GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186043011


From: John Plant <>
Subject: Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:23:31 +0100
References: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> <1185995710.722143.228160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com><1186007225.956626.234330@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1186007225.956626.234330@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>


John Brandon wrote:
>> Your model implies that the surname was there, present but suppressed,
>> though the reigns of 11 monarchs (at a time, by the way, that no
>> monarchs used surnames), monarchs with dramatic differences in
>> character, all of whom were too embarrassed to be associated with
>> "bawdy connotations of virility". Then one member who wanted to show
>> himself a more appropriate successor than the guy on the throne - he
>> goes out of his way to adopt a name with "bawdy connotations of
>> virility". I am having problems with the motivations.
>>
>> taf
>
> Maybe you're just too hairy and virile to understand, Todd. This
> might be a smooth man's dilemma ...
>

Taf/John,

As I said, the editor of Nomina does not want me to reveal too much yet.
However, briefly, this is explained as follows:

(1) there was particularly unfortunate sense around the Welsh Marches
when the reputation of Geoffrey Plante Genest came to England;

(2) Richard Duke of York, at the times of the Wars of the Roses, had to
take seriously the gossip of the common folk (rather than just relying
on the official records of religiously trained clerks);

(3) in the intervening years, bawdy sense of `planting' had been
sanitized to a large extent from man's generation to godly creation; and,

(4) use of the Plantagenet surname took off particularly during Tudor
times by when there was less concern for the reputation of the preceding
regime.

John

This thread: