English Surnames: Their Sources and SignificationsBardsley, Charles Wareing Endell
History
English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations
Bardsley, Charles Wareing Endell
Names, English; Names, Personal -- English
The great race for popularity since Domesday record has ever been that
between ‘William’ and ‘John.’ In the age immediately following the
Conquest ‘William’ decidedly held the supremacy. This is naturally
accounted for by its royal associations. There was, indeed, a ‘John’ in
the same line of descent as the Bastard from Richard I. of Normandy, but
the name seems to have been forgotten, or passed by unheeded, till it
was revived again five generations later in ‘John Lackland.’ ‘William’
enjoyed better auspices. It was the name of the founder of the new
monarchy. It was the name of his immediate successor. Whatever the
character of these two kings, such a conjunction could not but have its
weight upon the especially Norman element in the kingdom. We find in
Domesday that while there are 68 ‘Williams,’ 48 ‘Roberts,’ and 28
‘Walters,’ there are only 10 ‘Johns.’ A century later than this,
‘William’ must still have claimed precedence among the nobility at
least, as is proved by a statement of Robert Montensis. He says, that at
a festival held in the court of Henry II., in 1173, Sir William St. John
and Sir William Fitz-Hamon, especial officers, had commanded that none
but those of the name of ‘William’ should dine in the Great Chamber with
them, and were, therefore, accompanied by one hundred and twenty
‘Williams,’ all knights. By the time of Edward I. this disproportion had
become less marked. In a list of names connected with the county of
Wiltshire in that reign, we find, out of a total of 588 decipherable
names (for the record is somewhat damaged), 92 ‘Williams’ to 88 ‘Johns,’
while ‘Richard’ is credited with 55; ‘Robert,’ 48; ‘Roger,’ 23; and
‘Geoffrey,’ ‘Ralph,’ and ‘Peter,’ each 16 names. This denotes clearly
that a considerable change had taken place in the popular estimation of
these two appellations. Within a century after this, however, ‘John’ had
evidently gained the supremacy. In 1347, we find that out of 133 Common
Councilmen for London town first convened, 35 were ‘Johns,’ the next
highest being 17 under the head of ‘William,’ 15 under ‘Thomas,’ which
now, for obvious reasons we will mention hereafter, had suddenly sprung
into notoriety; 10 under ‘Richard,’ 9 under ‘Henry,’ 8 under ‘Robert,’
and so on; ending with one each for ‘Laurence,’ ‘Reynald,’ ‘Andrew,’
‘Alan,’ ‘Giles,’ ‘Gilbert,’ and ‘Peter.’ A still greater disproportion
is found forty years later; for in 1385, the Guild of St. George, at
Norwich, out of a total of 376 names, possessed 128 ‘Johns’ to 47
‘Williams’ and 41 ‘Thomases.’[28] From this period, despite the hatred
that was felt for Lackland, ‘John’ kept the precedence it had won, and
to this circumstance the nation owes the sobriquet it now generally
receives, that of ‘John Bull.’ Long ago, however, under the offensive
title of ‘Jean Gotdam,’ we had become known as a people given to strange
and unpleasant oaths. It is interesting to trace the way in which
‘William’ has again recovered itself in later days.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account