Jutta van Holland - Parents are spurious

My reply: Hi Nigel
Not certain at all. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm going to make your message a Discussion from the profile, so we've got if for posterity - then I'll cut the link.
Cousin Sharon

Medlands (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DUTCH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc457229109) even does not mention the name of the wife of Nicolaas van Borselen. However, he has a granddaughter Jutta who may have been named after her grandmother

She was a bastard daughter of Willem I van Wassenaar van Teijlingen with Jutta van Amstel van Pumbeke

https://www.genealogieonline.nl/kwartierstaat-koos-van-rijn/I11302.php

basterd daughter as per https://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboom-homs/I6000000000417199491.php

Further information on Willem I and Aleida, which re-iterates the 5 children between these two.

http://madmonarchs.guusbeltman.nl/genealogy_nl/holland/holland.htm

Also worth noting the following, (which has been translated from Dutch, so maybe a few spelling errors!)

http://johnooms.nl/heren-en-vrouwen-van-adel/heren-van-borselen/

which states;

William I was married in 1197 to Stavoren with Aleid of Guelders , daughter of Otto I of Guelders . From this marriage five children were born:
- Floris IV , successor to his father.
- Otto , bishop of Utrecht
- William, deceased in 1238 during a tournament.
- Ada , abbess of Rijnsburg
- Ricardis (d January 3rd 1262).
William married a second time with Maria of Brabant . This second marriage remained childless.
Further, William still had an illegitimate daughter with Jutta of Pumbeke: Jutta Holland (born ca. 119, deceased in 1270). She was married to Nicholas I of Borselen.

"Further, William still had an illegitimate daughter with Jutta of Pumbeke: Jutta Holland (born ca. 119, deceased in 1270). She was married to Nicholas I of Borselen."

So this is her - does the Dutch site give the sources for this?

As Ard says - the Medlands link doesn't name her: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DUTCH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc457229109

1. NIKOLAAS van Borselen (-before May 1263). m ---. The name of Nikolaas´s wife is not known. Nikolaas & his wife had three children:

a) PIETER van Borselen . "P. et H. milites filii quondam domini Nicolai de Bersalia" confirmed donations to Middelburg made by “recolended memorie domino N. patri nostro...sororis nostre domine M.” by charter dated [20/26] May 1263[157]. m ---. The name of Pieter´s wife is not known. Pieter & his wife had one child:
i) JUTTA van Borselen . The marriage contract of "Petrus de Borsalia miles...Jutte filie mee" and “Henrico de Lecke” is dated 26 Oct 1271[158]. m (contract 26 Oct 1271) HENDRIK [I] Heer van de Leck, son of VOLPERT Heer van de Leck & his wife --- (-after 12 Jun 1290).

b) H--- van Borselen . "P. et H. milites filii quondam domini Nicolai de Bersalia" confirmed donations to Middelburg made by “recolended memorie domino N. patri nostro...sororis nostre domine M.” by charter dated [20/26] May 1263[159].

c) M--- van Borselen . "P. et H. milites filii quondam domini Nicolai de Bersalia" confirmed donations to Middelburg made by “recolended memorie domino N. patri nostro...sororis nostre domine M.” by charter dated [20/26] May 1263[160].

I see Felipe González de Otoya De Narváez reconnected her to parents. Felipe, I think we need primary sources to confirm this connection.

the link that Felipe gives has no sources mentioned at all; the link that Rene gives is maintained by George J. Homs
The long text contradicts the schedule at the top and reaches the conclusion (on basis of plausibility, not clear sources) that Jutta is indeed an illegitimate daughter of William III

sorry, of course I meant William I (not III)

:-) Thanks Ard, and for calling George here.

summary of the long text in Dutch: the main argument comes from a papal dispensation for the marriage of Wolfert II van Borselen, heer van Veere en Zandenburg because the partners were relatives of each other. From that it is concluded that Nicolaus van Borselen, sr. must have married a daughter of William I, and the name is derived from the common habit to name children after their grandparents

Would the dispensation have been neccessary for an illegitimate daughter?

http://gw.geneanet.org/charpentiera?n=van+holland&oc=&p=jutta

http://gw.geneanet.org/pvanbrabant?n=van+holland&oc=&p=jutta

http://gw.geneanet.org/alain3131?n=van+holland&oc=&p=jutta

http://gw.geneanet.org/antongeorgrossi?n=van+holland&oc=&p=...

Those are other people's trees, not primary sources Felipe.

Sharon Doubell I'm not an expert on 13th century church law, but apparently the need for dispensation depended on the BIOLOGICAL relationship regardless of the legal status

Ard, canon law also included spiritual relationships. For example, you would need a dispensation to marry a cousin of your former mistress. With medieval genealogy it is very common to develop theories about possible relationships based on the fact that a dispensation was necessary. These theories have to be used with caution because there is often more than one way it could have happened.

far as i know that i was told about my ancestor supposedly one of the relatives descended from the same parent with the Heukelom and van Holland/Borsele marriage i have Borsele on my Stoutemburg and my van Avesnes van Holland lines.

scorce "history of Holland", and a book involving dutch pedigree'

Brabant also descended from a Heukelom and Borselen

Marena, you would need to cite the original sources those books used to reach their conclusions. Otherwise, the information is suspect.