Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Irish, Danish, or English?

Expand Messages
  • Jeff
    Some initial thoughts on the very informative and helpful information researched by Martha. Firstly on those Bowes of seeming Norman origins, associated with
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2009
      Some initial thoughts on the very informative and helpful information
      researched by Martha. Firstly on those 'Bowes' of seeming Norman
      origins, associated with the village of Bowes in Durham England.

      Let's set the record straight, in all likelyhood there was in all
      probability never a William de Arcubus/Bowes, nor any army of five
      hundred archers defending Bowes castle, this exotic claim is widely
      stated as being the origins of the Bowes name (well, for the English
      Bowes at least).

      There seems to be much misunderstanding concerning the 'Bowes' name
      and its supposed Norman roots, particularly that of 'William Bowes/de
      Arcubus'. Supposed courageous ancestor whiose valourous deeds gave
      birth to the Bowes name (in England at least) The common internet
      perception that the English Bowes name derives from said William
      springs from the pages of 'A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the
      Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland by John Burke (itself a Norman
      name associated with Ireland) 1838'.

      This relates a tradition recorded in a MS. which belonged to the
      monastery of St. Mary, York, and related in the Bowes pedigree, that
      Alan Niger, Earl of Richmond, in defence of the honor against the men
      of Cumberland and Westmoreland, who rebelled against the Conqueror,
      and with Gospatric, Earl of Northumberland, adhered to the King of
      Scots, built for himself the tower of Bowes, and placed therein his
      cousin William with 500 archers, and gave him a shield with the arms
      of Brittany, and three bows over them; and a bundle of arrows for his
      crest, whence this William was afterwards called William de Arcubus.
      This done into English is Bowes (bows) which became the surname of
      his descendants.

      Unfortunately for the truth of the tradition, there appears to be a
      glaring anachronism. Crests and coats of arms did not come into use
      in England till long after the time of Earl Alan!

      From the researches of General Harrison among the Pipe Rolls, it
      appears that the castle was begun by Henry II. in 1171, and
      completely finished in 1187, at a cost of £353. Osbert, son of Fulco
      de Bowes, was one of the King's commissioners for superintending the
      erection of the castle, and this appears to have been the only
      connection the family had with the fortress.

      They were, however, possessed of lands in Bowes at an early period,
      but it is from this Fulco de Bowes, rather than the traditional
      William de Arcubus, that their pedigree is to be traced. Sir Adam de
      Bowes, fourth son of Stephen de Bowes, who was fourth in descent from
      the above Fulco, was a man "learned in the lawes," whom Edward III.,
      in 1331, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

      A request, can all of us interested in the Bowes name kindly lay to
      rest the fanciful legend of William de Arcubus, a tale of noble
      origins which may have been concocted to invest some heraldic and
      aristocratic gravitas and credibility to the contrived Bowes-Lyon
      line. More on that below.

      Moving on slightly. The Welsh Norman invasion of Ireland took place
      in 1169, a hundred year before that of another widely named Norman
      Bowes, Gerard de Bowes (1269). The army was comprised of Norman
      knights, lords, Welsh, Flemish and English from the West of England.
      Please note that the Bowes surname is exceedingly rare in those areas
      of England. It is however strongly linked historically with Durham,
      Yorkshire and Cumbria, a region far removed from West Wales from
      where the invasion of Ireland set sail.

      Moreover Bowes village (County Durham) itself was thought to have
      been constructed only in the 12th century, therefore its numbers
      would be few, and the Bowes surname not then adopted/given to its
      inhabitants. So-called noblemen are recorded in County Durham for
      that period, including Gerrard and Fulco, however were they, or
      other 'Bowes', engaged in the invasion then it is not unreasonable to
      consider the name would appear alongside other prominent Norman names
      which were recorded as being involved

      Antiquarian, William Camden claims the following list of people
      present at the invasion.

