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

Re: name again

Expand Messages
  • Gretchen~ Hulett Hall Academy
    With the help of local hearldry I was able to come up with a name. I am Osanna Beaupel
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 1, 2005
      With the help of local hearldry I was able to come up with a name.

      I am Osanna Beaupel




      --- In scanewcomers@yahoogroups.com, "Steven & Gretchen Hulett"
      <sghulett@b...> wrote:
      > ok what do you all think of this name?
      >
      > Oona le Baker de Summersette
      >
      > Gretchen
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • souriete
      In medieval or Renaissance England people did not have Middle Names, the way 20th century (and now 21st century) Americans think of them †an additional
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 4, 2005
        In medieval or Renaissance England people did not have Middle Names,
        the way 20th century (and now 21st century) Americans think of them â€"
        an additional euphonious given name between the first name and the
        surname, or an extra family surname to put between the first name and
        the surname, etc. However 3 and 4 element English names can be
        documented in England from the 12th century through the 14th
        centuries. In that case each element appended to the given name was a
        functional byname (describing the person by their occupation, place of
        origin, place of residence, name of relative or personal
        characteristic) or inherited surname. An inherited surname, of course,
        was originally a functional byname that became inherited by being
        passed down in a family from person to person. People didn't wake up
        one morning in 1253 (or any other year!) and say "From now on we are
        all going to use inherited surnames." Different people in different
        areas started to use inherited surnames at different times. In the
        same place and time, we can find evidence of a father and his sons,
        with some sons using the same surname as the father and other using
        different surnames.

        In my limited study, I found about 800 multiple element bynames from
        English records for which I could clearly identify the type of all
        elements. Of these, 35% appear in the form Given name â€" Relationship
        Name â€" Local Name Examples include: Brian Saffray de Pampesworth 1336,
        Nicholas Pieres de Donstaple 1310, Alanus filius Bede de Swainton’
        1230, Ailwinus frater Willelmi de Nisindon' 1188, Sewallus Buchard de
        Kessinglond 1257, Ragenilda uxor Herberti de Bulunia 1203-4. In the
        case of Brian Saffray, Nicholas Pieres and Sewallus Buchard, it looks
        like they have a middle name or second given name, but in each case,
        it is an unmarked patronymic and Saffray, Pieres and Buchard are the
        given names of their fathers. The rest of the list has marked
        patronymics, in these cases marked by a Latin word: filius means "son
        of", frater means "brother of" and uxor means "wife of."

        My study revealed that the second most common patter was Given Name -
        Local name â€" Local name, of which 15.6% was composed of this type of
        name. In some cases these represented place of origin and current
        residence. It could also represent place of origin and an inherited
        surname that was originally a local byname. There are a number of
        other possible explanations for two local bynames. Examples are: Peter
        de Herlyngge of London 1340, Henry de Waperlond de Wentebrigge 1342-3,
        Adam atte Ponde de Alvesbourne 1311, William de Hesil of Holborn
        1346-7, Richard de Coventre de Berewyk 1346, Henry de Suleby of
        Fletestrete 1324-5.

        The third most common multiple byname pattern I found was Given name â€"
        Occupational Name â€" Local name, a pattern which 9.5% of the sample
        followed. Examples of this pattern are: John le Parmenter of York
        1349, Richard le Fevre de Bury 1309-10, Willelmus presbiter de Sancto
        Antonino 1119, William le Skynnere de Flaxtone 1338. (A parmenter is a
        tailor, a fevre is a smith, a presbiter is a type of cleric.)

        The fourth most common multiple byname pattern I found was Given name
        â€" Relationship Name â€" Relationship name, a pattern which 6.3% of the
        sample followed. Examples of this pattern are: Petrus filius
        Willelmi fil. Alufi 1228, Adrian fil. Ralph Eswy 1219, Godiua uxor
        Sibaldi Brunstani late 12th.

        This is a very short extraction from my article "Patterns in Middle
        English Names with Multiple Bynames" published in the _Known World
        Heraldic and Scribal Symposium, Proceedings: 2004_. The full article
        explains bynames in more detail, gives the sources for each name
        quoted above and lists more patterns I was able to document, with
        sample names.

        I must point out that a given name and a SINGLE byname is by far the
        most common and documentable form of medieval English name
        registerable in the SCA. That is certainly the best (most period) form
        for a medieval English name. However, two (and three) bynames can be
        documented for medieval England, so if you want to do something like
        that it is possible. I hope this clarifies English naming practices a
        little. Let me know if you have any questions.

        Cateline la souriete


        --- In scanewcomers@yahoogroups.com, "Alison Choyce" <choyce@c...> wrote:
        > From: Bulgarelli Maria
        > Period people didn't have middle names. The only
        > exception to this was if there were more than one
        > person with the same name ........ The Heralds usually don't pass
        > middle names (around here at least) unless you can
        > show a REALLY good reason for it.
        >
        > Maria
        >
        > Maria,
        > Thank you for answering Capt Elias, and explaining where your
        information came from. I am citing below, for the benefit of everyone
        on the list, the response of a friend of mine. She has been
        researching names for over 20 years, and is respected as a name
        researcher across the Heraldic community. Her area of greatest
        knowledge is England of this era.
        >
        > My Question to her was, "is three elements reasonable in a 12-13th
        century English name," and I included the name in the question. In
        her answer she makes reference to the Knowne World Heraldic Symposium
        ("last year's symposium proceedings")
        >
        > Quoth Dame Cateline la souriete de la Mor:
        > The short answer is, the name is fine and period if she has
        > documented the elements. I have attached as documentation for you my
        > article from last year's symposium proceedings (which I know you
        > have!)
        >
        > Off the top of my head, I'd guess that the bynames are fine though
        > they might require a few minor spelling changes to more documentable
        > forms, but the given name looks Irish. Of course that is probably OK:
        > it might be a weirdness -- the spelling certainly is as it falls
        > somewhere in between the Irish Gaelic form (U/)na/Una and the modern
        > anglicized form Oonagh. You might want to check the lingual weirdness
        > table. And see
        > http://www.panix.com/~gabriel/public-bin/showfinal.cgi?1685+0 for the
        > given name.
        >
        > Whoever told her she can't have 3 elements in England is very much
        > mistaken. Please feel free to quote from my article as needed!
        >
        > Cateline
        >
        >
        > In service,
        > Alison
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.