<<Two of the most probable origins are closely connected. In the days when the Saxons were the stroppy serfs of Norman barons or knights, they were bound to the soil, belonging to their owner, who could sell them on to someone else. So if they decided to leave town, the lord could get pretty annoyed, and if they were useful workmen, he would send the dogs (and his Normans) after them. When hauled back, they needed to be taught not to run again - so either shackles or even an iron spike through the foot, to lame them enough to stop running but not to make them useless for working. The spiked foot would not heal well and often swelled up, giving the owner the name poddig fot, swell foot. If things went really wrong, the foot had to be amputated and replaced by an iron clog. - so poid de fer, iron foot.>> This is unlikely to be true, for several reasons. 1. There is no historical evidence that it was ever done, and given the nature of medieval society at the time when surnames were being adopted it is most improbable. Serfdom in mid-medieval England was not slavery (in the sense that a slave's person is the absolute property of his owner and can be maltreated physically, or even killed) - it was more a kind of economic ownership. Most serfs (also called villeins, bondmen, natives) were tenants of farms in the lord's manor, or the family members of tenants, and in village terms were quite wealthy men (often better off than some of the freemen). When a serf was sold it was because the land of which he was the tenant had been sold - even today when a landlord sells a house the tenant transfers to the new owner and becomes his tenant. In the last analysis serfs were just tenants who had to pay very heavy rents, in cash and in kind and in services, and including many one-off payments for special purposes - they were the lord's cash cows. There were a number of things which free men could do which they couldn't, and they could be made to do things which freemen could not, but in practice th! ey could do or refuse all these things if they just paid the lord for permission. In theory they couldn't live away from the manor, but in practice they could if they paid for the privilege. And there was no restriction on their travelling away from the manor, even for weeks and months, providing they paid all their dues and performed all their obligations; it was only permanent departure which required permission. Manors weren't prison farms with fences and armed guards and dogs to chase after absconded villeins - they were villages, not very different from the ones we live in today, with landlords who usually didn't even live in the village and wouldn't know from one month to the next who was there and who had gone off somewhere else (the landlord's local officials were local villeins taking their turn to perform the manorial offices, just like later parish constables and overseers, and would as often conceal things as report them). Lords usually had difficulty getting back villeins who were living somewhere else without paying the appropriate fee, and when they did get them back it was just to haul them before the manor court and make them pay the fee. 2. Anyway, the story lacks internal logic. Even if manors had been like prison farms, it still just doesn't make sense. What use is a farm worker who has been maimed like this? If he is so lame that he can't escape from the manor then he would be useless for just about every kind of farm labour. If, on the other hand, he can still work usefully then he can also get away. 3. It may be that right back at the time of the Conquest the newly arrived Norman lords treated their Saxon tenants more harshly than in later periods - though probably more in the context of rebellion than for tenurial matters such as living outside the manor without permission (and in fact generally speaking Saxon peasants were freer than mid-medieval ones) - but that's irrelevant to the origin of the surname Puddiphat, since no surnames were adopted by serfs during the period of Norman lords and Saxon serfs. Inheritable surnames only began to be used by the rural villein class in the 13th and 14th centuries, and in some parts of the country even later. 4. Iron prosthetic limbs for disabled peasants in the Norman period (or indeed in any time in the middle ages)? Not very likely. 5. The real origins of the surname Puddiphat, Puddifoot are much more prosaic. Because most examples found in early records end in -fat rather than -fot it is usually reckoned to derive from the Middle English nickname 'puddy-vat', meaning a large round vat or tub, probably a reference to a man's portly physique (though 'puddy-foot' may sometimes be a possibility, perhaps referring to a deformed, swollen foot - a club foot). The Norman-French nickname 'pied-de-fer' ('iron foot') did also give rise to surnames, but because it lacks a final -t it is generally supposed to have been the origin of the modern surname Pettifer, Puttifer, Puddifer. There may also be some confusion with the surname Poitevin (person from Poitou, in France), which has given rise to Poidevin, Portwin, Puddifin. See, for example, Reaney and Wilson's Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames. Matt Tompkins Leicester

Bravo Matt, very informative and completely fascinating. Celia In Chesterfield -----Original Message----- From: Tompkins, M.L. [mailto:mllt1@leicester.ac.uk] Sent: 21 April 2005 12:59 To: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [BKM] origins of PUDDEPHATT This is unlikely to be true, for several reasons. 1. There is no historical evidence that it was ever done, and given the nature of medieval society at the time when surnames were being adopted it is most improbable. Serfdom in mid-medieval England was not slavery (in the sense that a slave's person is the absolute property of his owner and can be maltreated physically, or even killed) - it was more a kind of economic ownership. Most serfs (also called villeins, bondmen, natives) were tenants of farms in the lord's manor, or the family members of tenants, and in village terms were quite wealthy men (often better off than some of the freemen). When a serf was sold it was because the land of which he was the tenant had been sold - even today when a landlord sells a house the tenant transfers to the new owner and becomes his tenant. In the last analysis serfs were just tenants who had to pay very heavy rents, in cash and in kind and in services, and including many one-off payments for special purposes - they were the lord's cash cows. There were a number of things which free men could do which they couldn't, and they could be made to do things which freemen could not, but in practice th! ey could do or refuse all these things if they just paid the lord for permission. In theory they couldn't live away from the manor, but in practice they could if they paid