NORMANS
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: NORMANS
They did speak Norman French, however.
And not all of the invaders came from Normandy.
So we shall have to call this a Frog Victory over the Bulldog.
The French have the better argument here.
The English had their arses kicked.
Followups set to soc.history.medieval.
Here in Canada and the U.S. we have BULLFROGS [Rana catesbeiana]
descendants of the Bulldogs and the Frogs. <g>
DSH
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:8e9c8ff24c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
| In message of 22 Sep, PDeloriol@aol.com wrote:
|
| > The Norman invasion of England in 1066 - was it as the French claim
a French
| > invasion, or as I interpret it an invasion by an army and
institution that
| > had French Language and European concepts of society, but did not
consider
| > itself as French?
| > regards
| > Peter ( de Loriol)
| >
|
| Norsemen, who had occupied that part of France and were related to
| Enklish kings.
|
| --
| Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
| For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
And not all of the invaders came from Normandy.
So we shall have to call this a Frog Victory over the Bulldog.
The French have the better argument here.
The English had their arses kicked.
Followups set to soc.history.medieval.
Here in Canada and the U.S. we have BULLFROGS [Rana catesbeiana]
descendants of the Bulldogs and the Frogs. <g>
DSH
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:8e9c8ff24c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
| In message of 22 Sep, PDeloriol@aol.com wrote:
|
| > The Norman invasion of England in 1066 - was it as the French claim
a French
| > invasion, or as I interpret it an invasion by an army and
institution that
| > had French Language and European concepts of society, but did not
consider
| > itself as French?
| > regards
| > Peter ( de Loriol)
| >
|
| Norsemen, who had occupied that part of France and were related to
| Enklish kings.
|
| --
| Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
| For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: NORMANS
In message of 22 Sep, PDeloriol@aol.com wrote:
Norsemen, who had occupied that part of France and were related to
Enklish kings.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
The Norman invasion of England in 1066 - was it as the French claim a French
invasion, or as I interpret it an invasion by an army and institution that
had French Language and European concepts of society, but did not consider
itself as French?
regards
Peter ( de Loriol)
Norsemen, who had occupied that part of France and were related to
Enklish kings.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 9/22/2004 4:15:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:
They did speak Norman French, however.
And not all of the invaders came from Normandy.
So we shall have to call this a Frog Victory over the Bulldog.
The French have the better argument here.
The English had their arses kicked.
Followups set to soc.history.medieval.
Here in Canada and the U.S. we have BULLFROGS [irnacatesbeiana]
descendants of the Bulldogs and the Frogs. <g>
DSH
But, isn't it true that about five generations back Billy Bastard's male
ancestors were all Norman and then Norse? Yes some of his female ancestors were
of French derivations but in my mind he was a Norman, not a Frenchman.
Yes, there were many nationalities in Williams conquering army, but he was
it's leader and earned the right for the invasion to be termed Norman rather
than French. Thus despite the fact that many of the "conquered" of the time
termed William's minions Frenchmen, and this was true for a hundred years or
so after the invasion I still consider it a Norman invasion.
You went a long way for a joke with this one Hines.
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:
They did speak Norman French, however.
And not all of the invaders came from Normandy.
So we shall have to call this a Frog Victory over the Bulldog.
The French have the better argument here.
The English had their arses kicked.
Followups set to soc.history.medieval.
Here in Canada and the U.S. we have BULLFROGS [irnacatesbeiana]
descendants of the Bulldogs and the Frogs. <g>
DSH
But, isn't it true that about five generations back Billy Bastard's male
ancestors were all Norman and then Norse? Yes some of his female ancestors were
of French derivations but in my mind he was a Norman, not a Frenchman.
Yes, there were many nationalities in Williams conquering army, but he was
it's leader and earned the right for the invasion to be termed Norman rather
than French. Thus despite the fact that many of the "conquered" of the time
termed William's minions Frenchmen, and this was true for a hundred years or
so after the invasion I still consider it a Norman invasion.
You went a long way for a joke with this one Hines.
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: NORMANS
Peter de Loriel wrote:
Seems to me an extraordinary notion that the invasion could be considered as
French; and I have no idea what 'European concepts of society' can mean.