      Persons who collaborated with Dermot MacMorrogh during the 1169
      invasion:

      Maurice de Prendergast
      Robert Barr
      Meiler Meilerine
      Maurice Fitz-Gerald
      Robert FitzHenry
      Meiler FitzHenry
      Redmond nephew of Fitz-Stephen
      William Ferrand
      Miles de Cogan (Cogan)
      Gualter de Ridensford
      Gualter and Alexander sons of Maurice Fitz-Gerald
      William Notte
      Richard Caddell (Progenitor of the Blake family)
      Robert Fitz-Bernard
      Hugh Lacie
      William Fitz-Aldelm
      William Macarell
      Hemphrey Bohun
      Hugh De Gundevill
      Philip de Hasting
      Hugh Tirell
      Walter de Barât
      Henry de Barât
      David Walsh
      Robert Poer (First Poer le Poer in Ireland)
      Osbert de Herloter
      William de Bendenges
      Adam de Gernez
      Philip de Breos
      Griffin nephew of Fitz-Stephen
      Raulfe Fitz-Stephen
      Walter de Barry
      Philip Walsh
      Adam de Hereford
      Others claimed to have been present during the 1169 invasion:

      John Courcy
      Hugh Contilon
      Redmund Fitz-Hugh
      Miles of St. David's Walynus, a Welshman who came to Ireland with
      Maurice Fitzgerald
      Sir Robert Marmion, with Strongbow
      Those present during the invasion of Henry II in 1172:

      Richard de Tuite
      William de Wall
      Randolph FitzRalph, with FitzStephen
      Alice of Abervenny, with Raymond FitzWilliam Le Gros
      Richard de Cogan, with Strongbow
      Phillipe le Hore, with Strongbow
      Theobald Fitzwalter, with Henry II
      Robert de Bermingham, with Strongbow
      d'Evreux, with Strongbow
      Eustace Roger de Gernon, with Strongbow
      de la Chapelle (Supple)
      Gilbert d'Angulo and sons Jocelyn and Hostilo (Costello), with
      Strongbow.

      (William Camdens Britannia 1610)

      Final thoughts. The Bowes-Lyon issue is a red, if exotically royal,
      herring. The Queen Mother's earliest ancestor who bore the name
      being, John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (July 17,
      1737 - March 7, 1776). The point being he was born as, John Lyon,
      only later adopting the name 'bowes'. In 1767 he married Mary Eleanor
      Bowes, and upon the request of the bride's father, assumed his wife's
      name. This change of name required an Act of Parliament. That family
      came not surprisingly from County Durham a stronghold of the Bowes
      name. This makes the Queen Mother's connections to the Bowes name
      somewhat distant and indirect, and certainly has no genuine meaning
      for those Bowes with English roots, who have perhaps been misinformed
      about the Bowes-Lyon connection.

      In conclusion I feel having read around this subject that the Bowes
      surname as it relates to Bowes Village in County Durham, has perhaps
      two lines of origin. One being the earlier Danish/Saxon places name,
      Bogas, the original name perhaps of the settlement there, the other
      deriving from two 12/13th Century names, Fulco and Gerrard de Bowes.
      I must state here however that I remain slightly unconvinced that the
      Bowes element of 'de Bowes' is Norman, thus I wonder if the name
      maybe some later corruption recided by chroniclers? What does appear
      clear though is that a number of Bowes are documented as have having
      held land in the area around, and possibly earlier, the time of the
      Norman conquest. This does not in itself mean they were of 'noble'
      origins or possessed of any formal titles. Could it be that the Bowes
      of Durham in question were Saxon landholders of some local status
      that either adopted or were given more 'Norman' sounding names? This
      would certainly explain the still, to my thinking at
      least,unconvincing assertion that Bowes is a Norman name.



      --- In bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com, "mhbowes11" <mhbowes@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Vis the English origins, see also Links > Research - Countries -
      England > "The National
      > Trust Bowes Data" site. It has interesting data showing Social
      Demographics, Geographical
      > Spread and International Comparisons, including this for England
      (don't know the date):
      >
      > Mosaic type with highest index #: Upland Hill Farmers
      > % of people with a more rural name: 38
      > % of people with a more high-status name: 90
      >
      > Also shows some unusual ethnicities of forenames:
      >
      > Ethnicity of forenames BOWES
      > British or unknown 99.29
      > ---English or unknown 97.99
      > ---Irish 0.76
      > ---Scottish 0.37
      > ---Welsh 0.17
      > Jewish 0.02
      > Balkan 0.00
      > French 0.04
      > German or Dutch 0.02
      > Greek or Greek Cypriot 0.02
      > Hispanic 0.09
      > Hungarian 0.00
      > Italian 0.04
      > Nordic 0.02
      > Polish or Czech 0.04
      > Russian 0.06
      > Black African 0.09
      > North African 0.04
      > Turkish or Turkish Cypriot 0.00
      > Other Muslim 0.19
      > Indian 0.09
      > ---Hindi 0.02
      > ---Sikh 0.00
      > ---Other South Asian 0.00
      > East Asian 0.04
      >
    • mhbowes11
      It s always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 2, 2009
        It's always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some
        time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that we may have hashed out
        before. Centralizing all the Bowes (and variants) related info will hopefully help
        (interpretations with sources, etc.). It may take me some time for me to reply again as I sift
        through everything and attend to other matters. So many facets to consider.

