasmach does not exist in Flemish but is an otherwise known word of the dictionaries, with slight variations, Kaasmaker, which in Flemish simply means cheese maker";
 * On January 4th, 2013, the user noticed some incongruences in the narrative of the article which are listed above, of which I must reinforce: in the 15th century the nobility was not allowed to conduct trade, therefore Willem van der Haegen must have been either 1) a patrician, 2) a merchant who was enobled because of his wealth;
 * On June 7th, 2014, some anonymous user posted on the talk page of Willem van der Haegen's article in the Portuguese wikipedia that the research used in the article is outdated and was done by researchers who a) did not read Dutch, b) never consulted the archives in the Flemish city of Bruges. Then they go on to detail Claey's findings and claims, this comment is available on (https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discuss%C3%A3o:Willem_van_der_Haegen&diff=39099217&oldid=23846712);
 * One of the arguments which was used to prevent the changes I proposed is that there weren't enough sources to reidentify Willem van der Haegen as De Kersemakere. However, if you see the sources listed above and compare the number of sources listed in the article before my edits (2) with the number of sources after my edit (13), you might find this claim questionable;
 * Please bear in mind that I do not wish nor have I ever wished to change the name of the article, also, I do not wish to remove the name Willem van der Haegen from the article. I just wish to present the other names Willem van der Haegen is known by;
 * I believe that the purpose of wikipedia is being a source of encyclopedic knowledge in which anyone might contribute with new research as long as it can be substantiated by scholarly sources;
 * Last but not least, I believe I have thoroughly demonstrated that the changes I am proposing to this article are well supported by the aforementioned scholarly sources.

Wih kind regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: should you require links to the sources I cited prior to any edits in the article, I would be more than happy to forward you this information.