Apart from the obvious consideration that the Normans were Norse in origin,
the reality is that they were political enemies of the Capetian
kings of Paris. William may have owed his earlier political survival in 1047
at Val-es-dunes to Capetian support; but his inheritance of England and
marriage to Margaret of Flanders made him into the Capetian's worst
nightmare.
Chris
The Norman invasion of England in 1066 - was it as the French claim a
French
invasion, or as I interpret it an invasion by an army and institution
that
had French Language and European concepts of society, but did not consider
itself as French?
Seems to me an extraordinary notion that the invasion could be considered as
French; and I have no idea what 'European concepts of society' can mean.
Apart from the obvious consideration that the Normans were Norse in origin,
the reality is that they were political enemies of the Capetian
kings of Paris. William may have owed his earlier political survival in 1047
at Val-es-dunes to Capetian support; but his inheritance of England and
marriage to Margaret of Flanders made him into the Capetian's worst
nightmare.
Chris
-
Gjest
Re: Normans
Dear Newsgroup,
As many have stated the Norman Conquest was led
by Normandy`s Duke William II `the Bastard` not by the French. Duke William`s
Aunt Emma was mother of Saint Eadweard the Confessor, King of England
1042-1066, who thoughtfully promised the throne `so the story goes` to William.
The Saxon Witan elected Easweard`s brother-in- law Harold II Godwinson King in
1066 as news came that the Norwegian King Harald III was preparing to come
and take the throne which Eadweard`s half brother Hardicanute ( Canute III)
had lost a bet with Harald III`s predecessor Magnus as to which of them would
die first and so Harold II was meeting Harald III in a Battle at Stamford
Bridge while William and his troops were landing on the coast of England. It had
been a hard won victory and the tired Saxon army met what was probably a
much better rested Norman force at Senlac, near Hastings. Harold II was not so
fortunate this time and fell in the battle. William became King by conquest,
bolstered by the claim of his wife Maud of Flanders, whose ancestor Count
Baldwin II of Flanders had married a daughter of Aelfraed the Great of England.
Interestingly, Maud`s mother was Adele , daughter of the French King Robert
II and sister of King Henri I of France, Maud`s father was Count Baldwin V of
Flanders.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
As many have stated the Norman Conquest was led
by Normandy`s Duke William II `the Bastard` not by the French. Duke William`s
Aunt Emma was mother of Saint Eadweard the Confessor, King of England
1042-1066, who thoughtfully promised the throne `so the story goes` to William.
The Saxon Witan elected Easweard`s brother-in- law Harold II Godwinson King in
1066 as news came that the Norwegian King Harald III was preparing to come
and take the throne which Eadweard`s half brother Hardicanute ( Canute III)
had lost a bet with Harald III`s predecessor Magnus as to which of them would
die first and so Harold II was meeting Harald III in a Battle at Stamford
Bridge while William and his troops were landing on the coast of England. It had
been a hard won victory and the tired Saxon army met what was probably a
much better rested Norman force at Senlac, near Hastings. Harold II was not so
fortunate this time and fell in the battle. William became King by conquest,
bolstered by the claim of his wife Maud of Flanders, whose ancestor Count
Baldwin II of Flanders had married a daughter of Aelfraed the Great of England.
Interestingly, Maud`s mother was Adele , daughter of the French King Robert
II and sister of King Henri I of France, Maud`s father was Count Baldwin V of
Flanders.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Bronwen Edwards
Re: NORMANS
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote in message news:<df.1a0abab.2e833b8e@aol.com>...
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
-
Terry
Re: NORMANS
As to weather they called them selves Normans all I know is that I believe
it was Roger De Montgomery who made the statement Northmanium Northmanorum
(spelling) which means something to the effect of I am a Norman of the
Normans.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
it was Roger De Montgomery who made the statement Northmanium Northmanorum
(spelling) which means something to the effect of I am a Norman of the
Normans.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote in message news:<df.1a0abab.2e833b8e@aol.com>...
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they
derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
-
Gjest
Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 9/23/2004 2:15:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote in message news:<df.1a0abab.2e833b8e@aol.com>...
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
Not on topic but of utmost importance:
In Fort Worth Texas there is a college Texas Christian University whose
sports teams are called "Horned Frogs" or simply just "Frogs". Also many people,
incorrectly, called the lizard "horned frogs" rather than the predominant
"horned toads". A joke makes them "horny toads".
