LNAB dilemma [closed]

Question

Since we should use the name that was known at the time the person was living ... should I change his LNAB to Guimare?

He took his mother's name as an identifier and Guimare anglicized is Wimarc/Wimarce/Wymarch. I also do not want to use ''fitz'' as a gender qualifier in the LNAB because he should be filio/filius/fillii Wymarcha (if I am recalling the "naming" translation for son of and daughter of in this geography & era correctly).

side note: which is why I really do not like using gender qualifiers in LNAB - to be correct one needs to know the geographic area AND the correct usage of the era. 

 

edit: 

Regarding LNAB and http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Name_Fields_for_European_Aristocrats

 

First, the Last Name of the person as known during his/her lifetime should be determined. In this instance, I can find no sources (referencing legal and ecclesiastical documents reproduced in books— see links below) that this person used fitz during his lifetime. This was added to later literature and "fitz Wimarc" became accepted as a standard in the 1800's. In some sources found in the 1900's & later, "fitzWimarc" (as one word)  is used, but is not common. (An internet search of "FitzWimarc" produces a handful of links. The only link dealing with Robert is a Wikipedia entry, which produces no source for the usage of "FitzWimarc" as a last name.)

 

To follow the Naming Style set forth by Wikitree - #6: the LNAB should be what was "known" at the time of birth or during the person's lifetime. Sources do show how this person was known during his lifetime.

 

Therefore, the addendums (#6.a.1-3) do not come into play.  This is a case of "If not x, then go to y."  Here, we know x, so y is not needed. 

 

Addressing the particular addendum of #6.a.3 - regarding the usage of "fitz" falls under #7, the CLN, and should be the modern usage. In all but a few cases, the modern usage is "Fitz Wimarc" and "FitzWimarc" should be listed in "other"

----

In A history of England under the Anglo-Saxon kings, Volume 2,  By Johann Martin Lappenberg, Elise C. Otté, for a charter issued by Edward the Confessor — no gender qualifier is used.

http://bit.ly/1t7ovIz

 

here is a link to ''The English Language" that has his name in a legal document - no gender qualifier is used.

 

http://bit.ly/1BmZoae

 

Which is one of the main reasons I am adverse to using gender qualifiers in the LNAB - to abide by Wikitree guidelines it must not be spaced, to use the naming as it was during the person's lifetime there must be a space.

 

Latin was used for legal documents at this time - to remain true to the name of the person at the time he lived, adding ''fitz'' to the LNAB is counter to using the name as he was known during his lifetime.  A gender qualifier should be placed in CLN since that is how he is known in modern times, not during his lifetime.  

 

Answer 1

Hi Michelle,

The person to whom you are referring was known as Robert FitzWimarc.  We have duplicates profiles for him, the one you noted and the one here:  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/FitzWimarc-2

The terms 'filius' and 'filii' are Latin.  We don't use their Latin names.  One of the references you're using is the list of Domesday names in Latin, with his name as 'Rotberti filii witmarce', but this isn't how we show him.

We wouldn't use Wymarche as you have on his profile; that was his mother's given (first) name.

As to fitz, EuroAristos project members decided that Fitz- names should be written with mid-caps with no space between 'Fitz' and the name, i.e. FitzWimarc.

FYI, I added the 'euroaristo' tag to your post.  Everyone needs to remember to tag posts such as these with euroaristo in order for project members to be notified of them and have a chance to comment.

Answer 2

In A history of England under the Anglo-Saxon kings, Volume 2,  By Johann Martin Lappenberg, Elise C. Otté, for a charter issued by Edward the Confessor — no gender qualifier is used.

http://bit.ly/1t7ovIz

 

here is a link to ''The English Language" that has his name in a legal document - no gender qualifier is used.

 

http://bit.ly/1BmZoae

 

Which is one of the main reasons I am adverse to using gender qualifiers in the LNAB - to abide by Wikitree guidelines it must not be spaced, to use the naming as it was during the person's lifetime there must be a space.

 

Latin was used for legal documents at this time - to remain true to the name of the person at the time he lived, to add ''fitz'' to the LNAB goes counter to using the name as he was known during his lifetime.  A gender qualifier should be placed in CLN since that is how he is known in modern times, not during his lifetime.  

Answer 3

I think in this time-period (and even for the next 700 years or more) it is impossible to really call someone by the 'name they were known by' because we don't know.  The original documents that historians/genealogists use could have a different spelling of the name from one document to the next.

It's not even necessarily the name they called themselves, it's the name that the scribe or clerk or monk heard and wrote down, according to how they thought it should be spelled.  There were no or very few standardised dictionaries and in this time period it was usually in Latin and not the vernacular language.

The 'ordinary' Wikitree naming standards do state that in this case "we recommend choosing the spelling that is most recognizable to modern descendants, e.g. "Winslow" rather than "Wynslow" or "Winslowe."

 

Comments

I agree on the 'most recognized' - and it should be in the Current Last Name field, since it is used now.

 

This particular profile didn't have the last name 'FitzWimarc' during the time he lived, it's a modern name. The legal and/or ecclestical documents (two of these are included in my comment above) that included his name used  "Robert/Roberd Wimarche" without 'fitz' - so we do have a record of how this person was known "during his lifetime" and I believe we should make an attempt to remain true to that name in the profile created on Wikitree. 

---

With a bit of research, I located information on Robert in "Domesday People: Domesday Book" by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, 1999, Boydell & Brewer Ltd., as well as mention/discussion on soc.genealogy.medieval back in 2001.  Keats-Rohan interprets evidence from the "Vita Aedwardi Regis" and William of Poitiers as implying that Robert's mother was a noble Norman woman related to the ducal house. She gives a probable identification with a nun at the abbey of Montivilliers, near Le Havre, called Vuimardis/Wimardis, widow of Ansfrid the steward, whose gift to the house was attested by a Robert. She makes a further identification with Robert de Moyaux, who at the request of his mother gave the same house land that had been held by Ansfrid, and says the same Robert is known as the father of a nun at St Leger des Preaux.

The entry for "Suen De Exssessa" is identified as son of Robert fitz Wimarc  "(q.v. identified here and in the introduction as Robert de Moyaux, Calvados, cant. Lisieux-1)", whom he succeeded between about 1075 and 1086.

---

Great! 

I do concede, that the anglicised form Wimarc should be the LNAB instead of Wymarche or Guimare.  I just have a problem with it being combined as one word "FitzWimarc" (Have tried to explain my thought process in the "edit" of my original posting of this question in G2G) 

Can we compromise and use Wimarc as LNAB and add "Fitz Wimarc" or "FitzWimarc" as CLN, with the unused one being placed in Other? 

 

 

---

I'm surprised we haven't had more input on this topic!  Thank you, Michelle, for doing some good research, which got me to do more research also!  We need to merge the two duplicate profiles.  Let's use Wimarc as LNAB, FitzWimarc would be the proper CLN, and fitz Wimarc and de Moyaux would be other last names.

FitzWimarc-2 is PPP, so I will unprotect it for the merge, then we can place the designation on the merged profiles.

---

Sounds good to me - much of the research for this person was incidental to trying to find sources for ''Scrob/Scrobi''