BS: Norman yokes

Subject: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:57 AM

I'm off to buy the Observer, as the radio has just reported on their report that the usurping Normans have still got their purloined wealth. Apparently, people with Norman surnames are still likely to have greater wealth than those with names derived from trades.

My parents had noticed the Norman-ness of such people as the owners of the big house with the gift of the living of the church, who would turn up at church on mass when the time came to select the new rector, blocking the sightlines for everyone else (being noticably taller than the yokels), but were never seen at any other time.

Je pense que Cameron n'est pas Normande par son nomme, mais Osborne est peut-etre un des Normandes sanglantes. Both assume the Norman right to ride roughshod over us poor bloody Anglo-Saxons and Celts. A bas les Normandes.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Silas
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:06 AM

Well, there is a quite a body of evidence that Billy the Bastard was in fact the legitimate heir to the throne and it was Harold that was the usurper. A view with which I am inclined to agree acttually.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:28 AM

I don't think that Edward had in mind that the tanner's grandson would entirely replace the ruling class, strip out the use of English at the top of society, end the advanced scholarship of the English monasteries, reduce the status of women to chattels (not removed until the 19th century, still not right), introduce the sort of laws we now see in totalitarian regimes, etc.

William had no blood claim to the throne. He had not been approved by the Witanagemot. The evidence for his legitimacy is entirely from one side. Edward had no business playing silly games with the throne, no matter the problems caused by the Godwinssons. Harold may, by the way, have been descended from the royal houses of Denmark and Sweden, on the female side, if that matters. William had no royal blood.

And whatever his legitimacy, it does not make the continued presence of his hangers-on's descendants at the apex of society right. It isn't cream at the top.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Silas
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:34 AM

Well, Harolds only claim was that his sister was married to Eddie. Eddie hated the Godwinsons and I don't think that there is much dispute that Eddie promised Billy the throne in 1051.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:46 AM

The Camerons sometimes claim descent from the royal house of Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:52 AM

Only record of it in Normandy. And on his deathbed, the other way round. If he had done it publicly in '51, and left written records in England, I might go along with that. I don't think the Godwins could have wiped the archives that clean, as there were Normans with castles who could have kept documents for use when appropriate. (Actually, interesting point, in a time when people faked charters and so on, no-one has even come up with a fake will in William's favour- don't you think they would have?) But the legal situation was that the gift was not with the king, but with the Council, presumably on his advice.

Edward failed the country by not establishing a succession without any confusion. And we are still suffering the aftermath.

I was first taught history (aged 8) by a teacher surnamed Warren, who told us proudly that she was descended from de Warrene who came over with the conqueror. Next day, after going home excited by this info, I told her my dad would like his land in Sussex back, please. She didn't mind! I suspect, however, her name was more likely to refer to rabbit keeping. People like the du Sautoys, for instance have kept the spelling accurate, down two lines separate since the 11th century, and in a case where there would be confusion with the common throng, it is even more likely.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:01 AM

Our current royals probably have Harold in their family tree, as his daughters married into Scandinavian royal families, and the Danes, who have not been afflicted by many changes of dynasty, have married into our royals many times.

But so what. Ditto Cameron. There is no such thing as royal blood. and after six generations back, the number of individuals in a tree exceed the number of chromosomes, so there is as much likelihood of inheriting from any particular person that finding a molecule of the "active" material in a homeopathic pill when you get back to the 11th century. Even factoring in all the intermarrying.

Cameron and Osborne give me the impression of having picked up the idea that they are born to rule without having done the training for the job. Even if they did PPE at uni. I don't think they have any idea what they are doing, and should read Alfred the Great on the subject.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Silas
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:03 AM

Now, Alfred - now THERE was a REAL King.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:07 AM

My first wife's full maiden name was Valerie Winifred Grosvenor Godwin. Talk about a foot in both camps...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:12 AM

Silas, I totally agree. I think he would make a much better patron than Edward, who people have suggested as a replacement for George.

I like the story of him hearing a petition while washing his hands.

MtheGM - What a heritage! (Does she have any claim on Mayfair?)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Silas
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:14 AM

Well, you probably already know that Edmund was the original Patron - bring him back I say, at least he was English (of a fashion)

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:15 AM

'Ere - I know a Norman yolk:

This Norman walks into a Saxon bar, and says, "Pint of mead, please - and make it quick". The Saxon barman looks hard at the Norman, serves up the mead and says, "That'll be 34 groats please". The Norman pays up with a bad grace. After a bit the Saxon says, "We don't get many Normans in here." The Norman says, "At 34 groats a pint, it's no bleedin' wonder!"

(Gets coat)

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:28 AM

First reaction, tee hee. (Despite expectation of egg in it.)

Second reaction. Bit unrealistic. Based on the behaviour of the men of Eustace of Boulogne in Dover, in 50/51, the Norman would have wanted it free....

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Silas
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:31 AM

Will...........

Oh Will

That was terrible.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:33 AM

The Cameroons? African surely?

I don't know any Norman yolks but I had a mate who was a re-enactor, loved the fighting but mainly enjoyed the buffets after it was all over. He was only in it for the Saxon thugs and sausage rolls...

I'll get my groat.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:35 AM

Will...........

Oh Will

That was terrible.

I know. In the original version, the Norman was a gorilla. Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:07 AM

MtheGM - What a heritage! (Does she have any claim on Mayfair?)"
,,,,,
Well, Penny, that was my first wife, as I said, and she doesn't have any thing any more, because she has been dead 4 years; & my present, 2nd, wife's maiden name was Kelly!

But in fact Valerie was related to the Westminsters, but alas only illegitimately - her great-great-grandfather Richard Grosvenor, born about 1820, was an illegitimate son of one of the Westminster Grosvenors. So Cousin Gerald, as we always called him, would probably not have recognised much of a claim to Mayfair! But Grosvenor House, now!... Anyhow, as her parents were 2nd cousins, both descended from one of Richard's daughters [so two of Valerie's gt-grandmothers were sisters, both Miss Grosvenor before marriage], she had the heritage from both sides.

What I have never made out was where the "Godwin", which was her father's surname, came into it: could it really have been King Harold? Anyhow, if anyone had ever said his ancestors came over with Wm the Conqueror, she could always have replied that hers were there to meet him.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:14 AM

... and talking of inheritance, my initials are not entirely adventitious, because Louis B Mayer of MGM was my 1st-cousin-2ce-removed; i.e. my paternal grandfather's 1st cousin. Bit that, come to think of it, is not exactly Norman, is it!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:39 AM

Interesting thing, the family tree business. I've been doing mine for 30 years and believe, more and more, that it's a wise child that really knows its own parentage.

Consider: 2 parents; 4 grandparents; 8 g-grandparents; 16 g-g-grandparents; 32 g-g-ggrandparents. In my case this gets me back to around 1815 for the great-great-great-grandparents' birth years - which, in genealogical terms, is a snip.

Consider further: 64 g-g-g-g-grandparents; 128 g-g-g-g-g-grandparents... and so on...

Unless you know the origin of every single one of those ancestors and their ancestors - and so on for all of time back to dear old Auntie Mitochondrial Eve - then you don't really know your origins. You know a little, just a very little, of where you came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:41 AM

... and why is it spelt differently from mine? Why, because Americans can't spell, of course!

Just off. Bye-bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:42 AM

Of course, sods law would intro a crosspost from Will just as I wrote about Cousin Louis's name ... oh well

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:07 AM

Sorry about the timing, Michael - I am actually a devotee of the Law of Sod, but wouldn't have come between you and cousin Louis for the world! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:11 AM

Just another irrelevant thought...

Can we trace the ancestry of the eggs that we eat? Even as I speak you may be consuming spoonfuls of Norman yolks.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:57 PM

Here's the article.


The Darcy effect

It's more complex than the radio suggested. Lowly Smiths had achieved entry to Oxford in proportions the same as in the population as a whole by the 15th century, and in that proportion in the top 1% of wealth by the 17th. And the Normans had declined in numbers at some stages.

I thought the buffets were what he would get from the maces.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM

I'm not terribly interested in genealogy, and I wouldn't waste any sympathy on Anglo-Saxons, who were themselves usurpers. They came down the Rhine and took over Angleland, whereupun the earlier folk there packed their beakers and vamoosed into Wales and Cornwall.
I can't remember what Wales and Cornwall were called then.
Then again, the Celts immigrated into the country without documentation and chopped down most of the forests. At least Bill-the-Bastard planted one. :-)
Personally, I'd say that we would have better folksongs if the Germans and Vikings had stayed home.;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 03:13 AM

There's been some very interesting research over the last few years - based on DNA block studies, which indicates that - contrary to conventional historical accounts, the Celtic tribes were not spread throughout what we now call England and, consequently, were not "driven out" by the Romans or anyone else into the strongholds of Wales, etc. Celtic entry seems to have come into Britain through the South-West from Spain. The greater part of England was already populated by people of different stock who had very strong genetic links to peoples in Friesland and other Germanic tribes. The passing of the Romans opened up the routes for more interchange between existing tribal groups.

Bede and other chroniclers - who had agendas of their own - should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:43 AM

" 'E were offside, but what could they do?"

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:19 AM

My father discovered that we were descended from Warrene and that our origins were from France as land workers but as far as I know my grandfather was the only farmer that followed that, my father's brother and younger brother were more animal orientated possibly because of my grandfather's influence, one didn't own a farm but ran one and also a dog breeder and the younger brother was more involved with horses and horse riding. Perhaps my grandfather had the notion of working the land to be true to the 'roots' of the name.

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:34 AM

Graffiti found at Aust services (Severn bridge) soon after it opened: "Anglo-Saxons unite, throw out the Norman invaders".

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 09:03 AM

Consider: 2 parents; 4 grandparents; 8 g-grandparents; 16 g-g-grandparents; 32 g-g-ggrandparents. In my case this gets me back to around 1815 for the great-great-great-grandparents' birth years - which, in genealogical terms, is a snip.

Consider further: 64 g-g-g-g-grandparents; 128 g-g-g-g-g-grandparents... and so on...

Unless you know the origin of every single one of those ancestors and their ancestors - and so on for all of time back to dear old Auntie Mitochondrial Eve - then you don't really know your origins. You know a little, just a very little, of where you came from

I by-passed all that. I know from the Bible that eventually all those long lines of antecedants converge on Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth!

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

I just want to know one thing. Where does Bertie's ancestor, the Sieur de Wooster, fit in all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:47 AM

Bertie, tho not himself titled, was of a noble family ~~ most aunts & uncles were Lord or Lady Something. Presumably could all trace ancestry back to the Sieur de Wooster, who therefore cannot have spent his entire time galloping around on a carthorse at the Siege of Acre...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 12:16 AM

"I by-passed all that. I know from the Bible that eventually all those long lines of antecedants converge on Noah, Shem, Ham & Japheth! "

Not if you are descended from The Other People :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 11:11 AM

It isn't cream at the top.

Watch the sewage flow past and what floats to the top?

It happens!

Subject: RE: BS: Norman yokes
From: Penny S.
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:08 PM

Mr Red, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. The stuff you need to skim off soup, and jam, and ponds, but not unrelated...

Penny