They do have "horns" although they are not of the same material as horns on
bovines, etc. I have been stuck by the horns, as have most people who have
attempted to handle them. I have never seen the blood squirting and I have
"played" with them for most of my younger years. They were plentiful 30 or 40
years ago but they are endangered now. The tale most prevelant is that
their main food was the red (harvester) ants and the tropical fire ants have
invaded and destroyed the red ants. The lizards supposedly cannot eat the fire
ants, so they have died out. There is also the tale that insecticide use has
destroyed. I don't buy the insecticide story.
The Texas educational period is now over.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote in message news:<df.1a0abab.2e833b8e@aol.com>...
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they
derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
Not on topic but of utmost importance:
In Fort Worth Texas there is a college Texas Christian University whose
sports teams are called "Horned Frogs" or simply just "Frogs". Also many people,
incorrectly, called the lizard "horned frogs" rather than the predominant
"horned toads". A joke makes them "horny toads".
They do have "horns" although they are not of the same material as horns on
bovines, etc. I have been stuck by the horns, as have most people who have
attempted to handle them. I have never seen the blood squirting and I have
"played" with them for most of my younger years. They were plentiful 30 or 40
years ago but they are endangered now. The tale most prevelant is that
their main food was the red (harvester) ants and the tropical fire ants have
invaded and destroyed the red ants. The lizards supposedly cannot eat the fire
ants, so they have died out. There is also the tale that insecticide use has
destroyed. I don't buy the insecticide story.
The Texas educational period is now over.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Frank Bullen
Re: NORMANS
Hi!
You wrote ....
<William may have owed his earlier political survival in 1047
<at Val-es-dunes to Capetian support; but his inheritance of England and
<marriage to Margaret of Flanders made him into the Capetian's worst
<nightmare.
While I agree with everything else you said in your message, I'm somewhat puzzled by your use of "his inheritance of England". I am not aware that any incontrovertible proof has yet been unearthed to confirm the alleged promise by Edward the Confessor that William would be his successor, which would leave us with "conquest" as the correct term. Or have I missed something?
Certainly, I doubt if any Norman would have considered himself French in anything but language..
Regards
Frank
You wrote ....
<William may have owed his earlier political survival in 1047
<at Val-es-dunes to Capetian support; but his inheritance of England and
<marriage to Margaret of Flanders made him into the Capetian's worst
<nightmare.
While I agree with everything else you said in your message, I'm somewhat puzzled by your use of "his inheritance of England". I am not aware that any incontrovertible proof has yet been unearthed to confirm the alleged promise by Edward the Confessor that William would be his successor, which would leave us with "conquest" as the correct term. Or have I missed something?
Certainly, I doubt if any Norman would have considered himself French in anything but language..
Regards
Frank
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: NORMANS
Frank Bullen wrote:
<snip>
No, I'm quite happy with 'Conquest'.
I was throwing in 'inheritance' slightly mischieviously; but I think in a valid pre-Conquest context. Proof of the actual promise is a little like looking for WMDs - the reality is that, before 1066, if William was perceived as having a claim on England, then he necessarily became a threat to the the Capetians.
Edward (supposedly) made William his heir in 1051. The Capetians changed alliances in 1052 - becoming pro-Anjou, anti-Norman. That's pretty good circumstantial evidence.
Chris
<snip>
I am not aware that any incontrovertible proof has yet been unearthed to confirm
the alleged promise by Edward the Confessor that William would be his
successor, which would leave us with "conquest" as the correct term.
Or have I missed something?
snip
No, I'm quite happy with 'Conquest'.
I was throwing in 'inheritance' slightly mischieviously; but I think in a valid pre-Conquest context. Proof of the actual promise is a little like looking for WMDs - the reality is that, before 1066, if William was perceived as having a claim on England, then he necessarily became a threat to the the Capetians.
Edward (supposedly) made William his heir in 1051. The Capetians changed alliances in 1052 - becoming pro-Anjou, anti-Norman. That's pretty good circumstantial evidence.
Chris
-
Sue J
RE: NORMANS
-----Original Message-----
You all keep talking about the Norman Invasion and someone may even
put up one of my French Canadian surnames. I know a few of them
originally came from the Normandy area but I can only get back to the
1600s in Canada on these branches. You never know which name to start
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
up to my 2nd gr. grandmother. She married into my SEGUIN lines.
