Talk:Hewitson
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Unreliable source
[edit]The source being cited represents 19th century antiquarianism, which was more about repeating family legend than authentic history. It is patently absurd to claim that this patronymic surname was brought with William the Conqueror in 1066, for two reasons. First, the pre-Conquest Normans didn't use surnames. They used bynames (not inherited), usually based on the land they held (these evolved into toponymic surnames), physical characteristics, or their societal role. Second, they didn't use patronyms that carried the -son ending because they didn't speak English, nor did they still speak their original Nordic language - they spoke Norman French. Their patronyms took the form fils X (son of X) which evolved into the Fitz X surnames, not X-son surnames. The X-son surnames in England arose in England in an English-speaking context, not among the French-speaking pre-Conquest Normans. It had to have come after the Conquest in an Anglo-Norman context. However, this was too pedestrian for the early antiquarians so they spun tales whereby every family came over with the Conqueror and fought at Hastings. It was not until late in the century that modern scholarly historical practice came to the fore. Anything before that time claiming ancestors who came with the Conqueror is inherently unreliable, and should not serve a the basis for any content. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Providing unreliable analysis and rejecting academic sources
[edit]"The second change to names brought about by the Normans was that name were passed on from father to son in a way rarely seen in Anglo-Saxon times."
Christopher Daniell (2013). From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England 1066–1215. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 9781136356971.
- First, denouncing and removing cited sources that were published originally in 1874 by London H.S. King & Company, is blatant vandalism. The CITED source from the collection of Oxford University gives clear information regarding Norman surnames and where many of them originated from. You're making assumptions and rejections of sources that have more academic validity than you are bringing to the table. This genealogical research is sourced as academic. Where your "representation" is opinion and subjective. You do not supersede or supplant this source from the book collections of Oxford University.
(First, the pre-Conquest Normans didn't use surnames.)
- Wrong, pre-conquest Normans DID use surnames, however this was not a widespread occurrence. Family names DID exist in Normandy.
Definition of surname: a hereditary name common to all members of a family, as distinct from a given name.
1 : an added name derived from occupation or other circumstance : nickname 2 : the name borne in common by members of a family
Merriam-Webster dictionary
Cited source: The Norman People and Their Existing Descendants in the British Dominions (1874) edition. An historical and genealogical work exploring the Norman people and their descendants in the United Kingdom, the United States and other territories once controlled by the British.
Few examples out of many showing otherwise...
Surname: Achard
"In 725 the Achards of Angoumois aided in the expulsion of the Saracens (Des-Bois). Achard was Castellan of Domfront, Normandy 1020. The family was seated in Passais, Normandy, and Achard, Castellan of Ambrieres, accompanied William in 1066. William Achard, his son, was constable of Domfront, 1091-1102."
Surname: Branche
"The Norman family of Branche, whose estates lay in the Caux, accompanied William de Warrenne to England 1066, where Ralph Brance recieved a grant of two knights' fees."
Surname Mohan
"This lordship in 1026 was part of the Ducal demesne, and was granted by Richard III, to his consort in that year. It was subsequently granted to the ancestors of this family, of whom William de Moion or Mohun accompanied the Conqueror 1066."
Surname Basset
"From its ancestor Bathet, or Baset, Duke of the Normans of the Loire 895, 905. Osmond Basset accompanied the Conqueror 1066."
(Their patronyms took the form fils X (son of X) which evolved into the Fitz X surnames, not X-son surnames)
- Their patronyms took many forms, "son" was still one of them. Cited book shows surnames with the "son" attached. You're claiming that Anglo-Norman development of a surname somehow rejects that a surname was originally brought over with the Norman invasion in 1066. In reality, this demonstrates the etymological development of a surname. Which is still academically correct to cite a surname being BROUGHT over in their original form. Changes to the surname over time do not stand in the way of this fact.
(Anything before that time claiming ancestors who came with the Conqueror is inherently unreliable, and should not serve a the basis for any content.)
- On whose academic authority? Yours? Or the genealogical research done in that last couple of hundreds of years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.6.170 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is ludicrous to call The Norman People an academic source. It was an anonymously published at the author's expense, and recapitulated all kinds of myths and fables. It is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, let alone an academic source. Among other things, modern scholars have condemned this work for its claims to the racial superiority of the Norman people. (See Siobhan Brownlie, Memory and Myths of the Norman Conquest). Agricolae (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a reliable source? State your authority that trumps a book that is still in Oxford Universities collection? You cited a book whose source of evidence for its findings are references to the Norman Conquest in contemporary BRITISH NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: 807 articles containing references to the Conquest were collected from ten British newspapers, covering a recent three year period. A second source of information is a quantitative survey for which a representative sample of 2000 UK residents was questioned.
A UK survey near and around 2013? Of 2000 people? Contemporary British newspaper articles in the modern era? This is your academic source? Let alone, your definition of a "reliable source as defined by Wikipedia" is not up to par.
"Modern scholars have condemned this work for its claim to the racial superiority of the Norman people."
Which scholars? Provide statements and sources for this, otherwise it can be dismissed.
Until a source specifically states that this genealogical ACADEMIC source is not true, it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.6.170 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The ridiculous argument that any source found in an academic library is and academic source is ludicrous - you will also find Lord of the Rings there, and that isn't academic history either. In the 19th century, these libraries' acquisitions came mostly from donations - anyone could get a copy of their book in an Oxford library simply by donating one. It is not any indication of quality.
- Nonetheless, you have set a condition for the material to be removed: that a source be provided that specifically states that The Norman People isn't true. One editor claiming ownership of a page and setting their own demands on content changes is not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but it is easy enough to provide such a source anyhow. J. Horace Round, "The Companions of the Conqueror" in The Monthly Review, vol. 3, p. 96 calls The Norman People "an anonymous work which the reader must be warned never to treat as trustworthy". There is is, just as you demanded. And just so you don't claim this is just one outlier, "Some dubious theses have been proposed in the past works of genealogy, such as in the book, The Norman People . . ." in Brownlie, Memory and Myths of the Norman Conquest; G. F. Warner, in a review in the contemporary The Academy said of its misuse of evidence, "The fallacy of such a test, as might be expected, is apparent on almost every page" and refers to the "naïve simplicity" of the arguments and its "many unsupported assertions". Another contemporary review in The Westminster Review mocks it, "and now the author of the Norman People sees a Norman aristocracy everywhere." So, I have more than satisfied the condition you set for the material to be removed. Agricolae (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)