One surname has always bothered me and that is Nevill(e).
CP Volume I, say page 35. VIII Edward Nevill
CP XII/2 Page 544 the first Earl of Westmorland is Ralph de Neville
Ralph is a male line ancestor of Edward.
While looking at this I found CP Volume I pages 26 and 27.
Richard Beauchamp, he married 27 July 1411 Isabel sister and eventually sole heir of Richard Le Despenser, being daughter of Thomas (the attainted) Earl of Gloucester (Lord Le Despenser). Surely this must upset a few people? Goodness a wrong spelling.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Concrete Spellings?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Kevan Barton
RE: Concrete Spellings?
For some reason, "cement" comes to mind. And, I believe, my assumption
would be reinforced by any good dictionary.
Yup, I'm on pretty solid ground with this one.

Kevan
would be reinforced by any good dictionary.
Yup, I'm on pretty solid ground with this one.
Kevan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Concrete Spellings?
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000c01c54252$2c78e880$c3b4fea9@email...
It's perfectly good practice NOT to aim for consistency in the spelling of
medieval names, Leo - we can't even know the vernacular forms for names in
the period before vernacular sources become available, so that Richardson's
blanket stricture against using Latin forms is just hot air.
Individuals' names were sometimes spelled in two or more different ways
within the same document. If contemporary scribes and readers were not
exercised about the matter, why should we be today merely because the
dictionary gives standard spellings for words apart from proper names, and
database searches rely on exactness?
Nowadays it is fashionable to spell given names in novel ways, and the
standard forms may change before long anyway - e.g from Anthony to Antony.
Basseth was quite normal for Basset - and Bassett is NOT incorrect, even if
unorthodox. Any half-way decent researcher in medieval genealogy can cope
with much more aberrant spellings than that.
Peter Stewart
news:000c01c54252$2c78e880$c3b4fea9@email...
One surname has always bothered me and that is Nevill(e).
CP Volume I, say page 35. VIII Edward Nevill
CP XII/2 Page 544 the first Earl of Westmorland is Ralph de Neville
Ralph is a male line ancestor of Edward.
While looking at this I found CP Volume I pages 26 and 27.
Richard Beauchamp, he married 27 July 1411 Isabel sister and eventually
sole heir of Richard Le Despenser, being daughter of Thomas (the
attainted) Earl of Gloucester (Lord Le Despenser). Surely this must upset
a few people? Goodness a wrong spelling.
It's perfectly good practice NOT to aim for consistency in the spelling of
medieval names, Leo - we can't even know the vernacular forms for names in
the period before vernacular sources become available, so that Richardson's
blanket stricture against using Latin forms is just hot air.
Individuals' names were sometimes spelled in two or more different ways
within the same document. If contemporary scribes and readers were not
exercised about the matter, why should we be today merely because the
dictionary gives standard spellings for words apart from proper names, and
database searches rely on exactness?
Nowadays it is fashionable to spell given names in novel ways, and the
standard forms may change before long anyway - e.g from Anthony to Antony.
Basseth was quite normal for Basset - and Bassett is NOT incorrect, even if
unorthodox. Any half-way decent researcher in medieval genealogy can cope
with much more aberrant spellings than that.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Concrete Spellings?
In message of 16 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Having been born the son of one of the latter, I would have said firmly
that the former was non-standard and even an affectation based on the
latin spelling.
Mind you, I believe that said father was named after sundry
post-medieval ancestors and that their names are to be found, I discover
from the odd record, spelt in both ways.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
Nowadays it is fashionable to spell given names in novel ways, and
the standard forms may change before long anyway - e.g from Anthony
to Antony.
Having been born the son of one of the latter, I would have said firmly
that the former was non-standard and even an affectation based on the
latin spelling.
Mind you, I believe that said father was named after sundry
post-medieval ancestors and that their names are to be found, I discover
from the odd record, spelt in both ways.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Concrete Spellings?
Leo,
There never has been any consistancy in spellings of names in England, even
in the 18th century there was no there was no standardisation of English
spellings are we know them today.
In parish registers especially names were spelt how the incumbant THOUGHT
they sounded. A good example of this is our family of Haynes - they lived in the
the same parish since the mid 16th century and every time the incumbant of
the church changed, so did the spelling of their surname!
Rose
There never has been any consistancy in spellings of names in England, even
in the 18th century there was no there was no standardisation of English
spellings are we know them today.
In parish registers especially names were spelt how the incumbant THOUGHT
they sounded. A good example of this is our family of Haynes - they lived in the
the same parish since the mid 16th century and every time the incumbant of
the church changed, so did the spelling of their surname!
Rose