GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-11 > 0941449077


From: Paul C. Reed< >
Subject: Re: William the Conqueror - Progeny Thereof
Date: 01 Nov 1999 09:37:57 GMT


>
>We find `near surnames,' or `surnames in formation' at Genoa in the early
>12th century, and in Portugal somewhat later.
>
>Is that the case in England?
>
>chico

There were some surnames that derived from Norman holdings that passed down
among families in England as early as the time of Domesday [1086]--de
Mascy/Massey and de Port [which became de St. John] are examples of such
families [see Lloyd's _Anglo-Norman Families_ for a large number of these].

There are also examples of families that took their surname from English places
at an early period. Gilbert de Segrave, son of Hereward de Segrave [living
1166], and Piers de Ros, who probably derived his name from Ros in Holderness
[living 1122], are examples of such families.

But even in established families, when younger sons settled in different
places, often they were known by the seat of their demesne holding [such as in
the family of Stafford; Henry de Newburgh/Neubourg, son of Roger de Beaumont
(son of Humphrey de Vieilles [son of Thorold de Pont-Audemer]), etc.].

In these cases it initially only meant Hugh of Such-and-such. In the
thirteenth century those surnames tended to stabilize and be passed down from
generation to generation. But even then, nobles, local tenants and villeins
may not have borne surnames which became heritable until a later period, but
have been known by--or their surname taken from--their place of residence,
their occupation [Depsenser, le Botiler], patronym [Maurice fitz Robert fitz
Harding, who became de Berkeley], nickname [Longespee is one members of this
group are very familiar with], etc.

The process was of course actually far more complicated and varied than what I
have stated above, but it presents the general gist of the process. It was not
until about 1400 that the particle "de" was dropped from surnames that derived
from placenames.

Many English historians now invariably substitute "of" for "de" in early
placenames, such as Hugh of Stafford, instead of Hugh de Stafford. I think
this is fine IF the person does indeed happen to reside at that place. But
when they reside somewhere other than the place represented by their surname I
think this practice is quite out of place (so to speak). Using "of" instead of
"de" by recent historians tends to be done much more frequently than is
appropriate (IMHO).

Many of the most notable Welsh families [residing in Wales, not those with
branches that relocated to England] did not pass on surnames from generation to
generation until the Tudor period.

Paul

This thread: