Feminine Equivalent of Fitz
Jeff Snavely
to use the term fitz (whatever) for both son and daughters, but since fitz
means "son of", it doesn't seem proper to use it for female children,
although everyone does it anyway. Is there a specific word for "daughter
of"?
-- Jeff Snavely <mailto:jsna...@oecadvantage.net> or
<mailto:jsna...@geocities.com>
Paternal: Blagg, Brooks, Carroll, Dilbeck, Finley/Findley, Fleming, Gilley,
Goss, Harbin, Hinkle, Holley, Mounsell, Parks, Putnam, Reed,
Shearman/Sherman, Stevens, Stocker, Young
Maternal: Ambrester, Burrill, Clark, Craig, Frost, Gay, Griffin, Johnston,
Jones, Kilgore, Milligan, Parker, Parry, Peters, Portwood, Ragsdale,
Robinson, Rorex, Tattershall, Vaughan, Voss, Washington, Wells, Yates (and
others)
Visit my new home page at <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Fields/2179/>
Paul Smith
Happy Holidays!! -- Paul
Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS,TALBOT,TATE,EVANS
NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES,
CAPEHART,MORRIS,MARSHE,BRITT,SHAW
Murray Finlay
Murray Finlay
<fin...@mail.fastlink.com.au>
Murray Finlay
<fin...@mail.fastlink.com.au>
Leo van de Pas
>Surely Fitz doesn't mean "son of". Surely it means "bastard" as in "born
out of wedlock"
>
>Murray Finlay
><fin...@mail.fastlink.com.au>
This subject has been dealt with a short while ago---Fitz
does mean 'child of' and SOMETIMES Fitz can mean bastard but not always.
The Fitzalan Earls of Arundel would be highly offended and so would the
FitzGerald Dukes of Leinster. And then most bastards had other names,
without Fitz, anyway, Beauclerk, Lennox just to name a few. In Scotland the
Royal Stewart's bastards were called Stewart. Female bastards, if Fitz was
used, used Fitz as well and so Fitz applies to men and women.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
John Carmi Parsons
way of constructing the patronym. "Fitz," or in the more detailed form, "le
fitz [de]," indeed means merely "the son of" and bore no immediate connotation
of bastardy in the medieval period. It was used for a man's children by his
wife as well as by other women. Even if the fellow in question was born out
of wedlock, his descendants born on the right side of the blanket would use
the "fitz" patronym with no suggestion of any defect in their parents' marital
status.
John Parsons
On 26 Dec 1998, Murray Finlay wrote:
> Surely Fitz doesn't mean "son of". Surely it means "bastard" as in "born out of wedlock"
>
> Murray Finlay
> <fin...@mail.fastlink.com.au>
>
> Murray Finlay
> <fin...@mail.fastlink.com.au>
>
>
>
Ali...@aol.com
whatever. At some point it must have just become a last name, but I think it
also applied to children or grandchildren of noble or royal bastards. Am I
correct?
Alix V
John Carmi Parsons
was NOT exclusively so used. When applied to women, it's a simple case of
the entire construction being appropriated as a surname; i.e., the daughter of
a man known as John Fitz Doe would be known as Jane Fitz Doe just as she
would be known as Jane Smith if her father's patronymic was Smith. English, or
strictly speaking, Anglo-Norman patronymics did not vary by sex as did Welsh
[ferch] or Scandinavian, in which the daughter would be, e.g., Jonsdatter or
Gustavsdatter, while sons would of course be Jonsson or Gustavsson.)
It is by no means uncommon in Anglo-Norman texts to find a woman described
as, e.g., "Marie la fille Edmonde de Sarsfeld'," but this is not a true
patronymic; it's only a descriptive phrase identifying her father. The
giveaway is that her father's locative identity is included (Sarsfield). There
is no case known to me in which a woman would have a legal identity as "Marie
fille Edmonde" as a man would be known as "fitz Edmonde."
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
regularly raises its ugly little head here about every six months.
Henry II was known as FitzEmpress.
Henry II was legitimate.
If folks would just remember that --- perhaps they would be able to
expunge the bum dope.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "The final happiness of man consists in the
contemplation of truth....This is sought for its own sake, and is
directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
Reedpcgen
I have a question about which I've debated with others in the past.
Would or should we style a daughter by the patronym her father used, or that
which her brothers would use? For instance Robert "de Caen," Earl of
Gloucester married Mabel, daughter and heir of Robert FitzHamon. Would we
style her Mabel FitzHamon, or should it be Mabel FitzRobert? CP seems to
sidestep the issue by simply calling the daughters "daughter of ...."
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
of her male kin--primarily her father and her husband(s), secondarily her
brother(s) and son(s). In other words, women were chiefly thought of only
as someone's else's daughter, wife, sister or mother, not primarily as
entities in their own right. But admittedly it is a vexed question how we
ought to express that in terms of modern genealogical science. Since, as
above, women had no true personal identity, we might well argue that they did
not possess "surnames" as we would think of them today and hence it would
follow that if we wish to be excruciatingly accurate in our modern work, we
should not use surnames for them. Rather, we should stick to CP's model and
say that Sir X married "Mabel, daughter of Jack le Sprat." Ditto if a widow
remarried: Sir X might couple with "Jane, widow of Jacques Benimble."
As I have found in publishing my own work, however, many modern readers (or
rather EDITORS) do prefer that women in medieval works are given surnames in
the modern fashion. If it is a question of making matters comprehensible to
non-specialist readers (read: really of selling more books, as said EDITORS
understand things most readily), I don't really have any rigorous scholarly
objections to doing this. (Try convincing an editor otherwise!)
Which, it seems, means that for me it's a matter of personal preference, so
long as the genealogist makes the woman's position among her male kin as clear
as possible. How's that for sidestepping the issue?
John Parsons
rleutner
pseudo-surnames for medieval people, female or not, I guess
I'd like some examples of what editors have forced upon you. I
think it's lousy editorial practice to insist on ahistoricity,
and I just wonder how bad the forced lapses are. I publish
occasionally in other areas and can't imagine an editor
insisting on really "wrong" practice.
Bob Leutner Iowa City IA
robert-...@uiowa.edu
rleutner
even after wading through your interminable signature. My
comment had nothing at all to do with feminism, but rather
with editorial practice about surnames in articles about
medieval genealogy. Please read before you post, and save us
all some time.
Thanks,
Bob
On 27 Dec 1998,
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Now Bob, we all know that the Feminists have their litmus tests for a
> book that cannot be denied.
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
> ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
> achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
> the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
> effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
> despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
> admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
> if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
> Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra" pp.
> 277-278
>
> rleutner wrote in message ...
Jeanne Hayes
>You obviously totally missed the import of what I had to say. It
>passed right over your head.
It passed right over my head also. Would you mind explaining without all
the expository?
Jeanne
Reedpcgen
>
>John Parsons
Very carefully done. ; )
I have been in the practice of giving a daughter the patronym of her father,
thus Margaret, daughter of Thomas FitzOtes (son of Otes FitzJohn) would be
Margaret FitzOtes, though her brother might be known as John FitzThomas,
depending on the period and use of patronymics in the family and records.
I wondered if records of the period (perhaps where the daughters are heirs--
perhaps minor heirs--whose parents predeceased them) reflect this. But I guess
that would take time to check, and depend on if the document simply said
'daughter of so-and-so' or did give her a surname.
The early Geraldines in Ireland used changing patronymics for some time. For
instance, Richard FitzThomas, 3rd Earl of Kildare (b. 1319), was son of Thomas
Fitz John, who was son of John FitzThomas [FitzGerald], 5th baron of Offaly and
1st Earl of Kildare, son of Thomas FitzMaurice.
Earl John was supposed to have been rescued by a monkey from a fire while an
infant in the castle of Woodstock, near Athy. [Please, no jokes about a
monkey's uncle.]
Maybe I'll have to check Cal. Papal Letters 11:262 to see if it gives us a clue
in the marriage of Thomas FitzMaurice [FitzGerald], 7th Earl, to Joan, daughter
of James FitzGerald, 6th Earl of Desmond.
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas
--
>> as possible. How's that for sidestepping the issue?
>>
>> John Parsons
>>
>>
D. Spencer Hines
You obviously totally missed the import of what I had to say. It
passed right over your head. Living in that Ivory Tower again, I see.
Further, you do not understand the ramifications of your OWN post or
the realities of the great world of publishing today. Nor did you
understand the substratum of the post to which you were responding.
Where is that fabled Harvard *sang froid*?
Perhaps you are just another of the vast legion of pudenda-whipped
male American academics who populate our universities today.
Had you spent more time teaching at Yale, perhaps they would have
cured you of those craven impulses to cave and wimp. But there is no
guarantee of that; nothing lasts.
My bet is that you will retreat to your sheltered ryokan on receipt of
this message and lick your wounds --- because that appears to be your
*modus operandi* --- fire a feeble salvo and then run for cover.
Yoi shinnen o!
[Have A Happy New Year]!
[N.B. Bob is a professor of Japanese at the University of Iowa.]
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra" pp.
277-278
rleutner wrote in message ...
>Spence, I don't know what in the world you're talking about,
>even after wading through your interminable signature. My
>comment had nothing at all to do with feminism, but rather
>with editorial practice about surnames in articles about
>medieval genealogy. Please read before you post, and save us
>all some time.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bob
>
>On 27 Dec 1998,
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
D. Spencer Hines
Skip the "expository material" at your own hazard.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
Jeanne Hayes wrote in message
<3.0.6.32.1998122...@pop.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>You obviously totally missed the import of what I had to say. It
>>passed right over your head.
>
Francisco Antonio Doria
Sent: 12/27/98 8:54 AM
To: John Carmi Parsons, jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Strictly speaking, in medieval England a woman's identity rested upon that
of her male kin--primarily her father and her husband(s), secondarily her
brother(s) and son(s). In other words, women were chiefly thought of only
as someone's else's daughter, wife, sister or mother, not primarily as
entities in their own right.
