Dear Matt:
You have introduced some excellent observations.
However, although the omission or the relocation of a
mere vowel or letter may appear "a pretty minor
difference", I wonder how a guy named Bullock would
react if told in fact that he was a miserable
Bulkeley!
Your advise regarding place name origins is very
sound, and I have no doubt many family names stem from
ancient locations or occupations. BUT if the family
initially came from the Continent, it is quite
feasible that the family name came from an ancient
location or occupation on the Continent rather than in
the UK.
I think the opinions of British History Online are
very significant, and if valid scuttles any argument
that the family was named after a village of Bulkeley
(Cheshire) or a village of Buckley (Lancashire).
As mentioned before family documents suggest the
family was French, and public documents record
individuals travelling from the Continent to UK and
Ireland in the early 1200s - perhaps BHO is correct?
Tow marriages definitely suggest that the family was
French:
(a) 1193: Geoffrey Buckley the Elder Dean of Whalley
Rochdale Lancashire married a daughter of Roger de
Lascy (Cheshire/Pontefract line) (Whalley Coucher 136
and 1074)
(b) 1380/85: John Bulkley of Eaton (son) Robert
Bulkley of Eaton married Christiana de Ripariis (grand
daughter of Sir John Redvers and Maud (Devon) (The
Revier Family)
Both the Lascy Family and the Revier Family held
powerful positions and both from Normandy. It is
difficult to imagine that either families would
countenance a marriage with an undistinguished Anglo
Saxon.
Anyhow Matt - what is fascinating is that "nothing is
set in concrete" The greatest danger is accepting the
opinions of others without due thought.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Boklerplaiers
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Boklerplaiers
Hello Paul,
Not really - the fact that the word bukeler, bokeler, bouclier meant a
buckle- or girdle-maker in Middle English (which is certainly true)
doesn't disprove anything about the origins of people called Bulkeley -
it relates more to the origins of people called Buckler.
It is possible that some modern people called Buckler have a name which
at some point in the past transmuted from Bulkeley, and it is just
possible that some modern Bulkeleys descend from people who made
bucklers - both of these are possible because surnames, like
place-names, do change over the centuries, and are sometimes
assimilated to a similar-sounding name. However it is probable that
most modern-day Bulkeleys descend from a man who took his name from a
place called Bulkeley, and most modern Bucklers descend from a man who
made buckles.
And of course there may also have been cross-pollination between
Bulkeley and Buckley - some lines which derived their name from the
former place may have ended up being called Buckley, and vice versa.
And then there is the possibility of origins in French places called
something similar. But none of these possible origins disproves the
other possible origins - that can only be done by tracing each line
back to the first individual to use its name and finding out whether he
lived in or near a Bulkeley or Buckley or somewhere in France, or was
carrying on a buckle-making trade. If this could be done for all lines
it might be discovered that there are several unrelated lines, one from
each origin, or it may be that there is just one line with just one of
these origins (though I think at least two lines/origins more likely).
A single parish register entry in which the name of one of your
Bulkeley ancestors was recorded as Bucler does not make him the
descendant of buckle-makers - that would only be the case if most early
records of the family called them Bucler.
You're referring to the 1225 and 1235 Patent Rolls records of a George
Bukele/Bucler (merchant from Rouen) being given permission to trade in
England, and the 1220 archaeological report mentioning brassfounders in
Dublin called Bukeler? They prove nothing about the origins of modern
day Bulkeleys, and still less about the 12th century Cheshire Bulkeleys
- all they do is raise the possibility that those merchants and
brassfounders may be the ancestors of modern people called Buckler or
something like it, possibly even Bulkeley. But there is no guarantee
that either the merchants or the brassfounders left modern descendants,
nor can we be sure what form those modern descendants' surname takes.
Neither of those documents conclusively identifies them as French (by
which you mean one of the Norman invaders, who were variously
Norman/French/Breton/Flemish?), though I do agree that the 12th century
dean was more likely to have been of Norman-French descent than not.
By 1380, however, the labels Norman-French and Anglo-Saxon were quite
irrelevant - the two populations had by then mixed indissolubly.
Well, no, the Norman-French aristocracy did take Anglo-Saxon wives on
occasion, and it is thought that the lesser Norman-French lords did so
more often. Most studies of the post-invasion period comment on the
phenomenon. And you can't necessarily identify nationality from
forename - within a few decades of the Conquest there were people of
undoubted Anglo-Saxon parentage with Norman-French names.