        Meanwhile, your information and interpretations help me improve the use of some Links and
        Files I post by helping me refine "editorial" comments below the titles to assist others in their
        interpretations of sources as they apply (or not) to the project. I will include *some* materials
        at the site that could be considered, let's say, not too academic, because they (or information
        they contain) are so heavily relied on by researchers, but hopefully put them in perspective in
        my comments. This way, hopefully, the same questions won't keep resurfacing (unless there
        is actually new information to add) if members get to know the growing body of resources
        and commentary here before posting. But if they do post re: topics already discussed, we can
        simply direct the inquirer to search the archives for prior discussion or to view editorial
        comments at particular links or files.

        More to come ...

        Thanks for your contributions! Martha
      • Allen Bowes
        Martha, a pleasure. Jeff ... From: mhbowes11 Subject: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English? To: bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 2, 2009
          Martha, a pleasure. Jeff

          --- On Fri, 2/1/09, mhbowes11 <mhbowes@...> wrote:
          From: mhbowes11 <mhbowes@...>
          Subject: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English?
          To: bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, 2 January, 2009, 3:50 PM

          It's always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some
          time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that we may have hashed out
          before. Centralizing all the Bowes (and variants) related info will hopefully help
          (interpretations with sources, etc.). It may take me some time for me to reply again as I sift
          through everything and attend to other matters. So many facets to consider.

          Meanwhile, your information and interpretations help me improve the use of some Links and
          Files I post by helping me refine "editorial" comments below the titles to assist others in their
          interpretations of sources as they apply (or not) to the project. I will include *some* materials
          at the site that could be considered, let's say, not too academic, because they (or information
          they contain) are so heavily relied on by researchers, but hopefully put them in perspective in
          my comments. This way, hopefully, the same questions won't keep resurfacing (unless there
          is actually new information to add) if members get to know the growing body of resources
          and commentary here before posting. But if they do post re: topics already discussed, we can
          simply direct the inquirer to search the archives for prior discussion or to view editorial
          comments at particular links or files.

          More to come ...

          Thanks for your contributions! Martha


        • mhbowes11
          Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It s certainly clear that the part of the story about the coat of arms being granted long before
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 3, 2009
            Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It's certainly clear that the part of
            the story about the coat of arms being granted long before crests came into being is
            absolutely false. There's also a good probability that the rest of the story was fanciful. So
            much poor research has served to boost reputations it could easily fall into this category.
            However, I can't yet rule out that, as with many myths, including those of Irish origin, it
            could be part true, part false. I'm skeptical (esp. given the account of Fulco de Bowes), but
            as far as I know, there's nothing in writing to say that William de Arcubus (or Bowes by
            another name) *didn't* live in Bowes Castle at some point, even if the other part of the
            story is false. Is there any record of the castle's inhabitants? Might part of the story be
            true?

            I'm not sure if by asking if "we" can lay the Arcubus story to rest you meant you and I or
            the whole group. For the record, I am inclined for this group to encourage everyone to
            feel comfortable stating what for them is a conclusion, but I'd hate to see finalizing
            matters *as a group* by putting themes to rest for all. Many have to come to conclusions
            in their own time, after their own investigation. I would not want them to feel unwelcome
            or uncomfortable if they are still pondering the complex past and volumes of
            "information," good and bad, available to consider. Many also have long cherished family
            stories that are hard to let go of, even in the face of strong challenges in the record.
            (That's true on the Irish and English side.) I would also want *them* to feel comfortable
            and as if they belong to this group. It's easier to be an open group and have friendly
            disagreements between members than to be an open group if you have to agree to a list
            of points to feel at ease and included.

