Boklerplaiers

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Boklerplaiers

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 01 jun 2006 18:40:01

Dear Matt:

Your advise and references in connection with the name
of Bulkeley (location and family) is excellent. For
many years I have been acquainted with much of your
information, and have accepted the opinions of the
various authorities. However I have now concluded that
these opinions need to be questioned.

For example although it is quite possible that the
source of the name Bulluc-leah is accurate, I do not
perceive any meaningful connection of that source and
the village name of Bulkeley. I would imagine a name
such as Bullockeley would be more likely.

British History Online stipulate that the name
Bukeler, Bokeler, Bouclier literally means
"bucklemaker"; also used in the sense of "girdler",
The name Bucler is also described as "bucklemaker" The
name applies to an occupation.

You could be correct and that I am addressing a number
of families that may have no direct connection.
However it is thought provoking that a number of
documents suggest the family is French. And as late as
the 1560s, the Kent Parish register of my 8th Great
Grandfather Joseph Bulkley is given as Bucler, and yet
his 1642 Will clearly spelt his name as
Bulkeley/Bulkley.

Of course what confuses the issue is that I have
possibly about 50 or more examples of the name Bulkley
spelt in different ways. The explanation - no
standardisation in spelling, and written phonetically.
And because of this wide variety of spelling, it is
difficult to be convinced of the argument/claim that a
specific name was derived from the name of a village.

The 1170/1180 Bunbury Charter (Bunbury is located
close to the village of Bulkeley) has the witness
Richun de Bulceleia. This family name is certainly
similar to the village name as now known, but does not
equate to the name Bulluc-leah.

The question also arises in connection with the
Lancashire Buckley family with records back in the
early/mid 1100s. Both Cheshire and Lancashire families
claim the identical heraldry. And yet another
authority claims that the Lancashire family is
supposed to be connected with the village of Buckley -
and another ancient explanation of the word Buckley is
given.

I realise I am being unreasonable demanding
explanations of a family that should have kept sound
records with so many involved in the legal profession.
Regardless it seems unwise to assume that past
authority opinions are in fact correct.

You question any connection with the Hampshire
Bulkleys? I have always suspected that we descend from
the Bulkleys of Eaton, of which the Hampshire line
belongs. However it would appear that our line descent
started perhaps two generations before the Hampshire
line.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Matt Tompkins

Re: Boklerplaiers

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 01 jun 2006 23:06:00

paul bulkley wrote:
For example although it is quite possible that the
source of the name Bulluc-leah is accurate, I do not
perceive any meaningful connection of that source and
the village name of Bulkeley. I would imagine a name
such as Bullockeley would be more likely.
snip
The 1170/1180 Bunbury Charter (Bunbury is located
close to the village of Bulkeley) has the witness
Richun de Bulceleia. This family name is certainly
similar to the village name as now known, but does not
equate to the name Bulluc-leah.


But Bulceleia is very close to Bulluc-leah. There is no significant
difference between Bul- and Bull-, and -leia and -leah are nearly
identical in sound. The only real difference between the two is the
position of the second vowel; in one it comes after the 'c' and in
the other before it - a pretty minor difference.

It could be explained as just an example of the common linguistic
phenomenon called metathesis - the transposition of letters,
especially a consonant and a vowel (which explains why Brummagem has
been an alternative pronunciation of Birmingham for centuries, for
example). However I think the true explanation is slightly more
complicated.

The name probably meant Bullocks' Ley, rather than Bullock-ley (ie
bullock is in the genitive plural). In Anglo-Saxon the genitive plural
of bulluc was bulluca (I've looked it up since my last post). So we
ought really to be comparing Bulceleia with Bulluca-leah, which makes
it not the transposition of two letters but just the loss of a single
vowel - the second 'u' in bulluca - which needs to be
explained.

But it hardly needs explaining - many English place-names have been
shortened far more drastically than this during the 1000 to 1500 years
since they were first coined. Brighton used to be Brichthelmston, York
developed from Eoforwic via Jorvik, Worcester began as Wigornecester,
Windsor was once Windlesora. Examples could be piled up , but the
following three shortened names have close similarities to
Bullucaleah/Bulkeley: Oxford was originally Oxenaford (the genitive
plural of ox was oxena), Bulkamore in Rattery parish in Devon was
Bolkemore in 1260 (from bulluca), and Bullerthorpe, in the parish of
Swillington in Yorkshire was Bullokesthorpe in 1251 (-thorpe names are
often late coinings, and here we see the Middle English gentive plural,
-s).

The important thing with place-name origins is not to work with the
modern forms of a name, but to go back to its earliest known, and to
remember that the names were usually formed in Anglo-Saxon, not modern
English. If it is difficult to associate Bulkeley with Bulluca-leah,
it may be easier to see how Bulluca-leah produced Bulceleia, Bulcelea,
Bulkeley.

Regards, Matt

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»