Eleanor or Alice?

[Kate Stromsted]

I was studying some excerpts from the Calendar of Close Rolls and the
Calendar of Patent Rolls from 1470, and the following caught my attention
regarding the wife of John White and ancestress of Edward Raynsford and
George Yate:

In the Calendar of Close Rolls from 1470: "To the escheator in the county of
Southampton. Order, in the presence of Robert, son and heir of John Whyte,
to assign dower to Alice, wife of the aforesaid John, of whom the king has
taken an oath that she will not marry etc."

In the Calendar of Patent Rolls from 1470: "Pardon to William Tyrell the
younger, knight, and Eleanor late the wife of John White, tenant in chief,
of their trespass in intermarrying without licence."

There is also the chancery lawsuit Douglas Richardson cited in his article
that called her 'Alianor.' So she appears in official documents as both
Alice and Eleanor. Is this typical? Are some types of records (Close Rolls
vs. Patent Rolls vs. Chancery Court documents) thought to be more accurate
than others? Also, would it be considered unusual that Alice is not
referred to as Robert's mother in the Calendar of Close Rolls excerpt, or is
that type of information ommitted in records of this kind? Thank you for
any help.

Kate

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

I can't speak on this particular issue Kate but in my last article on
the Whitneys in Foundations I do discuss the fact that Robert
Whitney's wife was referred to as Alice, Elizabeth, and many
variations in between the two - I speculated that Elizabeth got
shortened to Eliza which became Elisa, and then Alis and finally
Alice.

ADRIAN

[Douglas Richardson]

Errors of this nature are far more common in the current National
Archives catalogue and the PCC will index than in the ancient Patent
Rolls and Close Rolls. Even so, they still happened in records in the
earlier periods.

My general observation is that we seem to be slipping as a society in
terms of attention to accuracy. I call it the "devolution of the
species."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jul 17, 9:05 am, AdrianBnjmBurke <adrianbenjaminbu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

< I can't speak on this particular issue Kate but in my last article
on
< the Whitneys in Foundations I do discuss the fact that Robert
< Whitney's wife was referred to as Alice, Elizabeth, and many
< variations in between the two - I speculated that Elizabeth got
< shortened to Eliza which became Elisa, and then Alis and finally
< Alice.
<
< ADRIAN

Elizabeth and Alice have always been separate names. One did not
morph into the other. They either got the name wrong, or the lady
was known by both names (a rare occurence).

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

Actually, if you read my article you would see that in the "later"
documentation of the individual in question I referred to, the name
was given hapazardly it would seem as "elizabeth", "eliza", "elisa"
"alis" "elsbeth" but of course i am open to the possibility there
were two separate women, however, other than this range of names,
nothing else supports that assumption.

[Douglas Richardson]

< Actually, if you read my article you would see that in the "later"
< documentation of the individual in question I referred to, the name
< was given hapazardly it would seem as "elizabeth", "eliza", "elisa"
< "alis" "elsbeth" but of course i am open to the possibility there
< were two separate women, however, other than this range of names,
< nothing else supports that assumption.

It depends, of course, on what period you're discussing. A reference
to "Eliza" in a record in 1550 might simply be a contracted form of
Elizabeth. Such a contraction would be easily misunderstand by an
amateur. If you're dealing with a contraction, this would not be a
variant form of the given name.

Nicknames such as Beth or Betty are not found in records before 1600,
with rare exceptions such as Robin (for Robert), Colin (for Nicholas),
Harry (for Henry), and Colette (for Nichole). A new (and rare)
medieval nickname which I recently encountered is Janin for John.
"Janin" [de] Perrers was the first husband of King Edward III's
notorious mistress, Alice [de] Perrers.

[Peter G R Howarth]

On Thu 17/07/2008 18:50 Douglas Richardson <royalan...@msn.com> wrote

>Nicknames such as Beth or Betty are not found in records before 1600,
>with rare exceptions such as Robin (for Robert), Colin (for Nicholas),
>Harry (for Henry), and Colette (for Nichole). A new (and rare)
>medieval nickname which I recently encountered is Janin for John.
>"Janin" [de] Perrers was the first husband of King Edward III's
>notorious mistress, Alice [de] Perrers.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Perhaps we do not always recognize a nickname when we see one. Hamelin, as
used by Geoffrey Plantagenet's bastard son, is a diminutive of Hamon. And
in 'The Vision of Piers Plowman' (1362) William Langland uses Malkin (Mary),
Perkin (Peter), Hawkin (Henry) and Watkin (Walter).

E G Withycombe gives Jeanin as a standard French diminutive for Jean and as
the name from which the surname Jennings is derived. She also found
examples of Janekin, Malekin, Watekin and Wilekin in records of 1250.

Peter G R Howarth

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1559 - Release Date: 17/07/2008
18:08