            On the whole though, the more I think about it, I personally believe you make a good
            case.

            > They were, however, possessed of lands in Bowes at an early period,
            > but it is from this Fulco de Bowes, rather than the traditional
            > William de Arcubus, that their pedigree is to be traced. Sir Adam de
            > Bowes, fourth son of Stephen de Bowes, who was fourth in descent from
            > the above Fulco, was a man "learned in the lawes," whom Edward III.,
            > in 1331, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

            I have the feeling there are more Bowes lineages from NE England then this one, making
            telling the story of English origins more complex than being able to refer to "them" or
            "they" and a single lineage. Based on some of your other thoughts I have a feeling this is
            how you see it too? Hopefully the DNA project will help confirm or disprove this.

            I agree there is no evidence I've seen of any Bowes having come over with the Normans.
            Great list you posted. I've never seen that. But does it list all who came over? Was there a
            larger "army" of some sort consisting of people less important individually such that they
            didn't make the list? If so, did any of them come from areas outside the general area most
            Normans came to Ireland from? I don't know the answers, and I'm not hoping for a
            Norman Bowes come to Ireland (just interested in what really happened), but for the sake
            of covering bases, I do wonder. Perhaps you've already studied this issue to have ruled
            these possibilities out completely. I tend to leave possibilities open until I'm certain
            they're impossibilities. According to what I know so far, though, I'd say a Bowes coming
            over with Normans is more improbable than probable, but not yet disproved.
            >
            > Final thoughts. The Bowes-Lyon issue is a red, if exotically royal,
            > herring. The Queen Mother's earliest ancestor who bore the name
            > being, John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (July 17,
            > 1737 - March 7, 1776). The point being he was born as, John Lyon,
            > only later adopting the name 'bowes'. In 1767 he married Mary Eleanor
            > Bowes, and upon the request of the bride's father, assumed his wife's
            > name. This change of name required an Act of Parliament. That family
            > came not surprisingly from County Durham a stronghold of the Bowes
            > name. This makes the Queen Mother's connections to the Bowes name
            > somewhat distant and indirect, and certainly has no genuine meaning
            > for those Bowes with English roots, who have perhaps been misinformed
            > about the Bowes-Lyon connection.
            >

            Here I am more inclined to wax clinical and make genetic distinctions. I don't see the
            Bowes-Lyon connection as altogether meaningless to any Bowes today who can prove a
            paper trail to Mary Eleanor Bowes, but if it were me I would do my best to put it in
            perspective. I would determine whether I was a direct descendent of Mary Eleanor Bowes,
            and if so could then say that I and the Queen Mother share a direct descendent in a
            female Bowes. On the other hand, they could share a common ancestor with Mary Eleanor
            Bowes, making them x cousins x times removed, and have an even more distant, yet real,
            genetic relationship to the Queen Mother. You're right that the connection is meaningless
            in the sense of sharing a surname lineage with specific matching Y-DNA markers. The
            Queen Mother has no Y-DNA and her father had Lyon Y-DNA, not Bowes. Further, I
            suspect no one today could claim an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes,
            though it's possible (I haven't examined her pedigree). Assuming the Queen also does not
            have an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes, or even if only one of the two
            lines or the other didn't, a female Bowes today could not claim shared mtDNA with the
            Queen Mother. But, there are always autosomal chromosomes (the non-sex
            chromosomes). If someone can prove relatedness to Mary Eleanor Bowes, I'd say they
            probably have what is by now an invisible and genetically insignificant amount of shared
            autosomal genes with the Queen Mother line. In addition to genetic meaning to
            relationships, many of us value our family's story beyond the Y-DNA surname matches,
            but for me it would be important for the integrity of the story to understand and convey
            the exact relatedness. In this case, as a footnote, but not altogether meaningless. All that
            said, I have no evidence whatsoever of a connection between my male Bowes line and
            Mary Eleanor Bowes and am not looking for one. But I would love to have a "certified"
            male Bowes from that line join the project so we'd know those markers, and I would hope
            that would verify for some other Bowes, many of whom have been told by family they are
            part of the Bowes lineage that married into the royal family (albeit through a female
            Bowes), whether or not that is true. It strikes me as a major part of the Bowes One-Name
            Study, while DNA study results and interpretation provide a means for clarification.

