From: Connie <connie.sparrer@gmail.com> > On 19/08/2013 11:39, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > > Redmonds holds the theory, to which I subscribe, that you can only ever > truly > > define a surname if you can trace it back to the very first holder in the > > records - not possible, of course, for many if not most names. > > Occupational and patronomic names spring to mind there but what about a name > like REAVIS/REVIS? It sounds like it might be from the Border Reivers.> Reaney & Wilson don't specifically mention either of those names but Hanks & Hodges (Oxford Dictionary of Surnames) say REVIS is a variant of Reeves, and I must admit that was my own initial feeling. H & H define it as either being patronymic from REEVE (a bailiff or steward) or topographic from someone who lived on the edge of a wood from the Middle English "atter eaves". No mention of Border Reivers, I'm afraid. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

On 19/08/2013 13:11, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > Reaney & Wilson don't specifically mention either of those names but Hanks & > Hodges (Oxford Dictionary of Surnames) say REVIS is a variant of Reeves, and I > must admit that was my own initial feeling. > > H & H define it as either being patronymic from REEVE (a bailiff or steward) or > topographic from someone who lived on the edge of a wood from the Middle > English "atter eaves". > > No mention of Border Reivers, I'm afraid. Thank you for the derivation and nicely correcting my misspelling. I'm surprised it's given as a patronymic, not occupational, name. The topographic is interesting. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/