I apologise for retruning to the subject of patronymics somewhat late, but I have been away. In Bryn Eillis's otherwise excellent account of patronymics, referred to by Julie Preston, I was troubled by the following, which seemed to me liable to confuse: "Please note that a woman did not [could not!] adopt her husband's 'surname' on marriage - she retained her family name throughout her life." Although the statement is not incorrect, it rather skates over the compexity of actual practice, It implies that under the patronymic system, married and widowed women are likely to be referred to solely by their father's name - which I don't think is generally true. In my experience the system is something like this: Women are always described in relation to men. Single women are their father's daughter (Elen ferch Morgan Rees); on marriage they become their husband's wife (Elen wraig David ap Rosser). but they do not lose their patronymic. In contexts where the husband's name is explicit or implied, they may be referred to by their patronymic. Examples may be found in baptismal registers and wills (I leave to my wife Elen verch Morgan...). In burial registers married women are usually listed as the wife or widow of their husband. I have never come across examples of married or widowed women described only by their patronymic, and I would be very interested to learn of any. A further question is how wills of widows using the patronymic system are indexed in the diocesan collections at NLW. If Elen had written her will as "I Elen verch Morgan, widow of David Prosser...", would it be indexed under Morgan or Prosser? Has anyone any experience of this? Anna Brueton

"Anna Brueton" <bruetons@anoeth.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In Bryn Eillis's otherwise excellent account of patronymics, referred to > by > Julie Preston, I was troubled by the following, which seemed to me liable > to confuse: > > "Please note that a woman did not [could not!] adopt her husband's > 'surname' on marriage - she retained her family name throughout her > life." As the author of those words may I respond? I needed to be very brief in that introduction [not my usual 2-hour talk on the subject!!]. The trouble with being brief is that by definiton you leave out many things.Those online notes referred to were written specifically to explain the editorial decisions used in preparing the parish registers to go online, and not as a general article on patronymics. As you state those words are not inaccurate as she did retain her patronymic. I agree with you though that a married woman is rarely described solely by her patronymic. Most fully patronmyic entries in burial registers have both, such as 'Elen verch Morgan, widow of David Prosser'. But I have in the past come across instances of widows beng recorded only by their patronymic. My ancestor Elizabeth Vaughan of Llanuwchllyn parish, who left a will in 1770, was the widow of John Maurice - not a patronymic but nevertheless her own family name, not her husband's. I have just looked up a list of wills of St. Asaph diocese and soon found 'Sibill vch David, widow' in 1647. I did not look any further. Thank you however for your observations. Bryn Ellis

Hi Anna, Here are a few extracts from the Wills in the Diocese of Brecon listed in the NLW Probate Records pre 1660: Anest vz Ievan David. Clodock 1573 Angharad vz Lello Bedo ap Madock. Llanfihangel Rhydithon 1563 Cicilly vz David William. Llanfaes 1576 Elenor vz David. Bleddfa 1588 Gwenllian vz Howell. Llanganten Widow 1578 Isbell vz Lewis. Glasbury Widow 1587 Johane vz Thomas. St Margarets Widow 1576 Llickey vz John. Crickadarn Widow 1583 Mallt vz Richard. Llanfigan 1582 Neste vz Richart. Penderyn 1581 Tanglust vz William ap Rees. Clodock 1578 As you will note they are listed by first name. Hope this will answer your query. Lloyd Editor, Cronicl Powys www.rootsweb.com/~wlspfhs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anna Brueton" <bruetons@anoeth.demon.co.uk> To: <powys@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [POWYS] Patronymics > I apologise for retruning to the subject of patronymics somewhat late, but > I have been away. > > In Bryn Eillis's otherwise excellent account of patronymics, referred to by > Julie Preston, I was troubled by the following, which seemed to me liable > to confuse: > > "Please note that a woman did not [could not!] adopt her husband's > 'surname' on marriage - she retained her family name throughout her life." > > Although the statement is not incorrect, it rather skates over the > compexity of actual practice, It implies that under the patronymic system, > married and widowed women are likely to be referred to solely by their > father's name - which I don't think is generally true. In my experience > the system is something like this: > > Women are always described in relation to men. Single women are their > father's daughter (Elen ferch Morgan Rees); on marriage they become their > husband's wife (Elen wraig David ap Rosser). but they do not lose their > patronymic. In contexts where the husband's name is explicit or implied, > they may be referred to by their patronymic. Examples may be found in > baptismal registers and wills (I leave to my wife Elen verch Morgan...). > In burial registers married women are usually listed as the wife or widow > of their husband. > > I have never come across examples of married or widowed women described > only by their patronymic, and I would be very interested to learn of any. > A further question is how wills of widows using the patronymic system are > indexed in the diocesan collections at NLW. If Elen had written her will > as "I Elen verch Morgan, widow of David Prosser...", would it be indexed > under Morgan or Prosser? Has anyone any experience of this? > > Anna Brueton > > =================== > Visit the Powys Mailing List webpage at: www.jlb2005.plus.com/powyslist.htm > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to POWYS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message