            > In conclusion I feel having read around this subject that the Bowes
            > surname as it relates to Bowes Village in County Durham, has perhaps
            > two lines of origin. One being the earlier Danish/Saxon places name,
            > Bogas, the original name perhaps of the settlement there, the other
            > deriving from two 12/13th Century names, Fulco and Gerrard de Bowes.

            I also feel sure of these. Hopefully the facts of it will emerge over time as we pursue all
            this.

            > I must state here however that I remain slightly unconvinced that the
            > Bowes element of 'de Bowes' is Norman, thus I wonder if the name
            > maybe some later corruption recided by chroniclers? What does appear
            > clear though is that a number of Bowes are documented as have having
            > held land in the area around, and possibly earlier, the time of the
            > Norman conquest. This does not in itself mean they were of 'noble'
            > origins or possessed of any formal titles. Could it be that the Bowes
            > of Durham in question were Saxon landholders of some local status
            > that either adopted or were given more 'Norman' sounding names? This
            > would certainly explain the still, to my thinking at
            > least,unconvincing assertion that Bowes is a Norman name.

            I agree. I especially think Bowes itself is not Norman, but along with the other possibilities
            you mention it's possible Normans (not necessarily nobles or elite as you say) used the
            place name and their own culture's construction to take the name "de Bowes." In line with
            your thinking, I just recalled from a linguistics course I took that French was the official
            language of England for 300 years after the Normans came, so not unlikely some Saxons
            conformed.

            As the risk of straying off topic a tad, I lost the source but here's the note I kept about
            this:

            "French was the official language of England for 300 years after the Norman conquest.
            During that time most of our original English language, which had a grammar more like
            that of Turkish, was lost, along with a rich body of literature and philosophy in Old
            English. The only reason the King's English came to be standard English was that when
            English was reinstituted as the official language of England, the upper classes, who at that
            time were busy acquainting themselves with Latin literature (having lost most of their
            own), controlled and designated as preferred the new English that emerged. But the old
            Greek and Latin perspective, which England adopted, that there is somehow a pure
            language, is totally false from a linguistic perspective. Furthermore, language is spoken
            first (most languages don't even have a written version). It is only in very literate cultures
            like ours that it is mistakenly believed that language is primarily written. Thus, the written
            grammars for English that came from the Latin branches (English originated along another
            language branch entirely) became the model for speech among the well-educated--an
            inversion of the linguistic experience that has only served to make millions of people feel
            inadequate in their use of language."

            I think we're learning a thing or two about the living language of surnames!

            Clarification about the Haplogroup I1 Group 3 having Danish haplotype: I emailed with
            Ken Nordtvedt today and he updated his interpretation in light of his growth in
            understanding the haplogroup. He says they're definitely Anglo-Saxon, but not clearly
            Danish at all. Do you know, Jeff, how concentrated were the Anglo-Saxon in the
            Bowes/Danelaw, England area vs the Danish? Just curious. Ken was more inclined to say
            this group is probably from Germany, but the percentages in the personal pages for
            Recent Ancestral Origins don't yet support that. It says, "You match 1 person out of 8,388
            people from Germany. Which is < 0.1% of the population tested from Germany," not
            making the 2% threshold for "significantly" or the 4% for "highly significantly" indicating
            the place of origin. Maybe as the database grows.

            That's it for now. Will rest my arm awhile.
          • Jeff
            Martha, as to William de Arcubus of course people have every right to consider the tale as being a genuine explanation of the origins of the Bowes surname
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 4, 2009
              Martha, as to 'William de Arcubus' of course people have every right
              to consider the tale as being a genuine explanation of the origins of
              the Bowes surname (in England). My comments were in no way an appeal
              to limit anyone's freedom of interpretation. There are however in my
              view serious questions about the credibility of that tale. For
              example if we accept the story, based on a supposed manuscript from a
              nearby monastery, (released into circulation around 1838 during a
              period when certain Bowes of Durham were forging alliances with some
              very influential 'royal' circles) we have to agree that the Bowes
              name derives from the Norman period as a 'gift' in recognistion of
              the supposed courage of one individual supported by bowmen.

