 |
| About Us |
| Order Tracking |
| Gazette |
| Affiliates |
| Contact Us |
| Sale Product |
| Gift Ideas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
The Norman side of the argument
is not usually well presented because of a historical fixation on the need
for a Saxon origin. Anglo records are scanty and justified a rather ordinary
Saxon race with it's chronicles. Norman chronicles reveal much more, yet
most surname research is culled from the many overly simplistic books written
in the 19th century when the British class society reached its zenith.
Why? The answer is that was more important during this Victorian period
to keep the rank and file guessing, or to be misleading, than to examine
historic reasons for surname development, whether they be racial, demographic,
linguistic, economic or social.
Social Bias
In Victorian England a class society
prevailed, and was pursued to almost absurd and ridiculous extremes. Even
some of the Scottish chiefs abandoned their castles and built town residences
in London, joining the galas and festivities of the worldly rich and famous.
This was an era of great pomp and prestige.
Britannia ruled the waves and the search for surname identity followed class lines, perpetuating the establishment of the aristocracy, rank and position ? commoners were Saxons and Boozers (literally, having nothing to do with the Norman name Beuzie). In this environment, it is small wonder that authors and researchers of surname origins set out to be self-serving and Saxon.
The playing fields of Eton and Harrow were not very level ? they were tilted in favor of the ennobled, and the wannabe’s (Lord knows, there are a lot of us). Outside of the aristocracy or titled, surnames were more or less rationalized as a random gift to the commoner ? a coincidence, an assumption, or a wild misinterpretation of some ancient ritualistic activity. Surnames for the lower-class were explained with some very imaginative creations. The upper class, and anyone who aspired thereto, needed to distance themselves from the cannon fodder.
The major anomaly of course, was the aristocracy's great delight in proving a Norman heritage many of whom ironically claimed 800 year Norman pedigrees. It was difficult to explain that the Duke of Norfolk might have the surname Howard, along with his chauffeur in the same car and no discernible relationship at all. Not only difficult to explain, because probably both had a common Norman heritage from D'Acres, they didn't even look alike, mostly because observers preferred the differences rather than the similarities.
Socially it would be unthinkable that a commoner's name such as:
- Cartwright or Carter could be associated with Norman nobility (perish the thought); or
- Twopenny which was ascribed to a trade name for a money changer, would have come from the Norman Tupigne, or Magnapeigne -- Norman surnames which settled in England and Scotland; or,
- Taylor as a big Norman name, a hero at Hastings, Taillefer, instead of the obvious Saxon tradesperson?
Political Bias
In addition to the class thing,
other factors entered into the algorithm of surname analysis and research.
National psyche played a big role. France was an island republic enjoying
a less stratified, but bloodied democratic administration after the revolution
(along with her distant neighbor, the United States of America). Not wishing
to follow the example of France, Britain almost idolized the Victorian
monarchy, and wars were fought valiantly on her behalf, even, some say,
WWI, long after she was dead. What right minded commoner Brit would be
proud to have a surname in England that was anything but WASP, Scot or
Irish in origin? After 800 years feuding with those dastardly Frenchman
across the Channel, including a 'hundred year war', who wanted to have
a surname which could be remotely considered as being of Norman origin.
Yet the best assumption is that so many are.
Saxon
Bias
