Matt, These examples in Common Pleas are relatively rare - no more than a dozen cases in a term with 5000 entries. But they occur often enough that it suggests to me that surnames at least in some cases were still fluid. Here's another example in 1538: Thomas Parkyns alias Myller of Newbury, Berkshire, miller. http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1096/aCP40no1096fronts/IMG_1873.htm Vance

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:12:55 AM UTC+1, Vance Mead wrote: > Matt, > It wasn't only butchers, though they were probably the most frequent. Here's an example of an alias Baker from 1510, third entry: > > Robert Mychell alias Baker of St Albans, baker > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/bCP40no990dorses/IMG_0682.htm I do occasionally see early 16C presentments of men for selling bread in breach of the assize of bread surnamed Baker (again, just Baker alone, not as an alias), but not nearly as often as I see clusters of butchers all surnamed Butcher. For eg, on 12 May 1506 10 men were presented at the manor court of the town of Loughborough in Leicestershire for being butchers and taking excessive profit - fully 5 of them were surnamed Butcher (most of them had been presented for the same offence, under that surname, regularly for several years previously). By this date surnames had been hereditary in this part of England for more than a century, and I think it's extremely improbable that these men either had unstable occupational bynames or all belonged to families which had been butchers for at least four or five generations. The explanation probably lies in the fact that the five butchers NOT surnamed Butcher were all from Loughborough, whereas the 5 with that surname all came from neighbouring villages (Sileby, Wymeswold, Syston, Mountsorell and Dalby). I think it's very likely that in their home village they had a hereditary surname, but when trading in Loughborough market they were known by the alias Butcher (rather like Ian's John the Gas). To me the strange thing is that they were recorded by this name alone in a formal legal document such as a manor court roll - did the clerk of the court never ask their real name? And why is this phenomenon, which I have noticed in quite a number of court rolls from different places, largely confined to the late 15C and early 16C? Some of these rural butchers were also occasionally presented for being fishmongers and selling sea fish against the assize. Consider how far Loughborough is from the sea! I suppose the fish must have been brought up the Trent and then carted overland - one wonders what condition they were in when they reached Loughborough market. Matt

I don't think it's possible to decide the father's name based on this. In Ian's example they were sometimes called Kaye alias Gregson and sometimes the other way around. In my case there was someone called first Thomas Ryche, then Ryche alias Kellog, then just Kellog, from the 1470s to the 1490s. And his probable descendants in the 1530s and 40s were called sometimes Ryche alias Kellog and sometimes the other way around. In this case I think that the original name was Ryche and Kellog was the occupation. It might also be that Browne was Pinkering's wife's (or mother's) maiden name. I have read that the alias could be used where a "double barreled" name was later used. Vance

On 22/05/16 19:38, Vance Mead wrote: > Ian, I didn't know it could be a result of illegitimacy. I'm interested in a family that had several members called > Ryche alias Kelhog or Kellog (occupational name meaning hog butcher) from1470 until the 1550s. > Vance > Vance, Here's an example from Kirkburton: Dec 1607 James Kay son of Elizabeth Kay and James Gregson of Wiggen in Lancashire was baptized the vi day August 1635 James Kay alis Gregson and Mary Chappel maried the same day [xxiij] January 1635-6 Grace daughter of James Kaye alis Gregson baptized the same day [xxiij] August 1637 John sone of James Gregson alis Kay baptized the vjth day March 1642 Mary wife of James Kaye alias Gregson buried July 1642 John sone of James Gregson alias Kay buried xiithe day June 1666 James Kaye aliis Gregson buried the ffirst day I don't know what happened to Grace. Note the surnames are given in the opposite order for John's baptism and burial. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Matt, It wasn't only butchers, though they were probably the most frequent. Here's an example of an alias Baker from 1510, third entry: Robert Mychell alias Baker of St Albans, baker http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/bCP40no990dorses/IMG_0682.htm