But the assumption behind that statement is also wrong; the fact that
the 12th century de Bulkeleys had a surname derived from an Anglo-Saxon
place-name did not make them Anglo-Saxon. Many of the Norman-French
lords took their surname from their English estates, so it is more
likely that the first de Bulkeley lord of Bulkeley was Norman-French in
background.
regards,
Matt
I think the opinions of British History Online are
very significant, and if valid scuttles any argument
that the family was named after a village of Bulkeley
(Cheshire) or a village of Buckley (Lancashire).
Not really - the fact that the word bukeler, bokeler, bouclier meant a
buckle- or girdle-maker in Middle English (which is certainly true)
doesn't disprove anything about the origins of people called Bulkeley -
it relates more to the origins of people called Buckler.
It is possible that some modern people called Buckler have a name which
at some point in the past transmuted from Bulkeley, and it is just
possible that some modern Bulkeleys descend from people who made
bucklers - both of these are possible because surnames, like
place-names, do change over the centuries, and are sometimes
assimilated to a similar-sounding name. However it is probable that
most modern-day Bulkeleys descend from a man who took his name from a
place called Bulkeley, and most modern Bucklers descend from a man who
made buckles.
And of course there may also have been cross-pollination between
Bulkeley and Buckley - some lines which derived their name from the
former place may have ended up being called Buckley, and vice versa.
And then there is the possibility of origins in French places called
something similar. But none of these possible origins disproves the
other possible origins - that can only be done by tracing each line
back to the first individual to use its name and finding out whether he
lived in or near a Bulkeley or Buckley or somewhere in France, or was
carrying on a buckle-making trade. If this could be done for all lines
it might be discovered that there are several unrelated lines, one from
each origin, or it may be that there is just one line with just one of
these origins (though I think at least two lines/origins more likely).
A single parish register entry in which the name of one of your
Bulkeley ancestors was recorded as Bucler does not make him the
descendant of buckle-makers - that would only be the case if most early
records of the family called them Bucler.
As mentioned before family documents suggest the
family was French, and public documents record
individuals travelling from the Continent to UK and
Ireland in the early 1200s - perhaps BHO is correct?
You're referring to the 1225 and 1235 Patent Rolls records of a George
Bukele/Bucler (merchant from Rouen) being given permission to trade in
England, and the 1220 archaeological report mentioning brassfounders in
Dublin called Bukeler? They prove nothing about the origins of modern
day Bulkeleys, and still less about the 12th century Cheshire Bulkeleys
- all they do is raise the possibility that those merchants and
brassfounders may be the ancestors of modern people called Buckler or
something like it, possibly even Bulkeley. But there is no guarantee
that either the merchants or the brassfounders left modern descendants,
nor can we be sure what form those modern descendants' surname takes.
Tow marriages definitely suggest that the family was
French:
(a) 1193: Geoffrey Buckley the Elder Dean of Whalley
Rochdale Lancashire married a daughter of Roger de
Lascy (Cheshire/Pontefract line) (Whalley Coucher 136
and 1074)
(b) 1380/85: John Bulkley of Eaton (son) Robert
Bulkley of Eaton married Christiana de Ripariis (grand
daughter of Sir John Redvers and Maud (Devon) (The
Revier Family)
Neither of those documents conclusively identifies them as French (by
which you mean one of the Norman invaders, who were variously
Norman/French/Breton/Flemish?), though I do agree that the 12th century
dean was more likely to have been of Norman-French descent than not.
By 1380, however, the labels Norman-French and Anglo-Saxon were quite
irrelevant - the two populations had by then mixed indissolubly.
Both the Lascy Family and the Revier Family held
powerful positions and both from Normandy. It is
difficult to imagine that either families would
countenance a marriage with an undistinguished Anglo
Saxon.
Well, no, the Norman-French aristocracy did take Anglo-Saxon wives on
occasion, and it is thought that the lesser Norman-French lords did so
more often. Most studies of the post-invasion period comment on the
phenomenon. And you can't necessarily identify nationality from
forename - within a few decades of the Conquest there were people of
undoubted Anglo-Saxon parentage with Norman-French names.
But the assumption behind that statement is also wrong; the fact that
the 12th century de Bulkeleys had a surname derived from an Anglo-Saxon
place-name did not make them Anglo-Saxon. Many of the Norman-French
lords took their surname from their English estates, so it is more
likely that the first de Bulkeley lord of Bulkeley was Norman-French in
background.
regards,
Matt