Since before the last century, historians have standardized given
> names to avoid utter confusion.
The last century is this one. Was a vote taken in 2001? I must have missed
it. If it was the previous century, what happened in 1901?
Confusion does not seem to have been reduced, since I often see pages and
pages of debate about the same person here. Names with spellings used at
the
time would seem to indicate LESS confusion since some could be eliminated
from thousands of names spelled exactly the same way. Must I blame
historians for the sheer number of John Smiths?
Were there no countries earlier in the British Isles, since we now must
use
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The Republic of Ireland to match
the
modern forms of ancient names? (sorry ... feeling grumpy today)
Likewise the Latin forms of these
> names are avoided by historians, such as Henricus, Richardus,
> Robertus, Gullielmus. Ditto Matilda, Cecilia, Maria, Elizabetha,
> Isabella, Agneta, etc..
Poor Matilda Ditto --- twice avoided --- the first when the written out
"Ditto" referred to some previous name in a passenger list, now lost.
Historians have reduced any number of surnames to merely "Ditto".
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?surname=ditto&given=matilda
Her parents appear to be Henry Ditto and Nancy Ann Bartlett.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, a descendant of the Holand family
Why not Holland then, the modern form of the surname?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: SIR ROBERT HOLLAND
> On May 6, 4:50 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> < The Robert who married Maud Zouche was the son of Robert Holand of
> < Upholland and Elizabeth Samlesbury. Maud/Matilda are used
> < interchangeably.
>
> Maud is the modern standardized form of this given name. The
> vernacular forms of this name in the medieval time period were Maud,
> Maude, Maulde, Mahaud, Mahaut, Mahault, etc., but never Matilda.
> Rather, Matilda is merely the Latin form of this name which you will
> find in English medieval records which are written in Latin. The
> vernacular forms are completely different.
>
> Thus, one set of forms are the vernacula forms. The other (Matilda)
> is the Latin form. The two sets of forms are not interchangeable,
> any more than Henricus and Henrici (Latin forms) are interchangeable
> with Henry (the vernacular form).
>
> Since before the last century, historians have standardized given
> names to avoid utter confusion. Hence we have Henry, Richard, Robert,
> William, etc. in most modern historical accounts, rather than Henrye,
> Rycharde, Robarte, and Willyam. Likewise the Latin forms of these
> names are avoided by historians, such as Henricus, Richardus,
> Robertus, Gullielmus. Ditto Matilda, Cecilia, Maria, Elizabetha,
> Isabella, Agneta, etc..
>
> I should add that I didn't invent this convention, but I do agree with
> it.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, a descendant of the Holand family
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>
>
|