----------
That was certainly *not* correct in the Mediterranean culture - and I very much doubt that it worked that way in the medieval British ruling classes given the manyfaceted counterexamples (Mathilda, La Lionne de France, Ms Roet - I have a fascinating romance based on her life, where I first learned words such as `leman' - *Katherine*, by Anya Seton).
Certainly not in the Mediterranean culture. Think about Tareja of Portugal, who fought her own son (and was defeated), or the two or three Countesses Mumnia Domna, or Urraca of Leon; think about Marie de Champagne, or Aliénor d'Aquitaine... Take a look at Loomis, *Arthurian Tradition...*; has something about it. And, as you know, nobility in Portugal goes down through both agnatic and cognatic lines.
Chico Doria
John Carmi Parsons
Mediterranean cultures because you are obviously know far more familiar with
Mediterranean practice than I (and, presumably, vice versa). But I will
issue a word of warning concerning the N. European examples you cite: have
you taken these from original documents yourself, or are they taken from
secondary works? We must allow for the tendency of the authors of those
works to state things in their own way(s) or in ways they imagine may be
most congenial to their readers--in other words, they may have appended
modern-type surnames where none were intended in the original sources.
John Parsons
Francisco Antonio Doria
John Parsons
----------
John,
You are raising a decisive point here, about which I have been pondering
a lot because of the recent dispute (re: Zaida et al.) on the genealogy
of the Leonese kings. I'm just an educated amateur - but what I know
about Brazilian genealogy in Colonial times (and as a result, Brazilian
history) I know from first-hand sources. Vajay is an expert, as well as
Salazar-Acha, and I certainly respect them both - but I prefer to reach
my own conclusions after reviewing the documentary basis they quote. (I
know that Vajay is very careful when dealing with that kind of stuff: he
once asked me for some info on an 18th century Brazilian family; I looked
around and faxed him the result; well, he came back to me with a much
more detailed picture of the family he'd asked about, with references to
documents and the like. He's really good at that.)
I must say that I was rather bothered since several arguments relied on
Vajay's 1985 paper and on Salazar-Acha, like they were untouchable
authorities. I repeatedly refer to the blunders made by Braancamp Freire,
a very reliable researcher, to point out the need to go to the original
sources even if the researcher is a top-ranking one. (Examples of
Braancamp's sunspots: the wrong placement of Isabel Moniz, Columbus'
mama-in-law in the Moniz de Lusignan family, or the vague reference to
the Meneses as being descended from Fruela II of Leon and from St
Hermenegild.)
My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek (without emoticons to emphasize its
off-the-cuff nature); I assuredly don't think that a romance is a source
for anything useful here. And I know that there are immense differences
between the north and the Mediterranean - and Brazil is an offshoot of
the Mediterranean culture in all respects, from Catholicism to our rather
catholic (large sense) sexual behavior. Well, genealogy is about sexual
behavior, isn't it?
Anyway I just wanted to point out that upper-class women are in general
as dominant as any male. At least in the Mediterranean.
Best, Chico
PS: Why did Francesca Sutton ask about the Guermantes?
ray montgomery
would this fitz otes be a real person for example would the margaret
fitzotes be married
to john botetourt and the Thomas fitzotesą 1232 mendelsham Suffolk
England her father be married to Beatrixe Beauchamp.
Does this thomas fitzotes listed above have a father Otes Fitzjohn?????
Sincerely
RAY
On 27 Dec 1998 00:03:48 GMT reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) writes:
>>How's that for sidestepping the issue?
>>
>>John Parsons
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
ray montgomery
Michael Burley
>
> This canard about Fitz invariably implying bastardy dies hard. It
> regularly raises its ugly little head here about every six months.
>
> Henry II was known as FitzEmpress.
<snip>
Some questions:
1. What is the proper spelling of Fitz something ie. Fitz Empress,
FitzEmpress, Fitzempress?
2. Why was Henry called FitzEmpress and not FitzGeoffrey? FitzEmpress
sounds feminine rather than masculine.
Mike in Oregon
D. Spencer Hines
Because Henry II's Mother was Matilda [1102-1167]. She was married to
Henry V [1081-1125] the Holy Roman Emperor and hence The Empress. She
was also the daughter of Henry I 'Beauclerc.'
After the death of Henry V, she married Geoffrey V, Comte d'Anjou et
Maine, in 1127, who was Henry II's Father.
So, Henry was FitzEmpress Henry II Curtmantle, with many other titles
to boot.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforeseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
Michael Burley wrote in message <36867B4F...@teleport.com>...
Jeff Snavely
>1. What is the proper spelling of Fitz something ie. Fitz Empress,
>FitzEmpress, Fitzempress?
In the beginning, when these names were used as pseudo-surnames to tell
people apart from other with the name name, the spelling used for a son of
someone named Gerald should probably be listed as "fitz Gerald" although
most people spell it as "FitzGerald" or "Fitzgerald". Daughters are also
frequently given these fitz names too, although I think that something such
as fil, fila, or fille (as suggested by others who responded to my original
question) should be used in place of fitz in these types of pseudo-surnames
since in these cases "fitz Gerald" doesn't mean 'of the FitzGerald family',
but simply 'son of Gerald'.
After those type of names became proper surnames, the spelling is usually
"Fitzgerald", possibly "FitzGerald", but never "fitz Gerald". Of course in
this case, both male and female descendants should use the same surname.
>2. Why was Henry called FitzEmpress and not FitzGeoffrey? FitzEmpress
>sounds feminine rather than masculine.
Because he was son of the Holy Roman Empress, which makes his mother more
important than his father.
Leo van de Pas
Dear Mike,
Nearly always Fitz is added to the father's name, because the father
was 'more important' than the mother and the father's were easier
identifiable. The reverse applied to Henry II---who was Geoffrey of Anjou
in comparison with the widow of an Holy Roman Emperor? As well his mother
was the heir to much more important territories. If Mathilde had not been
Empress, I am quite convinced Henry II would not have received a nickname
with Fitz, none in that family did.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
At 10:24 AM 12/27/98 -0800, you wrote:
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>> This canard about Fitz invariably implying bastardy dies hard. It
>> regularly raises its ugly little head here about every six months.
>>
>> Henry II was known as FitzEmpress.
>
><snip>
>
>Some questions:
>
>1. What is the proper spelling of Fitz something ie. Fitz Empress,
>FitzEmpress, Fitzempress?
>2. Why was Henry called FitzEmpress and not FitzGeoffrey? FitzEmpress
>sounds feminine rather than masculine.
>
>Mike in Oregon
>
>
Jeanne Hayes
>Just read through the thread carefully and all should become clear.
>
>Skip the "expository material" at your own hazard.
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
your posting. My request was for a more succinct post, one that I could
follow. Suggesting that I merely read the same post again does not help
me. I do not have a college degree, so my mind works in simpler ways. Can
you possibly share your post with me in a simpler fashion?
Jeanne
rleutner
followup post on the matter of surnames and so on as
requested/required by editors, and have been pleased to see
a productive little discussion ensue.
I apologize to the list for rising to the Hines bait.
D. Spencer Hines
The effect is cumulative.
All Best Wishes,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforeseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
Jeanne Hayes wrote in message
<3.0.6.32.1998122...@pop.mindspring.com>...
Reedpcgen
detailed research in Medieval British records professionally for nearly twenty
years (yikes!). England was unlike Continental Europe in many ways after the
Norman Conquest. The amount of governmental records produced by the strong
centralized government was a great bonus. Hence my enjoyment in ferreting out
so many odd or unusual details. You never know what might crop up.
In England a dowager might hold unusual power, especially if she were widow or
a number of men. But a living husband would hold her lands by the curtesy of
England. It was a rare woman, Joan de Corbet, for instance, wife of Robert de
Harley [fatuus], or Cecily de Beauchamp, wife of Roger de Seymour -- who led a
group of men in a raid (or more likely directed it from afar)--who acted as
women of some limited power themselves. But they were exceptions, and their
lands still set up by precedent to be held by men.
These women would not sit in Parliament, as they certainly would have if born a
man, nor would they have served as sheriff, coroner, etc. What of the common
jury? It is even extraordinarily rare that a married woman would leave a will,
even if a great heiress in her own right, if she predeceased her husband.
A friend of mine recalled seeing John Parsons in the Round Room (I miss it) of
the Public Record Office at Chancery Lane, perusing through Royal household
accounts with great skill. And his books prove his competence and expertise in
the Medieval period (as do his posts). I always find them of great worth.
pcr
Reedpcgen
properly be one of three ways:
(1) Fitz John
(2) FitzJohn
(3) Fitzjohn
It is all three ways in various modern scholarly publications (like the History
of Parliament: House of Commons). For standard surnames, I prefer the second
form, but it would appear to be left to your personal preference. I'd be
interested in seeing other opinions.
CP 5:445, for instance, reads:
"Sir Roger FitzOsbert, or fitz Piers fitz Roger fitz Osbert ... s. and h. of
Sir Piers FitzOsbert...."
pcr
P. S. And as far as fights with editors go, I generally have to fight to
include as much material as possible. In my article which appeared in October
1998 TAG, one page originally had no lines of text, but was entirely footnotes,
when typeset by the editor's computer. They do anything they can to try to get
long articles shortened. Of course I think all the information I've found is
important! And some times editors do last minute tweaking which change what
the author meant. So even though editors allow page proofs to be viewed, some
times last minute changes are made which either change some small details or
delete things.
One excellent editor complained in an exasperated tone recently, "You have to
let me edit!"
Reedpcgen
>would this fitz otes be a real person?
Nope. Just a name I pulled out of the air as an example.
pcr
Francisco Antonio Doria
A friend of mine recalled seeing John Parsons in the Round Room (I miss
it) of
the Public Record Office at Chancery Lane, perusing through Royal
household
accounts with great skill. And his books prove his competence and
expertise in
the Medieval period (as do his posts). I always find them of great
worth.
Paul:
We are not discussing competence or expertise; I *am not* an expert; as I
said, just an educated amateur. My field of expertise - if any - lies
elsewhere.
What I'm saying is that things do not go that way in Mediterranean
Europe.