              Apart from the slight problem of heraldic titles and awards not being
              given until much later in English history, we have to also consider
              the placename of Bowes village itself. There are a number of accounts
              that this settlement only came into being in the 12th Century, which
              would, if correct, add some support to the Norman origins of Bowes.
              However, if we look at the various names which the village has had,
              we can see it was first called 'Bogis', a name clearly related to the
              Danish/Saxon 'Bogas'. This suggests pre-Norman beginnings for the
              Bowes settlement and undermines the notion that the village was named
              after William de Arcubus/Bowes. Certainly that region was under heavy
              Saxon and later Danish influence and it would not at all be
              surprising that its beginnings are to be located during that time,
              consider too the Danish sounding, River Greta, which runs past the
              village.

              Below is a rough chronological list of the various names given to
              that settlement:

              Bogis, Boues, Bouys (xii cent.); Bouas, Boghes (xiii cent.); Bouexe,
              Boughes, Bowes (xiv cent.).

              There are indeed no doubt many Bowes lines in County Durham, some
              perhaps the descendents of the landowning Bowes from that region.
              Many others will no doubt have been ordinary folk from humble and
              difficult conditions. One wonders whose versions of history appears
              in the records, thus far we are dazzled by the seeminglky fabulous
              deeds of Norman knights and archers. I suspect the truth is more
              ancient still and rests within the 6th to 10th Century, when Germanic
              speaking peoples, first Saxon, later Danish, settled by the bends and
              bows of the river which now runs alongside Bowes in County Durham.

              Apart from the few hundred Norman knights (captains) which invaded
              Ireland in 1169, the majority of the force were Welsh and Flemish,
              with additional numbers of English troops. These latter came
              predominantly from the West, and South West of England, regions where
              the Bowes name is extremely rare, even today. Moreover at that time
              many ordinaly folk had not then adopted surnames, only the elite had
              begun to use them.