From: Vance Mead via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 22 May 2016 16:34 > > Surnames remained fluid even in the 16th century. I fairly often come across people named, say, Johnson alias Bocher whose occupation is butcher. > > For example, the defendant in this Common Pleas case (4th entry) in 1528 was John Lacforth alias Bocher, of Castle Acre, Norfolk, occupation butcher. > > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1057/bCP40no1057dorses/IMG_7936.htm > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ I think early 16C butchers may have been a special case. Just the other day I was commenting to a colleague how strange it is that in early 16C manor court rolls from all across the country most of the men presented for meat-selling offences in those decades were surnamed Butcher. Not as an alias, but at such a late date it surely was one. Matt Tompkins

On 22/05/16 16:34, Vance Mead wrote: > Surnames remained fluid even in the 16th century. I fairly often come across people named, say, Johnson alias Bocher whose occupation is butcher. > One cause of fluidity is illegitimacy where the result might be Smith als Jones and this could be continued through a few generations in C17th or 18th. Another is the instance of toponyms where the place itself had alternative variants. The most obvious, at least in my part of the world, is Pontefract/Pomfret. Another is Kenworthy/Kennerly which was a place in Cheshire, now vanished under a junction on the M60 - I eventually found it on a map of the 1850s. Collins in the appendix to the PRs of Kirkburton shows that Assman and Aspinall were interchangeable in the C18th/early 19th with an outlier of Askin. Redmonds adds variations of Asmold, Asmah, Aspital and Aspiner to this group. There are a few Astmans in the area which I suspect are also interchangeable but with insufficient examples to connect up. I think my Elizabeth Asterman is another of them. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 22/05/16 13:28, Kathy Becker wrote: > On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:00:24 PM UTC-5, al...@mindspring.com wrote: >> Yes same person just diff. way of referring to him. >> >> Doug Smith > > Hence the confusion. I'm still trying to understand why people back in that time were referred to by different names. > The idea of inherited surnames hadn't fully evolved. There were relatively few names in use so there was a need to add descriptions to distinguish, say one John, from another in a given context. It might have been sufficient to distinguish them as as son of their father, e.g. John fils de William vs John fils de Hugh with "fils de" becoming contracted to fitz. So John fitz William's son William would be William fitz John. At the higher levels of society someone might be lord (or higher) of some property. It would be appropriate to refer to them as such. The title becomes the description. In this case John fitz William might also be lord of Shepley in which case he could be variously called John fitz William, John fitz William de Shepley or John de Shepley. As property was inherited so does the title and it becomes easy to see that titles can very easily become inherited surnames - providing, of course, that the property wasn't sold of forfeit. If someone had a higher status lordship, say Count of Mummerset, then this would to take precedence. What's more his descendants might want to occasionally remind others that they're of the Mummerset family. If John were descended from such a high status individual he might sometimes be addressed as John de Mummerset. A further description could come from the title of an office such as marshal or constable. If John were appointed as constable of a castle this could become another description, just as valid as the others If the office were hereditary this could also become an inherited surname. Essentially, however, John's name is simply John. All the other possible descriptions are handles to distinguish him from any other John and could vary according to situation. The idea of fixed inherited surnames only caught on gradually, probably influenced by titles derived from inherited property or offices. Note that much the same thing happened down the social scale. John might be John Williamson rather than John fitzWilliam. He might be John Bywater if that's where he lived or John Tanner if that was his occupation. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Many thanks to all of you for your replies. You are a wealth of information and I very much appreciate it. I always use the "Noble Family" name in conjunction with their given name/title, when applicable, as a notation. I learned a while back that people used the name of their lands that they owned as their surnames, which made sense in a time when surnames were just beginning. Which reminded me of my great-grandmother who came here from Germany. When we went to war against the Nazi's, the name Goebbel kept popping up in the news and her father immediately changed the spelling of their surname to Gebel. She said that her father feared repercussions from the US government and wanted to protect his family from deportation or imprisonment. No, they were not related to Herr Goebbel. ;) Again, many thanks for the help and the knowledge you have provided.