All the best,
Chico Doria
-----
Francisco Antonio Doria
fad...@rio.com.br
Tels.: 021-547-5541/024-231-4133/021-9943-6968
Visit http://www.eco.ufrj.br/cdoria
Reedpcgen
said, just an educated amateur. My field of expertise - if any - lies
elsewhere.
>
>What I'm saying is that things do not go that way in Mediterranean >Europe.
>
>All the best,
>
>Chico Doria
>
Chico, in all fairness to me, you wrote:
<<That was certainly *not* correct in the Mediterranean culture - and
I VERY MUCH DOUBT IT WORKED THAT WAY IN THE MEDIEVAL BRITISH RULING CLASSES
[emphasis mine, pcr]
given the manyfaceted counterexamples (Mathilda, La Lionne de France, Ms Roet
- I have a fascinating romance based on her life, where I first learned words
such as `leman' - *Katherine*, by Anya Seton). >>
I am COMPLETELY happy to allow you your conclusion about Mediterranean culture,
as was John. **What I responded to** was your claim about life in England,
which brought into question John's competence to make the statement he did.
In this case, it would be impossible to list a voluminous number of specific
examples to refute your statement. One can, however, call on the years of
experience he has had for justification. If the authority of a document is not
given, the authority of an expert may still be some slight justification.
Just as you have great experience with the area you deal with, there comes a
certain understanding and instinct about the documents and lives of those we've
studied. When you live with these people for so many years in documents of
their own period, you get to know them intimately.
All my best,
Paul
John Carmi Parsons
In medieval English record writing the name would appear (in Latin) as, e.g.,
"Tom filius Piper" and in Anglo-Norman as "Tom le fi<t>z Piper." In either
case, an accurate modern Englishing would therefore be "Tom fitz Piper."
Today, most British people of my acquaintance who use such surnames seem to
prefer capitalizing the "fitz" and joining it to the patronymic, but still
capitalizing the latter--i.e., FitzPiper.
But in general, a glance through the Toronto phonebook (some source!) shows
that, at least as far as Bell Canada is concerned, N. American or at least
Canadian usage would be Fitzpiper.
All of which leads me to second the comment below that it's largely a matter
of personal preference. For medieval genealogical purposes, IMHO, separating
the "fitz" from the patronymic might be advisable, if only because this usage
more accurately reflects the fact that we *are* dealing with patronymics.
That, at least, is what I do in my own records (where I abbrev. "fitz" to "f."
anyway).
John Parsons
Francisco Antonio Doria
I will pursue this debate on the role of upper class women in Medieval
England in private, as it isn't directly related to Medieval genealogy. I
don't want to add to the noise in the list.
Best, Chico Doria
Doug Thompson
Reedpcgen wrote:
> I wondered if records of the period (perhaps where the daughters are heirs--
> perhaps minor heirs--whose parents predeceased them) reflect this. But I guess
> that would take time to check, and depend on if the document simply said
> 'daughter of so-and-so' or did give her a surname.
There is evidence of widows being addressed with their husband's surname. E.g.
In a letter of LLywelyn, Prince of Gwynedd, in 1230 he addresses Eva, daughter
of William Marshall and widow of William de Braose, as "dilectae amicae suae E
de Braus" (his esteemed friend E De Braose).
Doug Thompson
--
History and genealogy of the Braoses
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/stage.htm (History)
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm (Genealogy)
John Carmi Parsons
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Doug Thompson wrote:
> There is evidence of widows being addressed with their husband's surname. E.g.
> In a letter of LLywelyn, Prince of Gwynedd, in 1230 he addresses Eva, daughter
> of William Marshall and widow of William de Braose, as "dilectae amicae suae E
> de Braus" (his esteemed friend E De Braose).
This is merely a natural extension of the fact that a woman was known by her
husband's name following marriage, just as she would have been known by her
father's name prior to marriage.
What are significant are the cases in which a widow who remarried continued
to use the surname of an earlier husband--e.g., Eleanor nee de Clare, the
granddaughter of Edward I, who married first the heir to the de Burgh
earldom of Ulster in Ireland, then Theobald de Verdon and finally a Damory.
All three marriages produced issue, but through all three, and all during
her widowhood, she continued to call herself Eleanor de Burgh and was so
addressed on official matters by her royal relatives as long as she lived.
In view of her illustrious Clare descent, and particularly since she was the
Clare coheir whose purparty included Clare castle itself, this is remarkable;
but hers is by no means the only such case on record.
John Parsons
Doug Thompson
John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> This is merely a natural extension of the fact that a woman was known by her
> husband's name following marriage, just as she would have been known by her
> father's name prior to marriage.
>
> What are significant are the cases in which a widow who remarried continued
> to use the surname of an earlier husband--e.g., Eleanor nee de Clare, the
> granddaughter of Edward I, who married first the heir to the de Burgh
> earldom of Ulster in Ireland, then Theobald de Verdon and finally a Damory.
> All three marriages produced issue, but through all three, and all during
> her widowhood, she continued to call herself Eleanor de Burgh and was so
> addressed on official matters by her royal relatives as long as she lived.
> In view of her illustrious Clare descent, and particularly since she was the
> Clare coheir whose purparty included Clare castle itself, this is remarkable;
> but hers is by no means the only such case on record.