Naturally, I even have COTE. LOL I wish there was a book for English
or French research like the French Canadians have, such as Tanguay.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:chris@dickinson.uk.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: NORMANS
Frank Bullen wrote:
<snip>
No, I'm quite happy with 'Conquest'.
I was throwing in 'inheritance' slightly mischieviously; but I think
in a valid pre-Conquest context. Proof of the actual promise is a
little like looking for WMDs - the reality is that, before 1066, if
William was perceived as having a claim on England, then he
necessarily became a threat to the the Capetians.
Edward (supposedly) made William his heir in 1051. The Capetians
changed alliances in 1052 - becoming pro-Anjou, anti-Norman. That's
pretty good circumstantial evidence.
Chris
You all keep talking about the Norman Invasion and someone may even
put up one of my French Canadian surnames. I know a few of them
originally came from the Normandy area but I can only get back to the
1600s in Canada on these branches. You never know which name to start
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
up to my 2nd gr. grandmother. She married into my SEGUIN lines.
Naturally, I even have COTE. LOL I wish there was a book for English
or French research like the French Canadians have, such as Tanguay.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:chris@dickinson.uk.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:36 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: NORMANS
Frank Bullen wrote:
<snip>
I am not aware that any incontrovertible proof has yet been unearthed
to confirm
the alleged promise by Edward the Confessor that William would be his
successor, which would leave us with "conquest" as the correct term.
Or have I missed something?
snip
No, I'm quite happy with 'Conquest'.
I was throwing in 'inheritance' slightly mischieviously; but I think
in a valid pre-Conquest context. Proof of the actual promise is a
little like looking for WMDs - the reality is that, before 1066, if
William was perceived as having a claim on England, then he
necessarily became a threat to the the Capetians.
Edward (supposedly) made William his heir in 1051. The Capetians
changed alliances in 1052 - becoming pro-Anjou, anti-Norman. That's
pretty good circumstantial evidence.
Chris
-
Peter Stewart
Re: NORMANS
Bronwen Edwards wrote:
Neustria - this was the western Frankish kingdom, with Austrasia to the
east and (media) Francia in between. After the Bretons had taken Nantes
and Rennes in the 9th century, Neustria was practically conterminous
with the later Normandy.
Peter Stewart
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote in message news:<df.1a0abab.2e833b8e@aol.com>...
And in Texas and other Southwestern states we have "Horned Frogs", or at
least we used to before the fire ants drove them out. How were they derived?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
The question was not addressed to me but, of course, you mean "horned
toads" which are neither horned nor toads - but lizards. Very cute
ones, too. When they get startled, they squirt blood from their eyes.
Would that be one of those old Norman tricks? Question: did the
Normans call themselves "Normans" in the 11th-12th centuries? Their
relationship with the French Crown would certainly have been shaky
from the beginning, given the story of how Rollo/Rolf was "given"
Normandy. And what was Normandy called before they arrived?
Neustria - this was the western Frankish kingdom, with Austrasia to the
east and (media) Francia in between. After the Bretons had taken Nantes
and Rennes in the 9th century, Neustria was practically conterminous
with the later Normandy.
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: NORMANS
Peter Stewart wrote in reply to Bronwen Edwards:
Which might be a good time to suggest to any of you interested in European
medieval genealogy that you get yourselves a good historical atlas. A map is
worth a thousand words.
There is, for instance, a useful map of Neustria (and explanation) on pp
106/107 of The Times Atlas of World History. And no doubt there are various
maps online.
Chris
Neustria - this was the western Frankish kingdom, with Austrasia to the
east and (media) Francia in between. After the Bretons had taken Nantes
and Rennes in the 9th century, Neustria was practically conterminous
with the later Normandy.
Which might be a good time to suggest to any of you interested in European
medieval genealogy that you get yourselves a good historical atlas. A map is
worth a thousand words.
There is, for instance, a useful map of Neustria (and explanation) on pp
106/107 of The Times Atlas of World History. And no doubt there are various
maps online.
Chris
-
Gjest
Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 23/09/2004 19:56:56 GMT Daylight Time,
macduff@infionline.net writes:
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
Oh but the French did and still do use the name 'dit' - I have a distant
relative living in the Paris area called Nicole PLATTIER dit JACQUARD. Look up
in French annuaires Telephoniques and you will find quite a few 'dit' names.
