Boklerplaiers
paul bulkley
You have introduced some excellent observations.
However, although the omission or the relocation of a
mere vowel or letter may appear "a pretty minor
difference", I wonder how a guy named Bullock would
react if told in fact that he was a miserable
Bulkeley!
Your advise regarding place name origins is very
sound, and I have no doubt many family names stem from
ancient locations or occupations. BUT if the family
initially came from the Continent, it is quite
feasible that the family name came from an ancient
location or occupation on the Continent rather than in
the UK.
I think the opinions of British History Online are
very significant, and if valid scuttles any argument
that the family was named after a village of Bulkeley
(Cheshire) or a village of Buckley (Lancashire).
As mentioned before family documents suggest the
family was French, and public documents record
individuals travelling from the Continent to UK and
Ireland in the early 1200s - perhaps BHO is correct?
Tow marriages definitely suggest that the family was
French:
(a) 1193: Geoffrey Buckley the Elder Dean of Whalley
Rochdale Lancashire married a daughter of Roger de
Lascy (Cheshire/Pontefract line) (Whalley Coucher 136
and 1074)
(b) 1380/85: John Bulkley of Eaton (son) Robert
Bulkley of Eaton married Christiana de Ripariis (grand
daughter of Sir John Redvers and Maud (Devon) (The
Revier Family)
Both the Lascy Family and the Revier Family held
powerful positions and both from Normandy. It is
difficult to imagine that either families would
countenance a marriage with an undistinguished Anglo
Saxon.
Anyhow Matt - what is fascinating is that "nothing is
set in concrete" The greatest danger is accepting the
opinions of others without due thought.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Matt Tompkins
> I think the opinions of British History Online are
> very significant, and if valid scuttles any argument
> that the family was named after a village of Bulkeley
> (Cheshire) or a village of Buckley (Lancashire).
Not really - the fact that the word bukeler, bokeler, bouclier meant a
buckle- or girdle-maker in Middle English (which is certainly true)
doesn't disprove anything about the origins of people called Bulkeley -
it relates more to the origins of people called Buckler.
It is possible that some modern people called Buckler have a name which
at some point in the past transmuted from Bulkeley, and it is just
possible that some modern Bulkeleys descend from people who made
bucklers - both of these are possible because surnames, like
place-names, do change over the centuries, and are sometimes
assimilated to a similar-sounding name. However it is probable that
most modern-day Bulkeleys descend from a man who took his name from a
place called Bulkeley, and most modern Bucklers descend from a man who
made buckles.
And of course there may also have been cross-pollination between
Bulkeley and Buckley - some lines which derived their name from the
former place may have ended up being called Buckley, and vice versa.
And then there is the possibility of origins in French places called
something similar. But none of these possible origins disproves the
other possible origins - that can only be done by tracing each line
back to the first individual to use its name and finding out whether he
lived in or near a Bulkeley or Buckley or somewhere in France, or was
carrying on a buckle-making trade. If this could be done for all lines
it might be discovered that there are several unrelated lines, one from
each origin, or it may be that there is just one line with just one of
these origins (though I think at least two lines/origins more likely).
A single parish register entry in which the name of one of your
Bulkeley ancestors was recorded as Bucler does not make him the
descendant of buckle-makers - that would only be the case if most early
records of the family called them Bucler.
> As mentioned before family documents suggest the
> family was French, and public documents record
> individuals travelling from the Continent to UK and
> Ireland in the early 1200s - perhaps BHO is correct?
You're referring to the 1225 and 1235 Patent Rolls records of a George
Bukele/Bucler (merchant from Rouen) being given permission to trade in
England, and the 1220 archaeological report mentioning brassfounders in
Dublin called Bukeler? They prove nothing about the origins of modern
day Bulkeleys, and still less about the 12th century Cheshire Bulkeleys
- all they do is raise the possibility that those merchants and
brassfounders may be the ancestors of modern people called Buckler or
something like it, possibly even Bulkeley. But there is no guarantee
that either the merchants or the brassfounders left modern descendants,
nor can we be sure what form those modern descendants' surname takes.
