Naming children
Naming children
2006-03-24 16:26:59
Something I've been idly wondering about: There seems to be a
definite pattern in the naming of the children of nobility in the
Moddle Ages. So much so that it looks like an established
tradition, in fact.
The first son is named after the current king
The first daughter is named after the father's mother
The second son is named after the father
The second daughter is named after the current queen
The third son is named after one of the father's brothers, or after
the father's father
The third daughter is named after the mother, or one of the father's
sisters
After that I can't see much of a pattern, unless the father works his
way through his brothers' names for his subsequent sons
The Duke and Cecily followed this pattern with their first son and
first daughter, then along comes Edward. Why the name Edward? Why
wasn't he called Richard, for his father? Is there something
particularly lucky about the name? (We speculated about this in the
case of the son Henry VIII finally got, Edward the VI, but his birth
was near St Edward's Day so that is more likely the connection.) Or
is it intended to emphasize the York descent from Edward III, thus
their royal pedigree and claim to the throne?
I tried associating the birth date or probable date of conception of
Edward (York's son) with the feast day of Edward the Confessor.
Doesn't work. Nor did St George work with Clarence. But I did
find a nice web site for saint's days:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm
Any thoughts?
Katy
definite pattern in the naming of the children of nobility in the
Moddle Ages. So much so that it looks like an established
tradition, in fact.
The first son is named after the current king
The first daughter is named after the father's mother
The second son is named after the father
The second daughter is named after the current queen
The third son is named after one of the father's brothers, or after
the father's father
The third daughter is named after the mother, or one of the father's
sisters
After that I can't see much of a pattern, unless the father works his
way through his brothers' names for his subsequent sons
The Duke and Cecily followed this pattern with their first son and
first daughter, then along comes Edward. Why the name Edward? Why
wasn't he called Richard, for his father? Is there something
particularly lucky about the name? (We speculated about this in the
case of the son Henry VIII finally got, Edward the VI, but his birth
was near St Edward's Day so that is more likely the connection.) Or
is it intended to emphasize the York descent from Edward III, thus
their royal pedigree and claim to the throne?
I tried associating the birth date or probable date of conception of
Edward (York's son) with the feast day of Edward the Confessor.
Doesn't work. Nor did St George work with Clarence. But I did
find a nice web site for saint's days:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm
Any thoughts?
Katy
Re: Naming children
2006-03-24 18:28:12
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Something I've been idly wondering about: There seems to be a
> definite pattern in the naming of the children of nobility in the
> Moddle Ages. So much so that it looks like an established
> tradition, in fact.
>
> The first son is named after the current king
>
> The first daughter is named after the father's mother
>
> The second son is named after the father
>
> The second daughter is named after the current queen
>
> The third son is named after one of the father's brothers, or after
> the father's father
>
> The third daughter is named after the mother, or one of the
father's
> sisters
>
> After that I can't see much of a pattern, unless the father works
his
> way through his brothers' names for his subsequent sons
>
>
> The Duke and Cecily followed this pattern with their first son and
> first daughter, then along comes Edward. Why the name Edward? Why
> wasn't he called Richard, for his father? Is there something
> particularly lucky about the name? (We speculated about this in the
> case of the son Henry VIII finally got, Edward the VI, but his
birth
> was near St Edward's Day so that is more likely the connection.) Or
> is it intended to emphasize the York descent from Edward III, thus
> their royal pedigree and claim to the throne?
>
> I tried associating the birth date or probable date of conception
of
> Edward (York's son) with the feast day of Edward the Confessor.
> Doesn't work. Nor did St George work with Clarence. But I did
> find a nice web site for saint's days:
>
> http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Katy
I think a lot of them also named an early son for the paternal
grandfather. So York's problem was that his name was the same as his
father's, and his father had been executed for treason. I see it as a
bit of a defiant statement when he finally used "Richard" in 1452
after he's been banished to his lands.
Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Something I've been idly wondering about: There seems to be a
> definite pattern in the naming of the children of nobility in the
> Moddle Ages. So much so that it looks like an established
> tradition, in fact.
