16th century English Aliases

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Patti Metsch

16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av Patti Metsch » 12 mai 2005 00:41:02

Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded as (for example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever been noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as "Mary Smith alias Jones"?

Any enlightenment on this subject would be greatly appreciated!

Patti Metsch

Gjest

Re: 16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2005 00:51:03

In a message dated 5/11/05 3:39:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pmetsch@cox.net
writes:

<< Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded as (for
example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever been
noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as "Mary Smith
alias Jones"? >>

I have a case like this albeit some time later where the mother married again
and the son at least temporarily took his step-father's surname and so, in a
bastardy case, he was called Edward Brown alias Edward Moultron.
Where one is his birthname the other his stepfather's surname.

Will Johnson

Patti Metsch

Re: 16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av Patti Metsch » 12 mai 2005 16:21:01

In a message dated 5/11/05 3:39:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pmetsch@cox.net
writes:

Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded as
(for
example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever been
noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as
"Mary Smith
alias Jones"?

Wll Johnson<WJhonson@aol.com> replied:
I have a case like this albeit some time later where the mother married
again
and the son at least temporarily took his step-father's surname and so, in
a
bastardy case, he was called Edward Brown alias Edward Moultron.
Where one is his birthname the other his stepfather's surname.

Will Johnson


Thanks for your comments, Will. I suspect it may be a case of the lady's
mother being married multiple times...

Patti

R. Battle

Re: 16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av R. Battle » 12 mai 2005 17:24:40

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Patti Metsch wrote:
<snip>
Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded as
(for
example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever been
noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as
"Mary Smith
alias Jones"?
snip


There was a short discussion of this on this newsgroup back in 2002 (under
the Regarding "Als"(Alias?) subject line) that you might want to check
out.

-Robert Battle

Patti Metsch

Re: 16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av Patti Metsch » 13 mai 2005 00:41:03

Thanks for pointing that out, Robert. It was very helpful.

Patti

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: 16th century English Aliases


On Thu, 12 May 2005, Patti Metsch wrote:
snip
Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded
as
(for
example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever
been
noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as
"Mary Smith
alias Jones"?
snip

There was a short discussion of this on this newsgroup back in 2002 (under
the Regarding "Als"(Alias?) subject line) that you might want to check
out.

-Robert Battle

Chris Dickinson

Re: 16th century English Aliases

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 13 mai 2005 11:30:02

Patti Metsch wote:

Can anyone give me a reason/reasons why a person would be recorded as (for
example) "John Smith alias Jones" ? Would a married woman have ever been
noted by her maiden (say, Smith) and married (say, Jones) surnames as "Mary
Smith alias Jones"?

Any enlightenment on this subject would be greatly appreciated!


The use of 'alias' or 'als' merely shows that the person had some claim to
the use of both names. There were a number of different reasons for this :

(1) the most common (more than 90%, in my experience, in the mid-17th
century) was for bastardy. Your woman would be illegitimate, with parents
Smith and Jones. This makes no comment, unlike (2) on the social status of
either parent;

(2) the actual name was Smith, but the Jones family was so much more
important (or relevant within the documentary context) that the Jones
surname was retained. This might happen where your woman was a stepdaughter
or a widow. The reverse could also happen where she married a deeply
inferior husband.

(3) the person, or an ancestor, had acquired a nickname. So John Smith the
Carpenter might become known in his lifetime as John the Carpenter and hence
John Smith als Carpenter, and any child could also become known as Smith
als Carpenter.

Chris

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»