"Fitz" = bastard?
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 21:26:08 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>
> I'm reading a historical novel by one, Fitzmaurice.
>He has one of his characters named Fitzhugh explain that the "Fitz"
>part means the man is a bastard. Wasn't clear whether only royal
>bastards were meant, or only men, or..?
>
> Any royalist, or learned, RightPondians care to weigh in on
>this? Validity of thesis? Origin? Continues to prevail?
*Brewer's Dictionary of Names* supports what I believed to be true:
===begins=====
*Fitzgerald* The name means 'son of /Gerald/' with an old Anglo-French
form of what is now modern French /fils/, 'son'. Other names like this
will have a similar origin, such as /Fitzpatrick/, 'son of Patrick'.
But /see also/ FITZROY.
*Fitzroy* As with FITZGERALD, the first part of the name means 'son'.
The latter part represents Old French /roy/, 'king'. The name 'king's
son' was traditionally given to illegitimate sons of a king ....
===ends=====
bjg
Cheryl L Perkins
Bill Donovan (bd....@gtn.net) wrote:
: Polar wrote:
: > I'm reading a historical novel by one, Fitzmaurice.
: > He has one of his characters named Fitzhugh explain that the "Fitz"
: > part means the man is a bastard. Wasn't clear whether only royal
: > bastards were meant, or only men, or..?
: >
: > Any royalist, or learned, RightPondians care to weigh in on
: > this? Validity of thesis? Origin? Continues to prevail?
: I learned that "fitz" is from the Norman French "fils" (son).
: No idea whether or not it indicates a bastard. I just assume it as "son
: of".
: -------------------------------------
: Bill Donovan
: http://www.execulink.com/~bdonovan/
It doesn't now exist. It was used for illegitimate sons of Norman
nobility. Legal sons and daughters had legal titles and names.
Um, I should say, that new illegitimate children don't claim to be "fitz"
whatever. There are many families descended from a union once recognised
by the father as "fitz + father's name", fitz being 'son of'.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Mark Odegard
**Please note Spam Trap** On 14 Jun 1998 01:47:58 GMT,
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L Perkins) in
<6lva4e$9am$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> wrote
|Um, I should say, that new illegitimate children don't claim to be "fitz"
|whatever. There are many families descended from a union once recognised
|by the father as "fitz + father's name", fitz being 'son of'.
King William IV, (who immediately preceded his neice, Queen
Victoria), fathered ten illegitimate children by Dorothy Jordan
while he was Duke of Clarence. These children received as their
last name 'FitzClarence' (apparently capitalized thus). These
children really were royal bastards. He later married Adelaide
of Saxe-Meiningen (who gave her name to the city in South Oz),
more or less at the point of a parliamentary shotgun.
Were another acknowledged royal bastard to come along, the
FitzWhatever as a last name would probably be the precedent.
--
Mark Odegard. (descape to email)
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Stan Brown
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) skrev i meddelelsen
<3584ed8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>:
>
> I'm reading a historical novel by one, Fitzmaurice.
>He has one of his characters named Fitzhugh explain that the "Fitz"
>part means the man is a bastard. Wasn't clear whether only royal
>bastards were meant, or only men, or..?
>
> Any royalist, or learned, RightPondians care to weigh in on
>this? Validity of thesis? Origin? Continues to prevail?
It need not connote illegitimacy. Consider this counter-example.
Henry I of England has no sons, only a daughter, Matilda (or Maud). he
marries her off to the Holy Roman Emperor (or her husband later became
HRE), so that she was legitimately called Empress. Her husband dies, and
she marries again, this time Geoffrey of Anjou. Their son Henry is heir
to the throne of England after Matilda herself.
In the civil war that ensued when Matilda's father Henry I died, her son
(the future Henry II) was known as Henry Fitz-Empress, but his legitimacy
was not in question.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Alec Owen
All the Normans were bastards. Just ask the Anglo-Saxons,the Welsh and
the Irish.
A Owen
Toronto
************************************************************************
Duw a ddarpar ir brain
Bill Donovan wrote:
>
> Polar wrote:
> > I'm reading a historical novel by one, Fitzmaurice.
> > He has one of his characters named Fitzhugh explain that the "Fitz"
> > part means the man is a bastard. Wasn't clear whether only royal
> > bastards were meant, or only men, or..?
> >
> > Any royalist, or learned, RightPondians care to weigh in on
> > this? Validity of thesis? Origin? Continues to prevail?
>
Tom
Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I'm reading a historical novel by one, Fitzmaurice.
: He has one of his characters named Fitzhugh explain that the "Fitz"
: part means the man is a bastard. Wasn't clear whether only royal
: bastards were meant, or only men, or..?
: Any royalist, or learned, RightPondians care to weigh in on
: this? Validity of thesis? Origin? Continues to prevail?
Anyone here old enough to remember the Katzenjammer Kids? Big, fierce
felidae were always represented as going "Fitz-Rowr!" I knew someone
who interpreted that as "illegitimate son of Rowr." :-)
Tom Parsons
--
--
t...@panix.com | Always judge people by the way they treat
| somebody who can be of no use to them.
http://www.panix.com/~twp | --The Lady Brownlow (alt.)
Kate Brown
Stan Brown wrote in message ...
>s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) skrev i meddelelsen
><3584ed8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>It need not connote illegitimacy. Consider this counter-example.
>
>Henry I of England has no sons, only a daughter, Matilda (or Maud). he
>marries her off to the Holy Roman Emperor (or her husband later became
>HRE), so that she was legitimately called Empress. Her husband dies, and
>she marries again, this time Geoffrey of Anjou. Their son Henry is heir
>to the throne of England after Matilda herself.
>
>In the civil war that ensued when Matilda's father Henry I died, her son
>(the future Henry II) was known as Henry Fitz-Empress, but his legitimacy
>was not in question.
Actually, Henry I of England had nearly 30 children, only two of them
legitimately.
Robert M. Wilson
In article <35833d86....@news2.means.net>,
ode...@means.netscape (Mark Odegard) wrote:
>**Please note Spam Trap** On 14 Jun 1998 01:47:58 GMT,
>cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L Perkins) in
><6lva4e$9am$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> wrote
>
>|Um, I should say, that new illegitimate children don't claim to be "fitz"
>|whatever. There are many families descended from a union once recognised
>|by the father as "fitz + father's name", fitz being 'son of'.
>
>King William IV, (who immediately preceded his neice, Queen
>Victoria), fathered ten illegitimate children by Dorothy Jordan
>while he was Duke of Clarence. These children received as their
>last name 'FitzClarence' (apparently capitalized thus). These
>children really were royal bastards. He later married Adelaide
>of Saxe-Meiningen (who gave her name to the city in South Oz),
>more or less at the point of a parliamentary shotgun.
I believe that Henry VIII had an illegitimate son who who was given the last
name "Fitzroy".