>
> The first son is named after the current king
>
> The first daughter is named after the father's mother
>
> The second son is named after the father
>
> The second daughter is named after the current queen
>
> The third son is named after one of the father's brothers, or after
> the father's father
>
> The third daughter is named after the mother, or one of the
father's
> sisters
>
> After that I can't see much of a pattern, unless the father works
his
> way through his brothers' names for his subsequent sons
>
>
> The Duke and Cecily followed this pattern with their first son and
> first daughter, then along comes Edward. Why the name Edward? Why
> wasn't he called Richard, for his father? Is there something
> particularly lucky about the name? (We speculated about this in the
> case of the son Henry VIII finally got, Edward the VI, but his
birth
> was near St Edward's Day so that is more likely the connection.) Or
> is it intended to emphasize the York descent from Edward III, thus
> their royal pedigree and claim to the throne?
>
> I tried associating the birth date or probable date of conception
of
> Edward (York's son) with the feast day of Edward the Confessor.
> Doesn't work. Nor did St George work with Clarence. But I did
> find a nice web site for saint's days:
>
> http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Katy
I think a lot of them also named an early son for the paternal
grandfather. So York's problem was that his name was the same as his
father's, and his father had been executed for treason. I see it as a
bit of a defiant statement when he finally used "Richard" in 1452
after he's been banished to his lands.
Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
Re: Naming children
2006-03-24 19:02:29
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
savior of England?
And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
savior of England?
And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
Katy
Re: Naming children
2006-03-25 10:20:55
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
system,
> > Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
second
> > Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
has us
> > believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> > Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
I don't exactly know why George, but I think St George was probably
in mind. Cecily did have a brother George, but he was hardly
inspiring. And why no Ralph? Had York not actually liked Westmorland?
There is a slight air of desperation about York's long avoidance of
his own and his father's names, isn't there?
I'd always had it in my head that Edward IV did have a Jacquetta
amongst his daughters, but on checking it would appear that he
didn't. My suspicion is that Cecily had wanted her name for the first
daughter (given tht she thought very little of the new queen), and
that Edward deliberately spited her the second time round but made
out he was doing it because of religious devotion - perhaps there was
a row between the grannies as to which of their names should be used
first, and he decided neither of them would. It may have been a toss-
up third time round - I seem to recall that both the grandmothers
stood gomother to Princess Cecily. Perhaps then, after that
unfortunate business with Jacquetta being accused of witchcraft, it
was felt best to overlook her. The only other daughter born whilst
Jacquetta was still alive, in any case, was Margaret, and there was
an obvious political imperative at that time to thank Edward's sister
for her help in regaining him his throne.
I've often wondered about all the Alexanders in Scotland - I bet
there's a story to it. All sorts of strange stories were told about
Alexander the Great in the Middle Ages. And the Scots monarchy also
used the name David.
I think the English ruling classes, though, were probably a bit
defensive about St David. The Welsh had a very valid historical
argument for having an archbishopric of St Davids completely
independent of and, indeed, superior to Canterbury. They never really
let that one drop.
Marie
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
system,
> > Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
second
> > Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
has us
> > believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> > Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
I don't exactly know why George, but I think St George was probably
in mind. Cecily did have a brother George, but he was hardly
inspiring. And why no Ralph? Had York not actually liked Westmorland?
There is a slight air of desperation about York's long avoidance of
his own and his father's names, isn't there?
I'd always had it in my head that Edward IV did have a Jacquetta
amongst his daughters, but on checking it would appear that he
didn't. My suspicion is that Cecily had wanted her name for the first
daughter (given tht she thought very little of the new queen), and
that Edward deliberately spited her the second time round but made
out he was doing it because of religious devotion - perhaps there was
a row between the grannies as to which of their names should be used
first, and he decided neither of them would. It may have been a toss-
up third time round - I seem to recall that both the grandmothers
stood gomother to Princess Cecily. Perhaps then, after that
unfortunate business with Jacquetta being accused of witchcraft, it
was felt best to overlook her. The only other daughter born whilst
Jacquetta was still alive, in any case, was Margaret, and there was
an obvious political imperative at that time to thank Edward's sister
for her help in regaining him his throne.