for the privilege. And there was no restriction on their travelling away from the manor, even for weeks and months, providing they paid all their dues and performed all their obligations; it was only permanent departure which required permission. Manors weren't prison farms with fences and armed guards and dogs to chase after absconded villeins - they were villages, not very different from the ones we live in today, with landlords who usually didn't even live in the village and wouldn't know from one month to the next who was there and who had gone off somewhere else (the landlord's local officials were local villeins taking their turn to perform the manorial offices, just like later parish constables and overseers, and would as often conceal things as report them). Lords usually had difficulty getting back villeins who were living somewhere else without paying the appropriate fee, and when they did get them back it was just to haul them before the manor court and make them pay the fee. 2. Anyway, the story lacks internal logic. Even if manors had been like prison farms, it still just doesn't make sense. What use is a farm worker who has been maimed like this? If he is so lame that he can't escape from the manor then he would be useless for just about every kind of farm labour. If, on the other hand, he can still work usefully then he can also get away. 3. It may be that right back at the time of the Conquest the newly arrived Norman lords treated their Saxon tenants more harshly than in later periods - though probably more in the context of rebellion than for tenurial matters such as living outside the manor without permission (and in fact generally speaking Saxon peasants were freer than mid-medieval ones) - but that's irrelevant to the origin of the surname Puddiphat, since no surnames were adopted by serfs during the period of Norman lords and Saxon serfs. Inheritable surnames only began to be used by the rural villein class in the 13th and 14th centuries, and in some parts of the country even later. 4. Iron prosthetic limbs for disabled peasants in the Norman period (or indeed in any time in the middle ages)? Not very likely. 5. The real origins of the surname Puddiphat, Puddifoot are much more prosaic. Because most examples found in early records end in -fat rather than -fot it is usually reckoned to derive from the Middle English nickname 'puddy-vat', meaning a large round vat or tub, probably a reference to a man's portly physique (though 'puddy-foot' may sometimes be a possibility, perhaps referring to a deformed, swollen foot - a club foot). The Norman-French nickname 'pied-de-fer' ('iron foot') did also give rise to surnames, but because it lacks a final -t it is generally supposed to have been the origin of the modern surname Pettifer, Puttifer, Puddifer. There may also be some confusion with the surname Poitevin (person from Poitou, in France), which has given rise to Poidevin, Portwin, Puddifin. See, for example, Reaney and Wilson's Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames. Matt Tompkins Leicester ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== Please do not post long surname lists. Dave Carlsen looks after the Bucks surname list, which is the proper place for such postings. Go to: http://webpages.charter.net/dcarlsen/genuki/BKM/bucksurname.html

mn >1. There is no historical evidence that it was ever done, There is no historical evidence that it was not done, and given the possessive attitude of lords to serfs and the fact that they sent men with dogs after serfs they wanted back, then punishment was on the cards, and is well enough documentsed. This is before the period with which you are familiar, post Black death, when things had decidedly changed. The lord could (and did_ actually sell serfs and families (sequellae, followers, like describing young cattle with pieces of land. Look at monatsic cartualries, where this is documented > and given the nature >of medieval society at the time when surnames were being adopted it is most >improbable. That is a bit of a sweeping statement - meaning you haven't come across it, depite the fact that it happened. > >Serfdom in mid-medieval England was not slavery (in the sense that a slave's >person is the absolute property of his owner But he was, as I said, in the period earlier than the one you are studying. You have a rather rosy view of the lord-serf relatiobnship, which started as absolute owqnership and was gradually changed by custom, and economic pressure after so many tenants died off in the Black Death - which was a Good Thing - if you survived. > Most serfs (also >called villeins, bondmen, natives) were tenants of farms in the lord's manor, or >the family members of tenants, and in village terms were quite wealthy men >(often better off than some of the freemen). By late mediaeval times, and the actual villein class, yes, but not in the early period and not the cottars. > In theory they couldn't live away from the manor, but in practice >they could if they paid for the privilege. In the late period, yes. But particularly useful workers were reclaimed from towns if they ran away, while the rubbish ones were probably left. to get on with it. > >2. Anyway, the story lacks internal logic. Even if manors had been like prison >farms, it still just doesn't make sense. What use is a farm worker Think about it - in totalitarian regimes, savage punishment happens. logical or not - and you wouldn't claim that concentration camps were uduly careful of their workers, nor were the Nazis tender towards those who stepped out of line. Robert de Belleme is before your study period, but read him up and then make comments. You have been led astray by your concentration on a later mediaeval period to draw conclusions about manorial tenancy which don't hold up, or don't apply from the earlier centuries. > from the manor then he >would be useless for just about every kind of farm labour. Not really - there are a lot of tasks which can be preformed by a slow walker. (Been there, seen it happen, with elderly farm workers managing despite physical handicaps_. > It may be that right back at the time of the Conquest the newly arrived >Norman lords treated their Saxon tenants more harshly than in later periods - exactly - those who ran for it were punished. as I said. > There are a number of nick-name names in use from far earlier than you might expect. And those whoch continue are very often not complimentary. >4. Iron prosthetic limbs iron shackle based stump, not difficult. Rather like the iron base with is sometimes used on a plastered foot. > > give rise to surnames, but because it lacks a final -t it >is generally supposed to have been the origin of the modern surname Pettifer, >Puttifer, Puddifer. And what is the first thing you learn about spelling of names? -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society