Ian, I didn't know it could be a result of illegitimacy. I'm interested in a family that had several members called Ryche alias Kelhog or Kellog (occupational name meaning hog butcher) from1470 until the 1550s. Vance

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > Excellent summary. I would only add yet another wrinkle, in that even when > surnames began to become fixed, they were not necessarily inherited > paternally. Often the names came through whichever line contained the > inheritance. This did happen in England, but was rampant in Iberia, where it might depend on which was the most prominent/distinctive, and you can find the siblings in a single family with a seeming random distribution of maternal and paternal surnames. taf

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:51:27 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 5:28:16 AM UTC-7, Kathy Becker wrote: > > > > Hence the confusion. I'm still trying to understand why people back in that > > time were referred to by different names. > > You should bear in mind that surnames were only just developing. A person named Robert, had several different identities at the same time. He was son of a specific father, so he could be referred to using a patronymic such as FitzRichard (son of Richard). > > He co1uld be identified based on the land he held, as Robert, Lord of Dunmow (and since he may have held more than one property, each of these would be equally correct). Not applicable here, but we also are working in an environment with three languages, so the same location could rightly be called Albo Monasterio [Latin], Blancminster [Norman-French] and Whitchurch [English]. > > There there is the system that was just developing, of more stable family names - the son of a man using the same name as he used, even if what of originally represents no longer applies - so in Robert was son of Richard de Clare, he would be Robert de Clare even if he never himself held that property. > > These were all aspects of an individual's life and existence, and any could be selected when a scribe wanted to distinguish one man named Robert from another. > > These, along with occupational names would come to be surnames, would stabilize and be uniformly used by sequential generations, but this had yet to happen at the time we are talking about, and even when it occurred, families sometimes shifted, with noble families abandoning the more common patronymics for property-based names, or shifting those names when they acquired a more prestigious property or title. > > To make a confusing situation all the more confusing, modern genealogists and historians put much more of a premium on consistency than the contemporaries did. Thus some of us would rather call an entire family 'de Clare', even if no one at the time did (or to give an example raised here repeatedly, many prefer to refer to all members of a family as FitzAlan, even during a period when they called had switched to calling themselves Arundell). For this reason, sometimes the descendants of the original lords of Clare are called de Clare by modern researchers when they never identified themselves with that name, or even worse, you may find someone calling a the whole family FitzRichard, just because a single member of the family happened to be son of a Richard. > > This is simply one of the challenges under which we operate. Excellent summary. I would only add yet another wrinkle, in that even when surnames began to become fixed, they were not necessarily inherited paternally. Often the names came through whichever line contained the inheritance. Once the paternal "status quo" in English speaking counties became the norm, it only stuck for a few hundred years, and now last names are becoming more fluid yet again. Joe C

Surnames remained fluid even in the 16th century. I fairly often come across people named, say, Johnson alias Bocher whose occupation is butcher. For example, the defendant in this Common Pleas case (4th entry) in 1528 was John Lacforth alias Bocher, of Castle Acre, Norfolk, occupation butcher. http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1057/bCP40no1057dorses/IMG_7936.htm

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 5:28:16 AM UTC-7, Kathy Becker wrote: > > Hence the confusion. I'm still trying to understand why people back in that > time were referred to by different names. You should bear in mind that surnames were only just developing. A person named Robert, had several different identities at the same time. He was son of a specific father, so he could be referred to using a patronymic such as FitzRichard (son of Richard). He co1uld be identified based on the land he held, as Robert, Lord of Dunmow (and since he may have held more than one property, each of these would be equally correct). Not applicable here, but we also are working in an environment with three languages, so the same location could rightly be called Albo Monasterio [Latin], Blancminster [Norman-French] and Whitchurch [English]. There there is the system that was just developing, of more stable family names - the son of a man using the same name as he used, even if what of originally represents no longer applies - so in Robert was son of Richard de Clare, he would be Robert de Clare even if he never himself held that property. These were all aspects of an individual's life and existence, and any could be selected when a scribe wanted to distinguish one man named Robert from another. These, along with occupational names would come to be surnames, would stabilize and be uniformly used by sequential generations, but this had yet to happen at the time we are talking about, and even when it occurred, families sometimes shifted, with noble families abandoning the more common patronymics for property-based names, or shifting those names when they acquired a more prestigious property or title. To make a confusing situation all the more confusing, modern genealogists and historians put much more of a premium on consistency than the contemporaries did. Thus some of us would rather call an entire family 'de Clare', even if no one at the time did (or to give an example raised here repeatedly, many prefer to refer to all members of a family as FitzAlan, even during a period when they called had switched to calling themselves Arundell). For this reason, sometimes the descendants of the original lords of Clare are called de Clare by modern researchers when they never identified themselves with that name, or even worse, you may find someone calling a the whole family FitzRichard, just because a single member of the family happened to be son of a Richard. This is simply one of the challenges under which we operate. taf

