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

Re: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English?

Expand Messages
  • Allen Bowes
    Martha, a pleasure. Jeff ... From: mhbowes11 Subject: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English? To: bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.