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 12:54:28 PM UTC+1, Vance Mead wrote: > 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 This is very interesting, Vance. Your examples differ from mine in that in yours the alias is explicit - both surnames are given. I'm tempted to see a difference from the earlier unstable by-names of the 12-14C, when a man would generally appear under one or other name, but not usually under both in the same reference, and to hypothesise that in the 16C there was a consciousness that these men had a hereditary surname but were also occasionally known by their occupation. I also notice that in all three of your examples the aliases are the names of defendants, not plaintiffs. It's a small sample, but this may suggest that in the 16C people did not describe themselves by occupational aliases, but only included them when suing others, in order to avoid nonsuit for mis-naming the defendant. It would be interesting to know whether any of these butchers, bakers etc. left descendants who were known solely by the occupational surname. Matt

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 6:56:56 AM UTC-7, Matt Tompkins wrote: > I also notice that in all three of your examples the aliases are the names > of defendants, not plaintiffs. It's a small sample, but this may suggest > that in the 16C people did not describe themselves by occupational > aliases, but only included them when suing others, in order to avoid > nonsuit for mis-naming the defendant. Perhaps there is a parallel to the later Welsh practice of using an informal occupational byname (admittedly more needed in a Wales that even when they adopted patronymic surnames used such a limited naming pool that there might be five men named William Lewis in the same village). taf