              From: 'Parishes: Bowes', A History of the County of York North
              Riding: Volume 1 (1914), pp. 42-49. URL: http://www.british-
              history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64715 Date accessed: 04 January
              2009.isnot being awardedMy appeal, to lay that character to rest, was
              a general call to focus on more solid ground in the quest for
              establishing probable roots for the name. Regards, --- In
              bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com, "mhbowes11" <mhbowes@...> wrote:
              >
              > Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It's
              certainly clear that the part of
              > the story about the coat of arms being granted long before crests
              came into being is
              > absolutely false. There's also a good probability that the rest of
              the story was fanciful. So
              > much poor research has served to boost reputations it could easily
              fall into this category.
              > However, I can't yet rule out that, as with many myths, including
              those of Irish origin, it
              > could be part true, part false. I'm skeptical (esp. given the
              account of Fulco de Bowes), but
              > as far as I know, there's nothing in writing to say that William de
              Arcubus (or Bowes by
              > another name) *didn't* live in Bowes Castle at some point, even if
              the other part of the
              > story is false. Is there any record of the castle's inhabitants?
              Might part of the story be
              > true?
              >
              > I'm not sure if by asking if "we" can lay the Arcubus story to rest
              you meant you and I or
              > the whole group. For the record, I am inclined for this group to
              encourage everyone to
              > feel comfortable stating what for them is a conclusion, but I'd
              hate to see finalizing
              > matters *as a group* by putting themes to rest for all. Many have
              to come to conclusions
              > in their own time, after their own investigation. I would not want
              them to feel unwelcome
              > or uncomfortable if they are still pondering the complex past and
              volumes of
              > "information," good and bad, available to consider. Many also have
              long cherished family
              > stories that are hard to let go of, even in the face of strong
              challenges in the record.
              > (That's true on the Irish and English side.) I would also want
              *them* to feel comfortable
              > and as if they belong to this group. It's easier to be an open
              group and have friendly
              > disagreements between members than to be an open group if you have
              to agree to a list
              > of points to feel at ease and included.
              >
              > On the whole though, the more I think about it, I personally
              believe you make a good
              > case.
              >
              > > They were, however, possessed of lands in Bowes at an early
              period,
              > > but it is from this Fulco de Bowes, rather than the traditional
              > > William de Arcubus, that their pedigree is to be traced. Sir Adam
              de
              > > Bowes, fourth son of Stephen de Bowes, who was fourth in descent
              from
              > > the above Fulco, was a man "learned in the lawes," whom Edward
              III.,
              > > in 1331, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench.
              >
              > I have the feeling there are more Bowes lineages from NE England
              then this one, making
              > telling the story of English origins more complex than being able
              to refer to "them" or
              > "they" and a single lineage. Based on some of your other thoughts I
              have a feeling this is
              > how you see it too? Hopefully the DNA project will help confirm or
              disprove this.
              >
              > I agree there is no evidence I've seen of any Bowes having come
              over with the Normans.
              > Great list you posted. I've never seen that. But does it list all
              who came over? Was there a
              > larger "army" of some sort consisting of people less important
              individually such that they
              > didn't make the list? If so, did any of them come from areas
              outside the general area most
              > Normans came to Ireland from? I don't know the answers, and I'm not
              hoping for a
              > Norman Bowes come to Ireland (just interested in what really
              happened), but for the sake
              > of covering bases, I do wonder. Perhaps you've already studied this
              issue to have ruled
              > these possibilities out completely. I tend to leave possibilities
              open until I'm certain
              > they're impossibilities. According to what I know so far, though,
              I'd say a Bowes coming
              > over with Normans is more improbable than probable, but not yet
              disproved.
              > >
              > > Final thoughts. The Bowes-Lyon issue is a red, if exotically
              royal,
              > > herring. The Queen Mother's earliest ancestor who bore the name
              > > being, John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (July
              17,
              > > 1737 - March 7, 1776). The point being he was born as, John Lyon,
              > > only later adopting the name 'bowes'. In 1767 he married Mary
              Eleanor
              > > Bowes, and upon the request of the bride's father, assumed his
              wife's
              > > name. This change of name required an Act of Parliament. That
              family
              > > came not surprisingly from County Durham a stronghold of the
              Bowes
              > > name. This makes the Queen Mother's connections to the Bowes name
              > > somewhat distant and indirect, and certainly has no genuine
              meaning
              > > for those Bowes with English roots, who have perhaps been
              misinformed
              > > about the Bowes-Lyon connection.
              > >
              >
              > Here I am more inclined to wax clinical and make genetic
              distinctions. I don't see the
              > Bowes-Lyon connection as altogether meaningless to any Bowes today
              who can prove a
              > paper trail to Mary Eleanor Bowes, but if it were me I would do my
              best to put it in
              > perspective. I would determine whether I was a direct descendent of
              Mary Eleanor Bowes,
              > and if so could then say that I and the Queen Mother share a direct
              descendent in a
              > female Bowes. On the other hand, they could share a common ancestor
              with Mary Eleanor
              > Bowes, making them x cousins x times removed, and have an even more
              distant, yet real,
              > genetic relationship to the Queen Mother. You're right that the
              connection is meaningless
              > in the sense of sharing a surname lineage with specific matching Y-
              DNA markers. The
              > Queen Mother has no Y-DNA and her father had Lyon Y-DNA, not Bowes.
              Further, I
              > suspect no one today could claim an unbroken female descent from
              Mary Eleanor Bowes,
              > though it's possible (I haven't examined her pedigree). Assuming
              the Queen also does not
              > have an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes, or even if
              only one of the two
              > lines or the other didn't, a female Bowes today could not claim
              shared mtDNA with the
              > Queen Mother. But, there are always autosomal chromosomes (the non-
              sex
              > chromosomes). If someone can prove relatedness to Mary Eleanor
              Bowes, I'd say they
              > probably have what is by now an invisible and genetically
              insignificant amount of shared
              > autosomal genes with the Queen Mother line. In addition to genetic
              meaning to
              > relationships, many of us value our family's story beyond the Y-DNA
              surname matches,
              > but for me it would be important for the integrity of the story to
              understand and convey
              > the exact relatedness. In this case, as a footnote, but not
              altogether meaningless. All that
              > said, I have no evidence whatsoever of a connection between my male
              Bowes line and
              > Mary Eleanor Bowes and am not looking for one. But I would love to
              have a "certified"
              > male Bowes from that line join the project so we'd know those
              markers, and I would hope
              > that would verify for some other Bowes, many of whom have been told
              by family they are
              > part of the Bowes lineage that married into the royal family
              (albeit through a female
              > Bowes), whether or not that is true. It strikes me as a major part
              of the Bowes One-Name
              > Study, while DNA study results and interpretation provide a means
              for clarification.
              >
              > > In conclusion I feel having read around this subject that the
              Bowes
              > > surname as it relates to Bowes Village in County Durham, has
              perhaps
              > > two lines of origin. One being the earlier Danish/Saxon places
              name,
              > > Bogas, the original name perhaps of the settlement there, the
              other
              > > deriving from two 12/13th Century names, Fulco and Gerrard de
              Bowes.
              >
              > I also feel sure of these. Hopefully the facts of it will emerge
              over time as we pursue all
              > this.
              >
              > > I must state here however that I remain slightly unconvinced that
              the
              > > Bowes element of 'de Bowes' is Norman, thus I wonder if the name
              > > maybe some later corruption recided by chroniclers? What does
              appear
              > > clear though is that a number of Bowes are documented as have
              having
              > > held land in the area around, and possibly earlier, the time of
              the
              > > Norman conquest. This does not in itself mean they were
              of 'noble'
              > > origins or possessed of any formal titles. Could it be that the
              Bowes
              > > of Durham in question were Saxon landholders of some local status
              > > that either adopted or were given more 'Norman' sounding names?
              This
              > > would certainly explain the still, to my thinking at
              > > least,unconvincing assertion that Bowes is a Norman name.
              >
              > I agree. I especially think Bowes itself is not Norman, but along
              with the other possibilities
              > you mention it's possible Normans (not necessarily nobles or elite
              as you say) used the
              > place name and their own culture's construction to take the
              name "de Bowes." In line with
              > your thinking, I just recalled from a linguistics course I took
              that French was the official
              > language of England for 300 years after the Normans came, so not
              unlikely some Saxons
              > conformed.
              >
              > As the risk of straying off topic a tad, I lost the source but
              here's the note I kept about
              > this:
              >
              > "French was the official language of England for 300 years after
              the Norman conquest.
              > During that time most of our original English language, which had a
              grammar more like
              > that of Turkish, was lost, along with a rich body of literature and
              philosophy in Old
              > English. The only reason the King's English came to be standard
              English was that when
              > English was reinstituted as the official language of England, the
              upper classes, who at that
              > time were busy acquainting themselves with Latin literature (having
              lost most of their
              > own), controlled and designated as preferred the new English that
              emerged. But the old
              > Greek and Latin perspective, which England adopted, that there is
              somehow a pure
              > language, is totally false from a linguistic perspective.
              Furthermore, language is spoken
              > first (most languages don't even have a written version). It is
              only in very literate cultures
              > like ours that it is mistakenly believed that language is primarily
              written. Thus, the written
              > grammars for English that came from the Latin branches (English
              originated along another
              > language branch entirely) became the model for speech among the
              well-educated--an
              > inversion of the linguistic experience that has only served to make
              millions of people feel
              > inadequate in their use of language."
              >
              > I think we're learning a thing or two about the living language of
              surnames!
              >
              > Clarification about the Haplogroup I1 Group 3 having Danish
              haplotype: I emailed with
              > Ken Nordtvedt today and he updated his interpretation in light of
              his growth in
              > understanding the haplogroup. He says they're definitely Anglo-
              Saxon, but not clearly
              > Danish at all. Do you know, Jeff, how concentrated were the Anglo-
              Saxon in the
              > Bowes/Danelaw, England area vs the Danish? Just curious. Ken was
              more inclined to say
              > this group is probably from Germany, but the percentages in the
              personal pages for
              > Recent Ancestral Origins don't yet support that. It says, "You
              match 1 person out of 8,388
              > people from Germany. Which is < 0.1% of the population tested from
              Germany," not
              > making the 2% threshold for "significantly" or the 4% for "highly
              significantly" indicating
              > the place of origin. Maybe as the database grows.
              >
              > That's it for now. Will rest my arm awhile.
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.