I have one for the Yvelines, shwing no less than a couple of dozen. They
were,naturally , more proliferous in the past.
rgards
peter
macduff@infionline.net writes:
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
Oh but the French did and still do use the name 'dit' - I have a distant
relative living in the Paris area called Nicole PLATTIER dit JACQUARD. Look up
in French annuaires Telephoniques and you will find quite a few 'dit' names.
I have one for the Yvelines, shwing no less than a couple of dozen. They
were,naturally , more proliferous in the past.
rgards
peter
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: NORMANS
Here I am getting into hotwater...I presume Nicole is a female? Should in
her case it not be dite--------and then the next question is : what is a
surname? My name van de Pas, if you break it down, I think my name is Pas.
dit (for males) and dite (for females) does this not stand for (very roughly
translated) "known as"? and most of the time is placed between two names as
with Nicole?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <PDeloriol@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
her case it not be dite--------and then the next question is : what is a
surname? My name van de Pas, if you break it down, I think my name is Pas.
dit (for males) and dite (for females) does this not stand for (very roughly
translated) "known as"? and most of the time is placed between two names as
with Nicole?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <PDeloriol@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 23/09/2004 19:56:56 GMT Daylight Time,
macduff@infionline.net writes:
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
Oh but the French did and still do use the name 'dit' - I have a distant
relative living in the Paris area called Nicole PLATTIER dit JACQUARD.
Look up
in French annuaires Telephoniques and you will find quite a few 'dit'
names.
I have one for the Yvelines, shwing no less than a couple of dozen. They
were,naturally , more proliferous in the past.
rgards
peter
-
Gjest
Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 24/09/2004 07:03:25 GMT Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
her case it not be dite--------and then the next question is : what is a
You are technically right Leo, except the modern French system has, it seems
standardised the spelling of dit, made it generally 'inter-gendral' if i can
coin a new word, and used it as part of the surname.
regards on this very early morning - had to take my daughter to school at
0445 today for a day's visit to the First world War graves in Northern France ,
as part of her history curriculum!
Peter
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
her case it not be dite--------and then the next question is : what is a
You are technically right Leo, except the modern French system has, it seems
standardised the spelling of dit, made it generally 'inter-gendral' if i can
coin a new word, and used it as part of the surname.
regards on this very early morning - had to take my daughter to school at
0445 today for a day's visit to the First world War graves in Northern France ,
as part of her history curriculum!
Peter
-
Terry
Re: NORMANS
I suppose you could coin a new word, but I think I will stick with "Gender
neutral"
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: <PDeloriol@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
neutral"
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: <PDeloriol@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 24/09/2004 07:03:25 GMT Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
her case it not be dite--------and then the next question is : what is a
You are technically right Leo, except the modern French system has, it
seems
standardised the spelling of dit, made it generally 'inter-gendral' if i
can
coin a new word, and used it as part of the surname.
regards on this very early morning - had to take my daughter to school at
0445 today for a day's visit to the First world War graves in Northern
France ,
as part of her history curriculum!
Peter
-
Sue J
RE: NORMANS
Hi Peter,
When I used to be on one of the Quebec Province lists, I was always
told that the French did not use "dit" names. The FC used them to
distinguish between families that either came from the same place,
Rotureau dit Belisle from the Isle de Belisle or from others that had
same names but not from same lineage, Pepin dit LaForce. Some in
these families continued on through today using the Belisle or Pepin
name while others opted for Rotureau or LaForce for their surnames.
If the French used Dit names as well, that should help with my search
when I try to carry them over to France. Then I run into Martin.
First was Abraham Martin dit l'Ecossais or the Scotsman. He was said
to have been from France but went to Scotland at an early age, for
whatever reason. The Plains of Abraham, etc. are named for him. I
relate to him through his daughter Anne who married Jean Cote. Even
this is a bit shady though Tanguay does say she is Abraham's daughter.
