The use of "von" as a surname.

[tom...@gmail.com]

It was my understanding the use of "von" in someone's name meant that
the person was from a city or location. For example, Hans von Duisburg
indicated that the person "Hans" was from "Duisburg". It was also my
understanding that the reason for this was that surnames in Germany
did not exist until some point in history.

Am I correct?

There is an English Wikipedia article on "von" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von
that I am not sure is entirely correct. Wikipedia articles should have
references, but this article does not. Can anyone comment on the
accuracy of the article and/or (is there a German equivalent to "and/
or"?) provide references that may support the information in the
article?

The main point in the Wikipedia article that I am not familiar with is
that, "At certain times and places, it has been illegal for anyone who
was not a member of the nobility to use von before their family name".
Is this correct?

Does anyone known when surnames in what is now Germany started to be
introduced?
Was there a point in history, day/month/year, when it was a
requirement that all people living in Germany had to have a surname?
Is there a current requirement for a surname or is just common to have
a surname?

Grüße,
Tom

[Ingo Menger]

On 18 Feb., 22:29, rha1...@t-online.de (Ralf Heinrich Arning) wrote:

> You have to be registered at the place of
> your residence and therefore you need the surname.

I am not sure if the causality is correct.
This is like: Everyboy must pay taxes, and therefore one needs a job.

[tom...@gmail.com]

In English, the reference to residence/surname makes sense.

[Ingo Menger]

On 20 Feb., 18:28, rha1...@t-online.de (Ralf Heinrich Arning) wrote:

> It's just not the case that everybody has to pay taxes.

Right. But we can suppose it were so.

>
> But you need to be registered to have a legal status. Having a surname
> is a requirement, it's not a matter of cause and effect but of being a
> part of the social system.
>

This is all well and good, but the historic fact seems to be that
first there were surnames and only very much later the alledged need
to be registered somewhere.

To put it differently, it is not the case that at some point of time
some emperor said: "We need to register all people, therefore we
require them to have surnames."
Just the other way round: We can identify a person by name, surname,
date and place of birth, so we can force them to register.

[geo...@ankerstein.org]

On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, rha1...@t-online.de (Ralf Heinrich Arning) wrote:

> <tomk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It was my understanding the use of "von" in someone's name meant that
> > the person was from a city or location.
>

> This is the origin of "von".

>
> > For example, Hans von Duisburg
> > indicated that the person "Hans" was from "Duisburg".
>

> This is the case, if the person lived in the Middle Ages or Renaissance,
> such as Erasmus von Rotterdam or Nikolaus von Kues.

>
> > It was also my
> > understanding that the reason for this was that surnames in Germany
> > did not exist until some point in history.
>

> Some surnames were developped from such forms. Field names are more
> frequent than the names of towns or villages in this context, such as
> "Brink", "Tannen", "Weg" or "Heide". You often find "von" + article +
> field name, e. g. "von der Heide", "vom Wege".
> These names are more common in the northern parts of Germany. They don't
> indicate nobility.

>
>
>
> > Am I correct?
>
> > There is an English Wikipedia article on "von" at
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von>
> > that I am not sure is entirely correct.
>

> It's a bit short.

>
> > Wikipedia articles should have
> > references, but this article does not. Can anyone comment on the
> > accuracy of the article and/or (is there a German equivalent to "and/
> > or"?)
>

> Simply "oder" or "und/oder" or (spoken) "und oder oder".

>
> > provide references that may support the information in the
> > article?
>

> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelspr%C3%A4dikat#Deutschland>

>
>
>
> > The main point in the Wikipedia article that I am not familiar with is
> > that, "At certain times and places, it has been illegal for anyone who
> > was not a member of the nobility to use von before their family name".
> > Is this correct?
>

> The "von" could indicate nobility. Around 1630 they began to name the
> dominion. Then "von" meant that someone is the ruler of an area. Later
> on the "von" was used as a sign of ennoblement. It was simply put
> between first name and surname. Therefore, if the surname means
> originally a profession (Müller, Becker, Schmidt), a first name (Werner,
> Peter), a patronny (Peters, Hansen, Berning) etc., then a "von" in front
> of it has its origin in an ennoblement of an ancestor before 1918.
>
> Because ennoblement was given by the sovereign, it was not allowed to
> give it to yourself. It could be understood as a sign of merit and
> misused to get advantages.
> Today you are not allowed to name yourself Dr. without having received
> the degree by an university.

>
>
>
> > Does anyone known when surnames in what is now Germany started to be
> > introduced?
> > Was there a point in history, day/month/year, when it was a
> > requirement that all people living in Germany had to have a surname?
>

> They were not really introduced. It was a development, starting in towns
> in the 11th century, but in Frisia codified only under Napoleon. Today
> we call surnames "Familiennamen" because they are the names of the
> families and are given to the children. The preforms are called
> "Beinamen". In old sources it is difficult to decide, whether a name
> like "Becker" is already a Familienname or still a Beiname of a person
> who just is Bäcker by profession.

>
> > Is there a current requirement for a surname or is just common to have
> > a surname?
>

> In Germany the surname of the children is given under the rules of the
> "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch". You have to be registered at the place of

> your residence and therefore you need the surname.
>

> Ralf

This discussion should also cover "zu", most often "von und zu". As I
understand "zu", it means a direct allegiance to the Kaiser -- no
intervening
nobles.

GFH

[geo...@ankerstein.org]

On Feb 21, 10:44 am, Arno Martens <snet...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I never paid much attention but, isn't that (and "zum" [zu dem]) used
> mostly in connection with a title, rather than a name?

What about "zu der"? Yes, I know all about "zur", but not about the
combination. Seriously, I have never seen or heard either "zum" or
"zur" in this usage. I have heard "von und zu", never "vom und zum".

And, yes, there is something grating on my ear about "von und zu".
Get over yourself!

GFH

[Stephen Hust]

geo...@ankerstein.org wrote:

> What about "zu der"? Yes, I know all about "zur", but not about
> the combination. Seriously, I have never seen or heard either
> "zum" or "zur" in this usage. I have heard "von und zu", never
> "vom und zum".

I don't know if this is what you mean, but ...

| Seine Durchlaucht der Fürst zur Lippe wollen die gedachte
| Verwaltung [...]

| Die Edelherren zur Lippe nannten sich nach dem Fluß Lippe.

| Karl Freiherr vom und zum Stein [...]

| Der Reichsfreiherr Heinrich Friedrich Karl vom Stein [...]

| Seit dem November 1817 leitete der Freiherr Karl Sigmund Franz
| vom Stein zum Altenstein für mehr als zwei Jahrzehnte das
| neugebildete Ministerium [...]

| Graf vom Hagen, Kammerherr und Erb-Schenk im Herzogthum
| Magdeburg [...]

| Das Hochamt bei der Ordenszustellung celebrirte Sbinco Berkha,
| Freiherr zu der Trub, Administrator des Bisthums Regensburg
| [...]

| Walther, Freiherr zu der alten Klingen, Landvogt im Turgau und
| Argau [...]

In Kleist's "Käthchen von Heilbronn" there is a "Graf vom Strahl."

Viewers of Austrian TV are (or were) familiar with Wolf in der
Maur.

--
Steve

My e-mail address works as is.