>
> John Parsons
Wasn't that the point under discussion? Whether women were referred to by
surname or just as "daughter of ...", "widow of..." etc.? In your original post
you seem to imply that you thought the latter was true. In your recent one you
seem to be giving further examples which imply the former!
Doug Thompson.
Vickie Elam White
<< What are significant are the cases in which a widow who remarried
continued
to use the surname of an earlier husband--e.g., Eleanor nee de Clare, the
granddaughter of Edward I, who married first the heir to the de Burgh
earldom of Ulster in Ireland, then Theobald de Verdon and finally a Damory.
All three marriages produced issue, but through all three, and all during
her widowhood, she continued to call herself Eleanor de Burgh and was so
addressed on official matters by her royal relatives as long as she lived.
In view of her illustrious Clare descent, and particularly since she was
the
Clare coheir whose purparty included Clare castle itself, this is
remarkable;
but hers is by no means the only such case on record. >>
Margaret (--) (CORBET) MALLORY did the same thing (as evidenced by her
IPM which referred to her a Margaret CORBET), which led to the mistaken
conclusion that she was the daughter of William MALLORY rather than his
widow.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
John Carmi Parsons
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Doug Thompson wrote:
> John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> > What are significant are the cases in which a widow who remarried continued
> > to use the surname of an earlier husband--e.g., Eleanor nee de Clare, the
> > granddaughter of Edward I, who married first the heir to the de Burgh
> > earldom of Ulster in Ireland, then Theobald de Verdon and finally a Damory.
> > All three marriages produced issue, but through all three, and all during
> > her widowhood, she continued to call herself Eleanor de Burgh and was so
> > addressed on official matters by her royal relatives as long as she lived.
> > In view of her illustrious Clare descent, and particularly since she was the
> > Clare coheir whose purparty included Clare castle itself, this is remarkable;
> > but hers is by no means the only such case on record.
> Wasn't that the point under discussion? Whether women were referred to by
> surname or just as "daughter of ...", "widow of..." etc.? In your original post
> you seem to imply that you thought the latter was true. In your recent one you
> seem to be giving further examples which imply the former!
Not a bit. While I admit my phrasing could have been more precise, what I
meant to do was offer Elizabeth de Burgh's example to show how fluid English
women's identities were. That is, where WE might expect such a rich heiress
today to go on using her paternal name regardless of her marital status as the
late Doris Duke did, for example, Elizabeth did not advertise her paternal
descent by using the name Clare even after she inherited that part of the
Clare patrimony.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
those days.
Awaits incoming brickbats with shield held high.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "For all the reckless gallantry and foolish
ineptitude of the premature Russian offensive, it nevertheless
achieved its primary objective: the diversion of German forces from
the West. The limited penetration of East Prussia had had a magnified
effect. Refugees, many of them high-born, had descended in fury and
despair on Berlin, the Kaiser was outraged, and von Moltke himself
admitted that 'all the success on the Western front will be unavailing
if the Russians arrive in Berlin.' Robert K. Massie, writing of the
Battle of Tannenberg [25-30 Aug 1914] in "Nicholas and Alexandra"
[1967] pp. 277-278 [An Excellent Example of the Contingent and the
Unforeseen in History. Tannenberg --- Marne.]
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> What are significant are the cases in which a widow who remarried continued
> to use the surname of an earlier husband--e.g., Eleanor nee de Clare, the
> granddaughter of Edward I, who married first the heir to the de Burgh
> earldom of Ulster in Ireland, then Theobald de Verdon and finally a Damory.
> All three marriages produced issue, but through all three, and all during
> her widowhood, she continued to call herself Eleanor de Burgh and was so
> addressed on official matters by her royal relatives as long as she lived.
> In view of her illustrious Clare descent, and particularly since she was the
> Clare coheir whose purparty included Clare castle itself, this is remarkable;
> but hers is by no means the only such case on record.
A similar pattern is that of a widow who "reverts" to the name of a
previous, and more prestigious, husband. Thus, Thomasine de Merton
married Nicholas de Kirkham, and then married John de Chudlegh. While
married to Chudlegh, she was styled Thomasine de Chudlegh, but following
John's death, she reverted to Thomasine de Kirkham. This so confused
the earlier genealogists that she appears no less than three different
times in Vivians pedigree of the Chudleghs.
If I recall correctly, a similar case is found in Joan, mother of
William Mallory, whose will calls her Joan Basset even though she had
later married Mallory.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
>FWIW:
>In medieval English record writing the name would appear (in Latin) as, e.g.,
>"Tom filius Piper" and in Anglo-Norman as "Tom le fi<t>z Piper." In either
>case, an accurate modern Englishing would therefore be "Tom fitz Piper."
>Today, most British people of my acquaintance who use such surnames seem to
>prefer capitalizing the "fitz" and joining it to the patronymic, but still
>capitalizing the latter--i.e., FitzPiper.
>But in general, a glance through the Toronto phonebook (some source!) shows
>that, at least as far as Bell Canada is concerned, N. American or at least
>Canadian usage would be Fitzpiper.
>All of which leads me to second the comment below that it's largely a matter
>of personal preference. For medieval genealogical purposes, IMHO, separating
>the "fitz" from the patronymic might be advisable, if only because this usage
>more accurately reflects the fact that we *are* dealing with patronymics.
>That, at least, is what I do in my own records (where I abbrev. "fitz" to "f."
>anyway).
>John Parsons
The analogous situation for Irish surnames is worth mentioning. In
this case, there are the words "mac" (son of) and "ua" (grandson of,
later given as "ó" - "o" with accent for those whose computers didn't
print out the symbol correctly), which can either be used as a
patronymic or as a surname. The modern convention which has developed
for such names is to use lowercase (with a space in between) for
patronymics (i.e., for cases in which the word in question is
literally true), and capitalize in the case of surnames (i.e., for
descent in a larger number of generations in which the literal
translation would be false).
To give an example with a well known family, Murchad mac Diarmata
(Murchad son of Diarmait), who died 21 November 1070, was ancestor of
the well known family of Mac Murchada (or MacMurrough). One of his
sons was Donnchad mac Murchada (d. 1115, "Murchada" being the genetive
form of the name which is "Murchad" in the nominative), and Donnchad's
most famous son was the well known Diarmait Mac Murchada (often given
in the Anglicized form of Dermot MacMurrough), whose actions set the
stage for the Norman invasion of Ireland. In the case of "ua"
surnames, the grandson of the man after whom the family was named
would have his name spelled with a "ua" in the modern literature,
whereas the later generations would be spelled using "Ua" (modern Ó).
As for the space, my own observation from seeing many examples is that
names given in native Irish form generally have the space, whereas
Anglicized forms of the same name do not. Sometimes, you might see
patronyms and surnames combined, so that the above Diarmait might be
called "Diarmait mac Donnchada Mac Murchada" (as he is called in the
list of Leinster kings in "The New History of Ireland"), with the
"mac" giving his patronym and the "Mac" his surname.
The convention for daughters is a bit more awkward, for the same
reasons as for "Fitz". In my own postings on the subject, I have
generally preferred to give women's patronyms in the form "X ingen Y"
(i.e., "X daughter of Y", the "Y" being the genetive form of the
father's name) in the period before surnames, because that is how the
names usually appear in the primary records, and it is the exact
analogue of the "X mac Y" which is usual for men. After surnames
appear, it is more straightforward, so for example, the well known
gateway ancestor "Eve of Leinster" (daughter of the above Diarmait Mac
Murchada) would be "Aife Mac Murchada" (Anglicized as "Eve
MacMurrough"), or "Aife ingen Diarmata Mac Murchada" if you want to
give both her patronym and her surname.
Of course, these conventions regarding capitals and lowercase are
modern ones, and you would not expect to find them in the original
documents themselves or in older scholarly works, and the convention
will be routinely ignored in many modern secondary sources where the
authors were either not aware of the convention, or did not understand
it.
It seems to me that a similar convention regarding "Fitz" might be
useful. In the case where it is intended to be a patronymic, a
lowercase "fitz" would be a good way of emphasizing the literal nature
of the relationship. For daughters, why not "X filia Y" in the case
where it is not a surname (assuming that the names usually appear in
the primary records in that form)?
Stewart Baldwin
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> >
> > If I recall correctly, a similar case is found in Joan, mother of
> > William Mallory, whose will calls her Joan Basset even though she had
> > later married Mallory.
>
Yes. I wonder if her daughter-in-law Margaret Corbet was not similarly
a case of surname-reversion rather than her retaining the Corbet surname
while married to Mallory.
taf
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Probably, as it was her more important marriage and in her IPM under
Margaret Corbet, it was used as her name in regards to her Corbet
jointure, with which the IPM was concerning itself.
Happy New Year,
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Reedpcgen
prominent husband. One would be Cecily de Beauchamp, who married (1) Sir
Gilbert de Turberville, and (2) Roger de Seymour, and was variously called
Seymour and Turberville even after her marriage to Seymour, and more frequently
Turberville after Roger's death.
And Chico, the status of women and how they held land and used surnames is of
great import in British genealogy during the Medieval period.
But you see from all these recent postings that these women, though heiress or
of important families themselves, went by the names of one of their husbands.
Again, the attachment to the male where property is concerned.
If the parentage of a female is not given in pedigrees, etc., her maiden
surname is almost never found in records after her marriage, even if an
heiress. It is only after a detailed examination of the landholdings she may
have inherited that the previoiusly unknown identity and surname of her father
might be discovered, and sometimes it can only be inferred because she held
lands previously held by another man. (Sometimes a monumentaal inscription
survives which gives her arms, but not necessarily her parentage.)
England had a different system of property, conveyance and inheritance than did
Continental Europe. All land was theoretically held directly of the crown,
though there was a system of sub-infeudination. Records were mainly created
because of property and inheritance.
All I would say in the matter has been explained in explicit detail by
***Frederic William Maitland*** in his monumental work, _The History of English
Law before the Time of Edward I_. If you would read this work (in two volumes)
it would make my point. I exhort EVERYONE interested in Medieval England to
read through this most important treatise.