I've often wondered about all the Alexanders in Scotland - I bet
there's a story to it. All sorts of strange stories were told about
Alexander the Great in the Middle Ages. And the Scots monarchy also
used the name David.
I think the English ruling classes, though, were probably a bit
defensive about St David. The Welsh had a very valid historical
argument for having an archbishopric of St Davids completely
independent of and, indeed, superior to Canterbury. They never really
let that one drop.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-25 14:34:13
Although George Neville may not have amounted to much in terms of
historical interest, he may have still been a favourite brother.Were he
and Cecily close in age? I can't seem to find a birth date for George.
Also, there was a passel (albeit slight) of Georges Neville during this
time.
My guess is that the era was still in the throes of the St. George craze
spawned during the time of Edward III. For some reason, St. George was
the English icon for all things chivalric. I'm surprised that the name
didn't catch on to a greater extent than it did.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
> > Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
> > Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
> > believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> > Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
historical interest, he may have still been a favourite brother.Were he
and Cecily close in age? I can't seem to find a birth date for George.
Also, there was a passel (albeit slight) of Georges Neville during this
time.
My guess is that the era was still in the throes of the St. George craze
spawned during the time of Edward III. For some reason, St. George was
the English icon for all things chivalric. I'm surprised that the name
didn't catch on to a greater extent than it did.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
> > Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
> > Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
> > believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> > Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-26 23:27:23
Jacquetta de St Pol was memoralised by her daughter Jacquetta who married
John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord Stanley
in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence - though
both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was particularly
strong in our period.
Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a particular
Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the virgin - but
not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the name.
----- Original Message -----
From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Naming children
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
>>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
>> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
>> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
>> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
>> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord Stanley
in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence - though
both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was particularly
strong in our period.
Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a particular
Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the virgin - but
not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the name.
----- Original Message -----
From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Naming children
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
>>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your system,
>> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his second
>> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones has us
>> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
>> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>
>
>
>
> Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the dragon-
> slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be the
> savior of England?
>
> And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>
> And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those Alexanders?
>
> And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-27 19:28:08
--- In , "tim dale"
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>
> Jacquetta de St Pol was memoralised by her daughter Jacquetta who
married
> John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord
Stanley
> in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
>
> George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence -
though
> both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was
particularly
> strong in our period.
>
> Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a
particular
> Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the
virgin - but
> not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the
name.
Ah, well I did have a Catholic upbringing, and our church was
dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, so there was an annual
procession with all the girls in white dresses & veils scattering
rose petals - very nice, actually.
The date is August 15th, so baby Mary was over two weeks off for
that. August 1st was actually an important date in its own right -
Lammas and also the feast of St Peter ad Vincula. Perhaps if they'd
been thinking of the calendar they'd have called her Petronella.
I don't really feel, myself, that being 15 days short of the feast of
the Assumption would have been an adequate reason to have called the
child Mary rather than Cecily - an excuse, perhaps.
Marie
PS. Welcome, Lotti! Hope you enjoy the banter.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Naming children
>
>
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@> wrote:
> >>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
system,
> >> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
second
> >> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
has us
> >> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> >> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
dragon-
> > slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
the
> > savior of England?
> >
> > And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> > David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
> >
> > And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
Alexanders?
> >
> > And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> > memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
> >
> >
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
<tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>
> Jacquetta de St Pol was memoralised by her daughter Jacquetta who
married
> John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord
Stanley
> in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
>
> George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence -
though
> both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was
particularly
> strong in our period.
>
> Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a
particular
> Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the
virgin - but
> not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the
name.
Ah, well I did have a Catholic upbringing, and our church was
dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, so there was an annual
procession with all the girls in white dresses & veils scattering
rose petals - very nice, actually.
The date is August 15th, so baby Mary was over two weeks off for
that. August 1st was actually an important date in its own right -
Lammas and also the feast of St Peter ad Vincula. Perhaps if they'd
been thinking of the calendar they'd have called her Petronella.
I don't really feel, myself, that being 15 days short of the feast of
the Assumption would have been an adequate reason to have called the
child Mary rather than Cecily - an excuse, perhaps.
Marie
PS. Welcome, Lotti! Hope you enjoy the banter.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Naming children
>
>
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@> wrote:
> >>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
system,
> >> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
second
> >> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
has us
> >> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
> >> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
dragon-
> > slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
the
> > savior of England?
> >
> > And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
> > David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
> >
> > And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
Alexanders?
> >
> > And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
> > memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
> >
> >
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-28 10:24:00
Going back to the York boys, my feeling is that Edward was named after York's uncle, Edward, Duke of York, from whom he inherited his dukedom, and Edmund after York's grandfather, Edmund, Duke of York. George sems to have been a family name among the Nevilles.
Ann
Ann
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-28 15:39:24
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Going back to the York boys, my feeling is that Edward was named
after York's uncle, Edward, Duke of York, from whom he inherited his
dukedom, and Edmund after York's grandfather, Edmund, Duke of York.
George sems to have been a family name among the Nevilles.
That makes sense.
Katy
wrote:
>
> Going back to the York boys, my feeling is that Edward was named
after York's uncle, Edward, Duke of York, from whom he inherited his
dukedom, and Edmund after York's grandfather, Edmund, Duke of York.
George sems to have been a family name among the Nevilles.
That makes sense.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Naming children
2006-03-29 23:13:29
Out of interest Marie where did you get the !st of August date from Thompson
says the 11th whilst most of my other references just give august with no
date?
Just a query personally i suspect that medieval parents were not that much
different from modern ones and named their children as they wished with the
odd nod to close friends and relatives as the mood took them..
tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Naming children
> --- In , "tim dale"
> <tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Jacquetta de St Pol was memoralised by her daughter Jacquetta who
> married
>> John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord
> Stanley
>> in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
>>
>> George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence -
> though
>> both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was
> particularly
>> strong in our period.
>>
>> Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a
> particular
>> Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the
> virgin - but
>> not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the
> name.
>
> Ah, well I did have a Catholic upbringing, and our church was
> dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, so there was an annual
> procession with all the girls in white dresses & veils scattering
> rose petals - very nice, actually.
> The date is August 15th, so baby Mary was over two weeks off for
> that. August 1st was actually an important date in its own right -
> Lammas and also the feast of St Peter ad Vincula. Perhaps if they'd
> been thinking of the calendar they'd have called her Petronella.
>
> I don't really feel, myself, that being 15 days short of the feast of
> the Assumption would have been an adequate reason to have called the
> child Mary rather than Cecily - an excuse, perhaps.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Welcome, Lotti! Hope you enjoy the banter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Naming children
>>
>>
>> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>> > <marie@> wrote:
>> >>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
> system,
>> >> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
> second
>> >> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
> has us
>> >> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
>> >> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
> dragon-
>> > slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
> the
>> > savior of England?
>> >
>> > And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
>> > David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>> >
>> > And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
> Alexanders?
>> >
>> > And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
>> > memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Katy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
says the 11th whilst most of my other references just give august with no
date?
Just a query personally i suspect that medieval parents were not that much
different from modern ones and named their children as they wished with the
odd nod to close friends and relatives as the mood took them..
tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Naming children
> --- In , "tim dale"
> <tmc_dale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Jacquetta de St Pol was memoralised by her daughter Jacquetta who
> married
>> John Lord Strange - they had one child Joan who married George Lord
> Stanley
>> in about 1480 there eldest son was Thomas 2nd Earl of Derby.
>>
>> George was probably named for his uncle George Duke of Clarence -
> though
>> both probably reflect the growing cult of St George which was
> particularly
>> strong in our period.
>>
>> Mary was born in August and that would put her pretty near a
> particular
>> Marian feast - i think its the feast of the assumption of the
> virgin - but
>> not being Catholic I ain't too sure. However it would explain the
> name.
>
> Ah, well I did have a Catholic upbringing, and our church was
> dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, so there was an annual
> procession with all the girls in white dresses & veils scattering
> rose petals - very nice, actually.
> The date is August 15th, so baby Mary was over two weeks off for
> that. August 1st was actually an important date in its own right -
> Lammas and also the feast of St Peter ad Vincula. Perhaps if they'd
> been thinking of the calendar they'd have called her Petronella.
>
> I don't really feel, myself, that being 15 days short of the feast of
> the Assumption would have been an adequate reason to have called the
> child Mary rather than Cecily - an excuse, perhaps.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Welcome, Lotti! Hope you enjoy the banter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "oregonkaty" <[email protected]>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Naming children
>>
>>
>> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>> > <marie@> wrote:
>> >>> Another interesting observation is that, according to your
> system,
>> >> Edward IV's first daughter should have been Cecily, and his
> second
>> >> Elizabeth. In fact, Cecily was only number 3, just after Jones
> has us
>> >> believe the old lady had a major bust-up with Edward.
>> >> Why Mary for the second daughter rather than one of the grandmas?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ummm...dunno. Why George, a name out of the blue? For the
> dragon-
>> > slayer, to emphasize that the Duke of York would/should/could be
> the
>> > savior of England?
>> >
>> > And why didn't any monarch of that era, that I know of, name a son
>> > David, to show solidarity with and dominion over Wales?
>> >
>> > And where did the Scots (who did use David) get all those
> Alexanders?
>> >
>> > And did Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, get
>> > memorialized by the names of any of her 16 children?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Katy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Naming children
2006-03-30 19:11:30
Don't forget that in addition to saint's days and family naming
patterns it's worth looking at godparents' names.
Joan, first daughter, was probably named after her mother's
mother, Joan Beaufort.
Anne, second daughter, was probably named after her father's
mother, Anne Mortimer.
> > 1 Richard Plantagenet 1411 - 1460
> > .. +Cecily Neville 1415 - 1495
> > ..........2 Joan Plantagenet 1438-1438
> > ......... 2 Anne Plantagenet 1439 - 1475/6
> > ......... 2 Henry Plantagenet 1440/41 - died young
> > ......... 2 Edward IV Plantagenet 1442 - 1483
> > ......... 2 Edmund Plantagenet 1443 - 1460
> > ......... 2 Elizabeth Plantagenet 1443 - 1540
> > ......... 2 Margaret Plantagenet 1446 - 1503
> > ......... 2 William Plantagenet 1447 - died young
> > ......... 2 John Plantagenet 1448 - died young
> > ......... 2 George Plantagenet 1449 - 1477/78
> > ......... 2 Thomas Plantagenet 1451 - died young
> > ......... 2 Richard III Plantagenet 1452 - 1485
> > ......... 2 Ursula Plantagenet 1455 - died young
L.P.H.,
Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
"I have the Professor to thank for that. Initially his lordship was of
the opinion that another season in the Valley would be a waste of time,
but when I told him that Professor Emerson had offered to take over the
concession and my services, Carnarvon had second thoughts."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
patterns it's worth looking at godparents' names.
Joan, first daughter, was probably named after her mother's
mother, Joan Beaufort.
Anne, second daughter, was probably named after her father's
mother, Anne Mortimer.
> > 1 Richard Plantagenet 1411 - 1460
> > .. +Cecily Neville 1415 - 1495
> > ..........2 Joan Plantagenet 1438-1438
> > ......... 2 Anne Plantagenet 1439 - 1475/6
> > ......... 2 Henry Plantagenet 1440/41 - died young
> > ......... 2 Edward IV Plantagenet 1442 - 1483
> > ......... 2 Edmund Plantagenet 1443 - 1460
> > ......... 2 Elizabeth Plantagenet 1443 - 1540
> > ......... 2 Margaret Plantagenet 1446 - 1503
> > ......... 2 William Plantagenet 1447 - died young
> > ......... 2 John Plantagenet 1448 - died young
> > ......... 2 George Plantagenet 1449 - 1477/78
> > ......... 2 Thomas Plantagenet 1451 - died young
> > ......... 2 Richard III Plantagenet 1452 - 1485
> > ......... 2 Ursula Plantagenet 1455 - died young
L.P.H.,
Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
"I have the Professor to thank for that. Initially his lordship was of
the opinion that another season in the Valley would be a waste of time,
but when I told him that Professor Emerson had offered to take over the
concession and my services, Carnarvon had second thoughts."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.