Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Proper surnames
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Stuart | Report | 9 Mar 2006 14:23 |
Anyone know when 'proper' surnames come in to play rather than 'de Carre' etc. Just been looking at some names and there is Richard Cook a son of John De Carre in 1578. Why would they change names? |
|||
|
Andrea | Report | 9 Mar 2006 14:25 |
This is only a guess but maybe it was to do with it being difficult to spell or, depending on what station in life he held, whether his employers deemed it too fancified and just gave him a bog standard name, and he had no choice about it?? |
|||
|
Stuart | Report | 9 Mar 2006 14:30 |
So it is likely that this is where names like Baker, Cook etc are likely to have started? I know that in the middle ages, posh folk spoke French but the lower classes still spoke English until around this time. |
|||
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 9 Mar 2006 21:35 |
Stuart Sorry, but I think this merely indicates that Cook was the illegitimate son of de Carre! De Carre was obviously 'gentry' and the Vicar did not wish to incur his rage by entering his son as illegitimate in the register, so let the facts speak for themselves. Possibly - and this is guesswork - the surname Cook indicates that his mother's antecedants were cooks in the Manor. This is how some of my humble ancestors got their 'surnames', it was more a way of distinguishing between two people called John, say. One John would be a cook and one John would be a smith, so you got John Cook and John Smith. De Carre was a FAMILY name, used by the gentry and those higher up the social scale. Possibly they are from the Manor of Carr - would that make sense in your findings? Olde Crone |
|||
|
Olgiza | Report | 9 Mar 2006 22:56 |
I apologise at the lack of help here but... A supposedly true story in the Telegraph last month. A man told of how his family name came about. A couple of generations earlier his eastern European ancestor was being persecuted in his home country by Cossacks in the pay of the government. He, as well as some other young men from his village retaliated by crawling into the corals at night and stampeding the Cossacks horses as they were known not to be as good soldiers without them. After a while the police were after him and he fled to England. At immigration he was asked his name which he pronounced but was not understood by the immigration officer. He was asked to write it down but as it consisted of about sixteen consonants and only a couple of vowels, the immigration official was still perturbed. He then asked the man what he did in his homeland and after a thought he said, 'I steal the horses'. The immigration officer gave him a knowing glance and next to 'Name' on the form he wrote... 'Crook' |
|||
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 9 Mar 2006 23:20 |
Roger Actually, that IS helpful because it illustrates how many surnames came into being - by sheer chance, nothing else! I do have a secret smile to myself when I see all these earnest books which purport to give the origins of surnames. Some are undoubtedly correct, but many are wild of the mark and assume that there was some sort of system and consistency for giving people surnames. There wasnt! When the Norman French invaded, they brought with them their Patronyms - in other words, the names of their families. But the indiginent English didnt have a system of handing down surnames and John Bloggs son George might be called George Snooks. The English Gentry then became known (by the Norman Invaders, that is) by their Manors - thus John de Simonstone was John of the Manor of Simonstone. Problem was, all the serfs on the Manor would also be known as 'de Simonstone' - they belonged to the Lord of the Manor. But John de Simonstone would want to differentiate between Simon the baker and Simon the woodgatherer. He might refer to them as Simon Redbeard and Simon Armstrong - physical attributes. The whole surname business is an absolute minefield and really cannot be relied on before about 1700. Olde Crone |
|||
|
Carol | Report | 10 Mar 2006 02:55 |
My maiden name is FLEW Never been able to find any history about it. I know there are a lot in Portland Dorset and that is about it. |
|||
|
Stuart | Report | 10 Mar 2006 08:25 |
Useful info - does make sense as to why the switch of names. Wish they had the internet and proper records back then - it would make things so much easier! Don't know about the De Carre bit - could be Manor of Carr, or Carre in southern France. All I know is that the Richard Cook died in Kirkham, Lancs in 1578 and that his father was Jhon (John?) De Carre. Not easy is it? |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 10 Mar 2006 09:09 |
Just to add a bit more and depress all you Smith owners. My friend married an American air man, named Smith. He obviously had a non-anglo saxon appearance and when we were talking about this with him he said when he tried to trace family he had been told anyone in the 19th century who emigrated to the States with a difficult, say East European/Russian name and an irritable customs officer would be immediately be assigned the name Smith. |