I see no reason to pursue this matter in private. The discussion I was making
was to help educate all those reading this list who have an interest in
Medieval British history and genealogy. One has to have some knowledge of the
whole to accurately interpret the part.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>surname is almost never found in records after her marriage, even if an
>heiress.
Here I was not talking about female heiresses who held land in chief, hence
there would be mentions of how they had inherited the land, or wardship if
minors, in records such as inquisitions post mortem or the Fine Rolls, but of
heiresses one step down, or women of important families who were not heiresses.
The difficulty with placing the parentage of females from important families is
evidenced in the discussion of the Beauchamp, St. John, and Courtenay families
at the end of my article in October 1998 TAG (see pp. 308-311).
pcr
Kay Robinson
implement reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) carefully wrote:
>I think part of Mike's question was, should the patronymic surname Fitz
>properly be one of three ways:
>(1) Fitz John
>(2) FitzJohn
>(3) Fitzjohn
>It is all three ways in various modern scholarly publications (like the History
>of Parliament: House of Commons). For standard surnames, I prefer the second
>form, but it would appear to be left to your personal preference. I'd be
>interested in seeing other opinions.
Sometimes personal preference can appear snobbish here. The protestant
FitzHerberts of Tissington say their name should have a capital H to
set them apart as a separate family from their cousins the catholic
Fitzherberts of nearby Norbury. Both families are of the same origins
and both have intermarried over the centuries. BTW, the present
Baronet opened Tissington Hall to the public in the past year and a
worthwhile tour it is indeed, and of course the cost helps to preserve
one of the most beautiful manors in the Peak.
Kay
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.
William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson <ad...@dail.pipex.com>
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Francisco Antonio Doria
>FitzHerberts of Tissington say their name should have a capital H to
>set them apart as a separate family from their cousins the catholic
>Fitzherberts of nearby Norbury. Both families are of the same origins
>and both have intermarried over the centuries.
Yes, this is a fascinating kind of snobbishness. You can spell
`Acciaioli' here in Brazil both as `Accioli' or `Accioly.' Why did they
add the y? Just because of the Portuguese irregular usage for ending
(short) i (e in English) sounds. Yet this became a mark of difference
between branches of the same family, since the y-people became involved
in a kind of party politics abhorred by the i-people. Yet they would both
refer to themselves as - plainly - Acciaioli, the Italian way.
In Portugal they pronounce `Achioli' and write Acciaiuoli. (For the
branch that settled in those far-away parts of the world see Litta,
`Acciaioli di Firenze,' Table VIII. Contains a mistake that I've already
corrected in a previous post.)
Francisco Antonio Doria
>great import in British genealogy during the Medieval period.
>
>But you see from all these recent postings that these women, though
>heiress or
>of important families themselves, went by the names of one of their
>husbands.
>Again, the attachment to the male where property is concerned.
Yes; I just didn't want to add to the noise.
As for Continental (Portuguese) usage, look what I found:
Lourenço Domingues de Cãaes jurado e preguntado se em esta freguesia ha casa de cavalleiro ou de dona que se defenda per honra disse...
(Inquirições, 1288, apud Braancamp Freire, *Brasões...*, II, p. 302, `Almeidas.')
Translation: Lourenço Domingues de Cães, questioned under oath whether there was in this parish [freguesia] manor [casa que se defenda per honra] that either belongs to knight or lady...
Supposedly the noble house would be headed either by a man or by a woman.
Nat: thanks for your (huge!) reference.
Best,
Reedpcgen
>Yes; I just didn't want to add to the noise.
>
Thank you for being so considerate, and thank you for your examples from
Portugese, Brazilian, and other sources.
pcr
Urania
shi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>This canard about Fitz invariably implying bastardy dies hard. It
>regularly raises its ugly little head here about every six months.
>
>Henry II was known as FitzEmpress.
>
>Henry II was legitimate.
>
Another example of the above.
Duke Conan IV of Brittany (ruled 1148-1171) is called in CONTEMPORARY
CHRONICLES "Conan fitz (or fillius) Bertha". His mother was the daughter
of Conan III of Brittany and his father was Bertha's first husband, Alain
Le Noir, Earl of Richmond and Duke of Penthievre. Conan IV was heir to
Brittany via his mother. Conan III clearly intended Alain Le Noir to be
his heir "jura uxoris = by right of his wife" but Alain predeceased his
father in law by a couple of years and the widowed Bertha was married
again very hastily in 1146/7 to Eudo of Porthoet who became (temporarily)
Duke of Brittany until Conan was old enough to wrest the title from him.
The point of the "fitz Bertha" was to emphasise the line of inheritance &
to show that Conan's mother was of greater socia-political status than
his father. [Later chroniclers (notably William the Breton) call Conan
IV "Conan Le Petit" (the Small) to distinguish him from his grandfather
and name-sake Conan III Le Gros (The Fat)]. In this case, as in the case
of Henry Plantagenet cited above by DSH, the FITZ, far from suggesting
bastardy, is emphasising legitimacy and especially the legitimcy of a man
who is inheriting through a superior female line.