> Tow marriages definitely suggest that the family was
> French:
>
> (a) 1193: Geoffrey Buckley the Elder Dean of Whalley
> Rochdale Lancashire married a daughter of Roger de
> Lascy (Cheshire/Pontefract line) (Whalley Coucher 136
> and 1074)
>
> (b) 1380/85: John Bulkley of Eaton (son) Robert
> Bulkley of Eaton married Christiana de Ripariis (grand
> daughter of Sir John Redvers and Maud (Devon) (The
> Revier Family)
Neither of those documents conclusively identifies them as French (by
which you mean one of the Norman invaders, who were variously
Norman/French/Breton/Flemish?), though I do agree that the 12th century
dean was more likely to have been of Norman-French descent than not.
By 1380, however, the labels Norman-French and Anglo-Saxon were quite
irrelevant - the two populations had by then mixed indissolubly.
> Both the Lascy Family and the Revier Family held
> powerful positions and both from Normandy. It is
> difficult to imagine that either families would
> countenance a marriage with an undistinguished Anglo
> Saxon.
Well, no, the Norman-French aristocracy did take Anglo-Saxon wives on
occasion, and it is thought that the lesser Norman-French lords did so
more often. Most studies of the post-invasion period comment on the
phenomenon. And you can't necessarily identify nationality from
forename - within a few decades of the Conquest there were people of
undoubted Anglo-Saxon parentage with Norman-French names.
But the assumption behind that statement is also wrong; the fact that
the 12th century de Bulkeleys had a surname derived from an Anglo-Saxon
place-name did not make them Anglo-Saxon. Many of the Norman-French
lords took their surname from their English estates, so it is more
likely that the first de Bulkeley lord of Bulkeley was Norman-French in
background.
regards,
Matt
paul bulkley
Thank you for your defense of the Anglo Saxon
Bulkeleys. Hopefully you will discover something that
will deter me from studying Norman Scandinavian
records.
However I think you perhaps misunderstand my thinking.
I have simply ventured to suggest that the Bulkley
Family name was not derived from your Anglo Saxon
village name of Bulloc-leah as claimed by some
authorities.
Naturally I have no objection to your beliefs if you
can support such beliefs with sound evidence. However
without that evidence it does not seem logical for you
to refute my evidence with "IFS", "BUTS", "PERHAPS".
Anyhow none of it is important, but I have to admit
that I find your responses puzzling:
(1) You claim that the Lascy Family and the Revier
Family (The Bulkleys are connected by marriage) were
"lesser Norman French lords"!
My information advises the following:
Lascy Family: The creation of the honor of Pontefract
by Ilbert Lascy took place under the first two Norman
Kings. In 1086 the estates were to be found in the
south half of the West Riding of Yorkshire (area about
500 square miles - that is a fairly large garden). The
estate was increased 1102 with the inclusion of the
Hundred of Blackburnshire in North East Lancashire.
Revier Family: 1086/1094. Richard de Redvers (son)
Richard or Baldwin married Adelize (daughter) William
de Peverel of Nottingham. Richard de Redvers was a
nephew/cousin of Nigel IV St Sauveur of Halton and
wife Emma (daughter) William Fitz Osborn.
"Ricardo de Redvers nepoti praede Willelmi filii
Osbertni, tunc comiti Exoniae" (Monasticon Anglicanum
P.1041)
He was a very close counsellor/adviser of Henry I
1085/1107.
I am doubtful that either family would countenance an
Anglo Saxon son in law unless he possessed remarkable
wealth and possessions.
(2) You stipulate that a single parish register entry
for an ancestor (my 8th great grandfather) with the
name Bucler does not make him a descendant of
bucklemakers - " that would be the only case if most
early records of the family called them Bucler"
Well I have just quickly scanned through the
Lancashire line records - I counted at least forty
(40) documents recording the name of Bucler, Bucle,
Bucley (1280-1580) Would that number be adequate?
(3) You gave some examples of Anglo Saxon words
supporting the name of Bulkley. How about adding this
one to your list:
BUKLER - a small round shield (Old French BOCLER =
BOSS (on a shield) Refer to Dictionary Medieval Times
by Coredon.
(4)Another rather thought provoking item is in
Wainwright's "Scandinavian England". He states that
along the Lune Valley Lancashire there were
Scandinavian settlers named "BULK'.
And if your visit Ireland, the country is full of
Buckleys - and Wainwright claims that Ireland had a
plentiful supply of Scandinavians in the past.
Finally where are the subscribers with fresh ideas?
Every day one reads that another authority of the past
was wrong. As few genealogical records can be
substantiated, it is absurd to place all one's
convictions in these records, and argue against fresh
ideas.
I repeat I suspect that the authorities that claim the
Bulkley Family gained their name from the village of
Bulloc-leah and the village of Buckley are probably
incorrect.
By the way I found this interesting record that
demonstrates that the Bulkley Family despite any
pretensions it may have, have plenty of "bad eggs"
1844 QUARTER SESSIONS BEAUMARIS ANGLESEY:
Summary Conviction of John Griffiths laborer of
Beaumaris. Charged with damaging SIX TURNIPS growing
on the land of Sir Richard William Bulkeley.
Griffiths to pay 5/- plus 8/- costs or be imprisoned
seven days hard labour.
I have no doubt Sir Richard Williams Bulkeley would
have demanded the death penalty if the unfortunate
Griffiths had eaten the miserable turnips. NICE GUY.
Matt Tompkins
I wasn't suggesting that the Lacies and Redvers were lesser lords -
my points were (i) 12C Norman-French lords did marry Anglo-Saxons
occasionally, and so the fact that a de Bulkeley married a de Lacy in
1193 does not of itself prove that he was of Norman background (though,
as I said, he probably was), and (ii) by 1380 there were no Normans and
Anglo-Saxons, just Englishmen, so a marriage in that year between a
Bulkeley and a Redvers cannot prove anything either way about the
Conquest-period origins of the two families. However, while those two
marriages don't prove anything, it is nevertheless very likely that
the early de Bulkeleys who were lords of Bulkeley in Cheshire were
Norman (as I also said before). It may also be worth repeating that
the fact that the place-name Bulkeley is probably Anglo-Saxon says
nothing at all about the background of anyone called Bulkeley in any
period - plenty of Normans took their surnames from their English
estates.
As for the number of Buclers and Buckleys in Lancashire, my point was
that if someone who was normally called Bulkeley, and whose ancestors
were normally called Bulkeley, is referred to in a single record as
Buckler then it was just a spelling aberration and does not mean his
ancestors made bucklers - his name is still most likely to have derived
from the place called Bulkeley. It is only if he and his ancestors
were normally called Buckler that he is more likely to be descended
from a man who was a buckler-maker. The number of Buclers and Bucleys
in Lancashire is only relevant to the origin of your Bulkley 8th
great-grandfather in Kent if he was descended from them.
That dictionary entry does not say Bukler was an Anglo-Saxon word, but
that it was a Middle English word, and one derived from a French word
at that! Anyway, as I have said before, while it is not impossible
that the modern surname Bulkeley or Bulkley may have derived from that
word, it is more likely that it derives from the place-name Bulkeley.
I don't think the presence of Scandinavians called Bulk in Lancashire
or of Buckleys in Ireland (which had plenty of Norman, English and
Welsh immigration as well as Scandinavian) has much relevance to the
origins of the surname Bulkeley.
You complain that I deal in ifs and buts and perhapses, but
unfortunately there is no other feasible approach to surname origins.
The only way to be settle the matter conclusively would be to trace the
ancestry of all Bulkeleys, Buckleys and Bucklers back to the first to
use those names and find out how they acquired them. Until that can be
done all we can do is talk of probabilities and possibilities - but
those probablilities and possibilities must be based on logic and a
firm understanding of the historical development of surnames and
place-names, of the societies they developed in, and of the records
left by those societies.
Regards,
Matt Tompkins
Jwc...@aol.com
There are all kinds of Explanations as to how the name
Bulkeley came to be, possibly including the possibility that it is a
corruption of a place name, say for instance Bullock`s Lea.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA