Boklerplaiers
paul bulkley
Richard de Bulkele and William de Northamptone
Boklerplaiers. The Rolls recorded that Northamptone
was responsible for Bulkele's death.
I asked the meaning of Boklerplaier, and no one in Gen
Med responded with an explanation.
The following regulations in the "Munimenta Gildhalle
Londoniensis" Liber Albus (Riley) suggests an
explanation - the term "Bokeler" being used:
(1) No fencing school or place for Buckler exercise to
be allowed. (P.274)
(2) Persons not to go about the City armed after
curfew (P.275)
The term "Bokeller" would appear to apply to a sword.
Boklerplaiers presumably to be individuals involved in
fencing! (Sword play)
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Matt Tompkins
> The term "Bokeller" would appear to apply to a sword.
> Boklerplaiers presumably to be individuals involved in
> fencing! (Sword play)
No, a buckler was a small round shield, similar to the targes
highlanders carried in the 17th and 18th centuries.
'Sword-and-buckler' was a style of fighting.
It did occur to me, when I saw your original post, that 'bokler' might
be 'buckler', but I couldn't come up with a plausible explanation for
the 'plaier' part, so I didn't post it - sorry.
Bucklerplayer sounds more like a recreation than an occupation. It
just might have been someone who taught sword-and-buckler fighting, but
would anyone have specialised that narrowly? - sword-and-buckler was
just one of several styles of fighting, and anyway I have an idea it
dated from a later period.
I did wonder whether might have been something to do with making
bucklers - was a boklerplaier a buckler-plyer? But did one ply
bucklers?
Matt Tompkins
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/24/2006 4:27:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
designe...@yahoo.com writes:
Richard de Bulkele and William de Northamptone
Boklerplaiers. The Rolls recorded that Northamptone
was responsible for Bulkele's death.
He killed him during a sword-fight exercise. They were training.
I wonder if that was considered accidental ?
Matt Tompkins
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
>> Richard de Bulkele and William de Northamptone
>> Boklerplaiers. The Rolls recorded that Northamptone
>> was responsible for Bulkele's death.
>
> He killed him during a sword-fight exercise. They were training.
> I wonder if that was considered accidental ?
Oh yes, I see - now we know that one of the boklerplaiers killed the
other it's obvious boklerplaier wasn't their occupation, it was just
what they were doing at the time.
Here are some relevant definitions from the OED:
"buckler-play, -playing, -player, fencing, a fencer"
"to play at bucklers, at sword and buckler: to fence"
"sword-and-buckler a., armed with or using a sword and buckler;
pertaining to or performed with sword and buckler; fig. bragging,
blustering (obs.)"
Interestingly, it turns out that in the fifteenth century a
buckler-maker was called ... a buckler-maker:
"1415 in York Myst. Introd. 23 *Bukler-makers.
1483 Cath. Angl. 36 A Bock[el]ere maker, peltarius.
c1500 Cocke Lorell's B. (1843) 9 Bokeler makers, dyers, and lether
sellers."
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> "to play at bucklers, at sword and buckler: to fence"
> "sword-and-buckler a., armed with or using a sword and buckler;
> pertaining to or performed with sword and buckler; fig. bragging,
> blustering (obs.)"
It's just dawned on me that this must be the origin of the expression
swashbuckler, and the OED confirms it; a swashbuckler is:
"A swaggering bravo or ruffian; a noisy braggadocio.[f. swash v. +
buckler n; hence lit. one who makes a noise by striking his own or his
opponent's shield with his sword.]
The verb 'swash' means: "To dash or cast violently" or "To make a noise
as of swords clashing or of a sword beating on a shield; to fence with
swords; to bluster with or as with weapons; to lash out; hence, to
swagger."
Apologies to everyone who already knew that.
Matt Tompkins
paul bulkley
Thank you for your interesting comments.
Bulluc- leah - "Bullock-ley (Bulkeley Cheshire) you
advise is a genuine Anglo Saxon Place Name.
Many authorities make similar claims for the village
of Bulkeley, and yet I question if it is correct. In
the 1100s there were many families named Bullock and
its equivalent. Why should the name Bulluc (Bullock)
become transposed to the name of Bulkeley or its
equivalent at that time? Logically one would assume
the village would have named Bullockley.
Secondly many authorities claim that there is no
reference to the village of Bulkeley before the late
1100s, and that Domesday makes no mention at all of
the place. One would have assumed that if the name
Bulluc-leah was of such ancient vintage, that there
would be some reference before the 1100s.
It is thought provoking that there is a record of
Richard de Beaucleia 1170/1180 Bunbury, and of
Geoffrey and Robert Buckley Lancashire 1135 (Whalley
Coucher) The possibility of the villages of Bulkeley
and Buckley being named after the families rather than
the reverse exists.
Your observation that it is possible that there were a
number of independent families who all adopted a
similar name is one to be considered. Of course that
observation applies to just about every single family
discussed by Gen-Med that puts to question those
subscribers who claim adamantly basing their evidence
on the records only of the family bible or parish
register.
Matt Tompkins
> Bulluc- leah - "Bullock-ley (Bulkeley Cheshire) you
> advise is a genuine Anglo Saxon Place Name.
> Many authorities make similar claims for the village
> of Bulkeley, and yet I question if it is correct. In
> the 1100s there were many families named Bullock and
> its equivalent. Why should the name Bulluc (Bullock)
> become transposed to the name of Bulkeley or its
> equivalent at that time? Logically one would assume
> the village would have named Bullockley.
The village probably was named Bullockley, or perhaps Bullocksley, but
of course at that time people spoke Anglo-Saxon, not modern English,
and they would have said Bullucleah, or perhaps something like
Bullucaleah or Bullucanleah (my OE grammar isn't up to working out
the correct dative or genitive form of bulluc). Over the subsequent
thousand years and more the language pressures which have altered most
other English place-names have also operated to change that to
something pronounced Bulkley (or even Bukley - from about 1300 the
name was often recorded in forms beginning with Buck- and Buk-, but the
form which stuck in the 19th century was Bulkeley). The changing forms
of the name from 1170 to the modern day can be seen in the English
Place-name Society's 'Place-names of Cheshire' (1972) iv, 17, by JM
Dodgson.
It's doubtful whether the place would have been named after people
surnamed Bullock (indeed at the time the place-name was most probably
formed people did not use surnames) - it would have been called
Bullock-ley because it was a forest clearing somehow associated with
bullocks (or possibly a wood with those associations - 'leah' was
an ambiguous word which could mean either a clearing in a wooded
landscape or an isolated piece of woodland in a largely open landscape,
and later came to mean pasture or meadow). Topographical descriptions
are a common type of English place-name, and -leah derivations (-ley,
-lee, -leigh, -lea etc) are the most common ending in that group.
Compounds with animal names are common, and -leah has been combined
with other types of cattle to give place-names like Bulley, Oxley,
Calveley, Cowley.
Place-names of this sort are discussed in some detail in Margaret
Gelling's book 'The Landscape of Place-names' (Stamford, 2000), and
also in most other books on the history of English place-names.
> Secondly many authorities claim that there is no
> reference to the village of Bulkeley before the late
> 1100s, and that Domesday makes no mention at all of
> the place. One would have assumed that if the name
> Bulluc-leah was of such ancient vintage, that there
> would be some reference before the 1100s.
The lack of early documentary references to Bulkeley is really quite
normal, and does not mean that the place had not been in existence and
known by that name for a long time before 1170. Only a few English
places are mentioned in pre-Domesday Book sources, and for many places
the first written mention comes much later - for the simple reason
that few records were created before the 12th century, and only some of
them have survived.
But the date of the earliest surviving documentary reference to a place
does not tell us when it was first inhabited, or even when it was first
known by that name - most places for which there is no written record
before the 12th or 13th century had almost certainly been in existence
and known by that name for a long time beforehand, probably for several
centuries.
Bulkeley's absence from Domesday Book is easily explained - DB
recorded manors or estates held by the tenants-in-chief and their
sub-tenants and occasionally sub-undertenants. Some manors, especially
in the north, were large estates comprising several settlements, but DB
usually only mentioned the central place in each estate. Bulkeley was
part of just such an estate, one centered on Malpas (which
significantly was also the centre of an unusually large parish in which
Bulkeley was just one of several non-parochial townships). In 1086
Malpas was held as a single estate by Robert FitzHugh, who presumably
had not yet subinfeudated Bulkeley or the other constituent townships.
> It is thought provoking that there is a record of
> Richard de Beaucleia 1170/1180 Bunbury, and of
> Geoffrey and Robert Buckley Lancashire 1135 (Whalley
> Coucher) The possibility of the villages of Bulkeley
> and Buckley being named after the families rather than
> the reverse exists.
Yes, that must be possible, and indeed many of the earliest documentary
references to Bulkeley are in the form of a surname following 'de'.
But it is also recorded as a place-name proper from much the same date
(in forms like Bulkeleh, Bulkileia) and the most likely explanation of
the place-name must surely be that, like the hundreds of other
place-names with endings derived from 'leah', it is an Anglo-Saxon
one.
And by the same token, even if the place in Cheshire did take its name
from a twelfth century lord called de Bulkeley, he would probably have
derived his surname from another place in England called 'bullock-ley'.
Curiously Reaney and Wilson's History of English Surnames does state
that the surname derives from a place in Essex called Bulkeley, but I
can't discover where that might be (and I notice that the distribution
of Bulkeleys in the 1881 census is clearly focused on
Cheshire/Lancashire, with a smaller concentration of Bulkleys in
Hampshire - your ancestors, Paul?).
Regards,
Matt Tompkins
paul bulkley
Your advise and references in connection with the name
of Bulkeley (location and family) is excellent. For
many years I have been acquainted with much of your
information, and have accepted the opinions of the
various authorities. However I have now concluded that
these opinions need to be questioned.
For example although it is quite possible that the
source of the name Bulluc-leah is accurate, I do not
perceive any meaningful connection of that source and
the village name of Bulkeley. I would imagine a name
such as Bullockeley would be more likely.
British History Online stipulate that the name
Bukeler, Bokeler, Bouclier literally means
"bucklemaker"; also used in the sense of "girdler",
The name Bucler is also described as "bucklemaker" The
name applies to an occupation.
You could be correct and that I am addressing a number
of families that may have no direct connection.
However it is thought provoking that a number of
documents suggest the family is French. And as late as
the 1560s, the Kent Parish register of my 8th Great
Grandfather Joseph Bulkley is given as Bucler, and yet
his 1642 Will clearly spelt his name as
Bulkeley/Bulkley.
Of course what confuses the issue is that I have
possibly about 50 or more examples of the name Bulkley
spelt in different ways. The explanation - no
standardisation in spelling, and written phonetically.
And because of this wide variety of spelling, it is
difficult to be convinced of the argument/claim that a
specific name was derived from the name of a village.
The 1170/1180 Bunbury Charter (Bunbury is located
close to the village of Bulkeley) has the witness
Richun de Bulceleia. This family name is certainly
similar to the village name as now known, but does not
equate to the name Bulluc-leah.
The question also arises in connection with the
Lancashire Buckley family with records back in the
early/mid 1100s. Both Cheshire and Lancashire families
claim the identical heraldry. And yet another
authority claims that the Lancashire family is
supposed to be connected with the village of Buckley -
and another ancient explanation of the word Buckley is
given.
I realise I am being unreasonable demanding
explanations of a family that should have kept sound
records with so many involved in the legal profession.
Regardless it seems unwise to assume that past
authority opinions are in fact correct.
You question any connection with the Hampshire
Bulkleys? I have always suspected that we descend from
the Bulkleys of Eaton, of which the Hampshire line
belongs. However it would appear that our line descent
started perhaps two generations before the Hampshire
line.
Matt Tompkins
> For example although it is quite possible that the
> source of the name Bulluc-leah is accurate, I do not
> perceive any meaningful connection of that source and
> the village name of Bulkeley. I would imagine a name
> such as Bullockeley would be more likely.
> The 1170/1180 Bunbury Charter (Bunbury is located
> close to the village of Bulkeley) has the witness
> Richun de Bulceleia. This family name is certainly
> similar to the village name as now known, but does not
> equate to the name Bulluc-leah.
But Bulceleia is very close to Bulluc-leah. There is no significant
difference between Bul- and Bull-, and -leia and -leah are nearly
identical in sound. The only real difference between the two is the
position of the second vowel; in one it comes after the 'c' and in
the other before it - a pretty minor difference.
It could be explained as just an example of the common linguistic
phenomenon called metathesis - the transposition of letters,
especially a consonant and a vowel (which explains why Brummagem has
been an alternative pronunciation of Birmingham for centuries, for
example). However I think the true explanation is slightly more
complicated.
The name probably meant Bullocks' Ley, rather than Bullock-ley (ie
bullock is in the genitive plural). In Anglo-Saxon the genitive plural
of bulluc was bulluca (I've looked it up since my last post). So we
ought really to be comparing Bulceleia with Bulluca-leah, which makes
it not the transposition of two letters but just the loss of a single
vowel - the second 'u' in bulluca - which needs to be
explained.
But it hardly needs explaining - many English place-names have been
shortened far more drastically than this during the 1000 to 1500 years
since they were first coined. Brighton used to be Brichthelmston, York
developed from Eoforwic via Jorvik, Worcester began as Wigornecester,
Windsor was once Windlesora. Examples could be piled up , but the
following three shortened names have close similarities to
Bullucaleah/Bulkeley: Oxford was originally Oxenaford (the genitive
plural of ox was oxena), Bulkamore in Rattery parish in Devon was
Bolkemore in 1260 (from bulluca), and Bullerthorpe, in the parish of
Swillington in Yorkshire was Bullokesthorpe in 1251 (-thorpe names are
often late coinings, and here we see the Middle English gentive plural,
-s).
The important thing with place-name origins is not to work with the
modern forms of a name, but to go back to its earliest known, and to
remember that the names were usually formed in Anglo-Saxon, not modern
English. If it is difficult to associate Bulkeley with Bulluca-leah,
it may be easier to see how Bulluca-leah produced Bulceleia, Bulcelea,
Bulkeley.
Regards, Matt