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:00:24 PM UTC-5, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > Yes same person just diff. way of referring to him. > > Doug Smith Hence the confusion. I'm still trying to understand why people back in that time were referred to by different names.

Dear Newsgroup ~ Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 356 discusses the troublesome issue of the parentage of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335: "Although Dugdale states that 'there is notable mention in our public records of this family before any of them became Barons of the realm,' he does not positively inform us who was the father of John de Cromwell, the first peer, but leaves it to be inferred that he was the son as well as successor of a Ralph de Cromwell who was living in the 35th Edw. I. It appears from the inquisition on a Ralph de Cromwell, and who, it may be safely presumed, was the person mentioned by Dugdale, that he left Ralph his son his heir, and who was then only seven years of age. Many reasons could be adduced for believing that the subject of this article was not related to the Lords Cromwell of Tatshall; but as the pedigrees of that house are confused and contradictory, and as the usual sources of information, Inquisitiones post Mortem, relating to that family do not regularly occur, it is impossible to throw any light on the subject, without very considerable expense and labour." END OF QUOTE Regarding Sir John de Cromwell's illegitimate son, Sir Richard de Cromwell, below is a record dated 1338, in which Sir Richard de Crumbewell [Cromwell] specifically names his father as Sir John de Crumbewell [Cromwell]. This record confirms that Richard de Cromwell was knighted, as I suspected. Source: Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Series 120) (1955): 162. "446. Wednesday, SS. Simon and Jude, 12 Edward III [Oct. 28, 1338]. Release and quitclaim by Richard de Crumbewell, knight to Sir Robert de Clifford of an annual rent of 6li. which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. Warranty. Sealing clause. Witnesses: Frank de Barneby, William de Reygate, John de Lacy and William de Leysyngcroft. At Lesyngcroft. (Ibid., B15, 2)." "Seal of red wax, diam. 3/4 inch: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. [Legend:] S' RICARDI CRVMWELL." END OF QUOTE. For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Sir Richard de Cromwell, the illegitimate son of Sir John de Cromwell. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah + + + + + + + + + + RICHARD DE CROMWELL (or CRUMBWELL, CRUMBEWELL, CROUMBWELL), Knt., of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent, Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, etc., of illegitimate birth. In 1320 his father granted the reversion of the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire to him and his issue; in default of such issue, the manor was to revert to the right heirs of John de Cromwell. In 1331, as “Richard, son of John de Crumbewell, knight,” he obtained a papal indult for plenary remission at the hour of death. In 1337 he owed John Elys, of Spalding, merchant of London, a debt of £20, on account of a loan. In 1338 he released and quitclaimed to Robert de Clifford an annual rent of £6 which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. In 1341 Henry de Chalfhunte and Maud his wife sued him in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent; Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt. was called to warranty. In 1341 he owed John Trippok a debt of £10. References: Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 353. Feudal Aids 3 (1904): 15. Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. 120) (1955): 162 (release and quitclaim dated 1338 by Richard de Crumbewell, knight, son of Sir John de Crumbewell) (seal of Sir Richard de Crumbewell: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. Legend: S’ RICARDI CRVMWELL.). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm). National Archives, C 241/110/230; C 241/114/11 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/376 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