With my mother being 100% French Canadian, as you may guess, I have
tons of names.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
-----Original Message-----
From: PDeloriol@aol.com [mailto:PDeloriol@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:24 AM
To: macduff@infionline.net; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 23/09/2004 19:56:56 GMT Daylight Time,
macduff@infionline.net writes:
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
Oh but the French did and still do use the name 'dit' - I have a
distant relative living in the Paris area called Nicole PLATTIER dit
JACQUARD. Look up in French annuaires Telephoniques and you will find
quite a few 'dit' names. I have one for the Yvelines, shwing no less
than a couple of dozen. They were,naturally , more proliferous in the
past.
rgards
peter
When I used to be on one of the Quebec Province lists, I was always
told that the French did not use "dit" names. The FC used them to
distinguish between families that either came from the same place,
Rotureau dit Belisle from the Isle de Belisle or from others that had
same names but not from same lineage, Pepin dit LaForce. Some in
these families continued on through today using the Belisle or Pepin
name while others opted for Rotureau or LaForce for their surnames.
If the French used Dit names as well, that should help with my search
when I try to carry them over to France. Then I run into Martin.
First was Abraham Martin dit l'Ecossais or the Scotsman. He was said
to have been from France but went to Scotland at an early age, for
whatever reason. The Plains of Abraham, etc. are named for him. I
relate to him through his daughter Anne who married Jean Cote. Even
this is a bit shady though Tanguay does say she is Abraham's daughter.
With my mother being 100% French Canadian, as you may guess, I have
tons of names.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
-----Original Message-----
From: PDeloriol@aol.com [mailto:PDeloriol@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:24 AM
To: macduff@infionline.net; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: NORMANS
In a message dated 23/09/2004 19:56:56 GMT Daylight Time,
macduff@infionline.net writes:
looking for as the French did not use "Dit" names like the French
Canadians. I even have PEPIN for a surname in my family all the way
Oh but the French did and still do use the name 'dit' - I have a
distant relative living in the Paris area called Nicole PLATTIER dit
JACQUARD. Look up in French annuaires Telephoniques and you will find
quite a few 'dit' names. I have one for the Yvelines, shwing no less
than a couple of dozen. They were,naturally , more proliferous in the
past.
rgards
peter
-
Gjest
Re: Normans
In a message dated 9/25/2004 10:09:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:
A more accurate phrase here would be "is alleged," since the theory that
Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one, vouched for by
no contemporary or near-contemporary source.
We know of this promise only from Norman sources, in any case, not from
Anglo-Saxon writings.
Wasn't Harold "elected" king by a congress of the nobles of the land?
Wasn't this the "normal" manner in which people became king of England at the time
(other than by force of arms)? Doesn't this negate any "promise" that might
have been made by Edward, since the throne was not his to give?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
carmi47@msn.com writes:
A more accurate phrase here would be "is alleged," since the theory that
Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one, vouched for by
no contemporary or near-contemporary source.
We know of this promise only from Norman sources, in any case, not from
Anglo-Saxon writings.
Wasn't Harold "elected" king by a congress of the nobles of the land?
Wasn't this the "normal" manner in which people became king of England at the time
(other than by force of arms)? Doesn't this negate any "promise" that might
have been made by Edward, since the throne was not his to give?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Frank Bullen
Re: Normans
Hello there!
GRHale wrote, inter alia
<the theory that Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one,
Surely this was one of William's main "excuses" for the invasion?
Regards
Frank
GRHale wrote, inter alia
<the theory that Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one,
Surely this was one of William's main "excuses" for the invasion?
Regards
Frank
-
siabair ~^~
Re: Normans
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:
Witan.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'
Someone else wrote that. I wrote that Edward did NOT have the right,
under English law/custom, to promise the throne to anyone. That was
the right of the congress/council of nobles (I cannot think of the
correct name
right now),
Witan.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
Gjest
Re: Normans
In a message dated 9/26/2004 8:55:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bullenfw41@telkomsa.net writes:
GRHale wrote, inter alia
<the theory that Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one,
Someone else wrote that. I wrote that Edward did NOT have the right, under
English law/custom, to promise the throne to anyone. That was the right of
the congress/council of nobles (I cannot think of the correct name right now),
to elect the next King. Harold was elected, William seized the throne.
William's was ultimately the most effective method. Edward may have
"supported" William as his successor but he could not make the final determination.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
bullenfw41@telkomsa.net writes:
GRHale wrote, inter alia
<the theory that Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one,
Someone else wrote that. I wrote that Edward did NOT have the right, under
English law/custom, to promise the throne to anyone. That was the right of
the congress/council of nobles (I cannot think of the correct name right now),
to elect the next King. Harold was elected, William seized the throne.
William's was ultimately the most effective method. Edward may have
"supported" William as his successor but he could not make the final determination.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas