Wesley/Wellesley
Phil C.
Wesley to Wellesley c1798. The Wesley surname had itself been adopted
from a relative by an ancestor named Colley. Wesley, or Westley,
evidently derives from a place name "Westleigh" in Devon or Somerset.
John Wesley, the preacher, evidently got his surname from the same
source and the two may be related. (Opinions seem to vary). The
"Wellesley" name may be a mediaeval spelling of Wesley (according to one
source which doesn't look very reliable).
Given that Wesley was an ancient, noble name which had already been
adopted by the Colleys (with an almost equally ancient, noble name), why
did he go to the trouble of changing it to Wellesley? Anybody know?
--
Phil C.
________________________________________
philandwoody*at*meem*dot*freeserve*dot*co*dot*uk
Harvey V
> The Duke of Wellington evidently changed the spelling of his name
> from Wesley to Wellesley c1798. The Wesley surname had itself been
> adopted from a relative by an ancestor named Colley.
That was Richard Colley, 1st Lord Mornington (the Duke's grandfather).
He changed the name from Colley in 1728, when he inherited the Wesley
family estates. (As you know, that wasn't at all uncommon.)
> Wesley, or Westley, evidently derives from a place name
> "Westleigh" in Devon or Somerset. John Wesley, the preacher,
> evidently got his surname from the same source and the two may be
> related. (Opinions seem to vary). The "Wellesley" name may be a
> mediaeval spelling of Wesley (according to one source which
> doesn't look very reliable).
>
> Given that Wesley was an ancient, noble name which had already
> been adopted by the Colleys (with an almost equally ancient, noble
> name), why did he go to the trouble of changing it to Wellesley?
> Anybody know?
I think the "Wellesley" spelling predates the 1790s. According to my
copy of Burke's (1930s), Richard Colley's son -- the Duke's father --
became the 1st Earl of Mornington in 1760 (Irish peerage), with the
subsidiary title of "Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle".
The earl's eldest son (the Duke's brother) would, of course, have used
this as a courtesy title prior to 1781 (when he became the 2nd Earl).
He was raised into the British lords as Baron Wellesley, of Wellesley,
Somerset in 1797 and made Marquess Wellesley in the Irish peerage in
1799.
From this it looks like the family was adopting the "Wellesley"
spelling from the 1760s. For what reason, though -- other than
antiquarian desire to link to the Somerset town -- I don't know.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Phil C.
Thanks. Arthur (born 1769) was certainly using the Wesley spelling early
in his career, even though, from what you say, the other spelling was
already in the family. The 1798 date for the change appears on a number
of websites (for what it's worth). I wonder if the existence of the
(then more famous) preaching Wesleys prompted the change because
nonconformity tended to attract the lower orders. Or was it perhaps that
he pronounced it differently from the preachers? In his 1989 biography
of John Wesley, John Pollock stresses that the preacher's family
sometimes spelt the name Westley and pronounced it with the emphasis on
the first syllable, which suggests that this wasn't something to be
taken for granted.
Pollock also tells us, BTW, that John Wesley was known in the family as
"Jacky". To my ear, Jacky Wesley doesn't sound much like the founder of
a world-wide religious movement - more like a centre forward for
Accrington Stanley.
Harvey V
>>> been adopted by the Colleys (with an almost equally ancient,
>>> noble name), why did he go to the trouble of changing it to
>>> Wellesley? Anybody know?
>> I think the "Wellesley" spelling predates the 1790s. According
>> to my copy of Burke's (1930s), Richard Colley's son -- the Duke's
>> father -- became the 1st Earl of Mornington in 1760 (Irish
>> peerage), with the subsidiary title of "Viscount Wellesley, of
>> Dangan Castle".
>> The earl's eldest son (the Duke's brother) would, of course, have
>> used this as a courtesy title prior to 1781 (when he became the
>> 2nd Earl). He was raised into the British lords as Baron
>> Wellesley, of Wellesley, Somerset in 1797 and made Marquess
>> Wellesley in the Irish peerage in 1799.
>> From this it looks like the family was adopting the "Wellesley"
>> spelling from the 1760s. For what reason, though -- other than
>> antiquarian desire to link to the Somerset town -- I don't know.
> Thanks. Arthur (born 1769) was certainly using the Wesley spelling
> early in his career, even though, from what you say, the other
> spelling was already in the family. The 1798 date for the change
> appears on a number of websites (for what it's worth). I wonder if
> the existence of the (then more famous) preaching Wesleys prompted
> the change because nonconformity tended to attract the lower
> orders.
I would have thought it was more a case of associating himself with his
elder brother -- who at the time was, I presume, much more prominent in
society than he was -- than it was a disassociation from the lower
orders.
The dates look suspiciously close: his brother had been raised to the
British peerage in 1797, just one year before this "1798" change for
the younger man, and one year later the elder brother became a Marquess
-- that's very heady stuff -- which would have reinforced the family
use of the "Wellesley" form of the name.
David Read
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>I would have thought it was more a case of associating himself with his
>elder brother -- who at the time was, I presume, much more prominent in
>society than he was -- than it was a disassociation from the lower
>orders.
Arthur himself first signed his name as Arthur Wellesley on 19th May
1798, two days after his elder brother Richard had joined him in
Calcutta to take up his position as Governor-General. It was Richard who
insisted that the family name should revert to 'Wellesley' from
'Wesley'.
>
>The dates look suspiciously close: his brother had been raised to the
>British peerage in 1797, just one year before this "1798" change for
>the younger man, and one year later the elder brother became a Marquess
>-- that's very heady stuff -- which would have reinforced the family
>use of the "Wellesley" form of the name.
>
Christopher Hibbert is the only biographer of Wellington that I know of
who makes the point that just one reason for the name change was to
disassociate the family from the Methodists. He doesn't give any
references, but the story has a ring of truth to it. Philip Guedella
wrote "Richard had always seemed to prefer the fuller version, writing
their surname, with a faint contempt for its abbreviated form,
'Wellesley, otherwise by corruption Wesley'."
cheers,
--
David Read
Phil C.
>Christopher Hibbert is the only biographer of Wellington that I know of
>who makes the point that just one reason for the name change was to
>disassociate the family from the Methodists. He doesn't give any
>references, but the story has a ring of truth to it. Philip Guedella
>wrote "Richard had always seemed to prefer the fuller version, writing
>their surname, with a faint contempt for its abbreviated form,
>'Wellesley, otherwise by corruption Wesley'."
Thanks. I wonder if, but for the Methodist connection, it would have
been one of those Cholmondeley/Chumley names - spelt Wellesley but
pronounced Wesley by the initiated. I believe such names commonly arise
as affectations by combining ancient spellings with current
pronunciation. "Wellesley" just doesn't sound like a pronunciation that
would have survived long on its own.
Ricky
"Phil C." <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dsdh6vscbiesqhfuh...@4ax.com...
Not sure about the name change but i read somewhere that he chose to be Duke
of Wellington only because his name was the closest in spelling to the
rather pretty little West Somerset town.
Ricky
Ian Chapman
> Wesley to Wellesley c1798. The Wesley surname had itself been adopted
> from a relative by an ancestor named Colley. Wesley, or Westley,
> evidently derives from a place name "Westleigh" in Devon or Somerset.
> John Wesley, the preacher, evidently got his surname from the same
> source and the two may be related. (Opinions seem to vary). The
> "Wellesley" name may be a mediaeval spelling of Wesley (according to one
> source which doesn't look very reliable).
>
> Given that Wesley was an ancient, noble name which had already been
> adopted by the Colleys (with an almost equally ancient, noble name), why
> did he go to the trouble of changing it to Wellesley? Anybody know?
> --
But why should the older feel Wellesley to be better than Wesley? Probably
because of a kind of snobbery. To sound ''Norman'', rather than vaguely
Anglo-Saxon. ''Lord Wesley'' sounds nouveau, at a time when vast fortunes
were beginning to be made in industry, but ''Lord Wellesley'' sounds
medievalish.
Don Aitken
There was a lot of this going on at the time (late 18th/early 19th
centuries). The Seymours, one of the most senior peerage families in
England, changed their name to St. Maur on the basis of a bogus Norman
connection. Most of the bogus claims to ancestors who "came over with
the Conqueror" are of the same vintage.
--
Don Aitken