From: Peter Cockerill via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 21 May 2016 17:17 > > Dear Colleagues, > > The extract below is from the Will of Jacob Proctor Merchant Taylor of the city of London dated 1616 (Borderline medieaval!?) > > 'Then my mynde and will is that Jane my loving wife shall have and enioye one full third parte of all my goods Chattells money and Debts which is of righte due unto her by the laudable custome of the Citie of London' > > What was the laudable custom of London? > > Thank you in anticipation. > Peter > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ From: Vance Mead via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 21 May 2016 17:31 >> >> I think it was something along the lines that a third of the property went to the widow, a third went to the children, and the last third could be bequeathed freely according to the will of the testator. >> Vance >> ------------------------------- ________________________________________ That's it exactly, though it only applied to chattels, not to land. The rule had originally applied everywhere in England (it is mentioned in Magna Carta), but ceased to be the law in the province of Canterbury in the later middle ages, except in London where it continued in force until 1724. (It was abolished in the province of York in 1692). Matt Tompkins

On 5/21/2016 6:04 PM, John Higgins via wrote: > Back in November 2003 the late Brice Clagett reported here on an alleged early Plantagenet descent for the Puleston family that had recently been published in “The Augustan”. > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-11/1069111275 > > The descent was as follows: > 1. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. (By mistress:) > 2. Emma of Anjou, m. (2) Dafydd ap Owain Gwynedd, Prince of Gwynedd. > 3. Gwenllian ferch Dafydd, m. Gruffydd ap Cadwgan ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn. > 4. Hunydd ferch Gruffydd, m. Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, Denbighshire. > 5. Moriddig ap Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Tangwystl ferch Cadfan ap Cadwaladr. > 6. Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Gwladys ferch Gruffydd ap Meilir Eyton > 7. Ynyr ap Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Ial, Denbighshire; m. _____. > 8. Llywelyn ab Ynyr, Lord of Gellignan in Ial, Denbighshire; m. Margred ferch Gruffydd ap Iorwerth. > 9. Margred ferch Llywelyn ab Ynyr; m. Sir Roger Puleston, of Emral, Flintshire, who d. c. 1339 > > Brice pointed out that the validity of this descent depended on the parentage of #4, Hunydd ferch Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, who was variously reported in Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies as being either the daughter or the sister of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. The late William Addams Reitwiesner had previously discussed this point in a post of 7 Nov 2002 in this group. WAR noted that Bartrum’s table Sandde Hardd 1 showed Hunydd as a daughter of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, while his table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 showed Hunydd as his sister. In the latter case, Hunydd would not be a Plantagenet descendant, and the Puleston descent (as well as others) would fail. > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-11/1036440626 > > The reports of the discrepancies in Bartrum regarding Hunydd’s parentage were likely based on the published versions (1974 and 1983) of Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies. However, the versions of his tables now available online incorporate changes made by Bartrum to his tables subsequent to their original publication. In this case, the inconsistent reporting of the parentage of Hunydd has been eliminated. Bartrum’s table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 now shows Hunydd as the daughter, not the sister, of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. If accurate, this removes the doubt about this particular step in the descent shown above. > http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5210/Bleddyn%20ap%20Cynfyn%2046.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > > To be clear, I’m not opining on the accuracy of Bartrum’s statement regarding this parentage – either as originally stated or as revised by him. I’m simply pointing out that the inconsistency between Bartrum’s tables in this matter was resolved by him before he died. If he was accurate in this correction, it opens an avenue for Plantagenet descents which has not been much explored previously. There is a big problem here. According to the entry for Hunydd in the index, the earliest authority cited by Bartrum is from the seventeenth century. So, the chances of finding any reasonable supporting evidence for this claim seem pretty slim. Stewart Baldwin

On 21/05/16 13:29, Kathy Becker wrote: > Walter FitzRobert c1124-1198 was the son of (1.) Robert FitzRichard > or (2.) Robert, Lord of Dunmow, de Clare. I've only spent a small amount of time with the de Clare family, but aren't the two fathers you list the same person? Robert Fitz Richard was the feudal lord of Dunmow and a member of the de Clare family. Richard

Or How a MacLeod Maiden raised A Mair Ca's Cloud!;) On 21/05/2016, alden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > http://www.thenational.scot/news/the-mysterious-mary-trump-the-full-untold-story-of-how-a-young-scotswoman-escaped-to-new-york-and-raised-a-us-presidential-candidate.17824 > > Doug Smith > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >