LNAB for children of Miles of Gloucester

Question

I've just been made aware that the children of Miles of Gloucester have four variants in LNABs:  Gloucester, Pitres, FitzMiles and FitzWalter (probably attached to the wrong father -- gotta check that one out!).  We need to reach a consensus and then give them all the same LNAB.

In my personal database, I have most of them as 'of Hereford' (which on here would be LNAB of Hereford).

What do my fellow medieval genealogists think we should use?

Comments

With no one else commenting on this family, I still haven't done anything with changing the LNABs for the children.  In my personal database, I have most of the children as 'of Hereford', with Roger being 'FitzMiles'.  I really would like a consensus on what to do...

---

I've changed my mind from June, and I think maybe FitzMiles might be best.  About half of the children have that already as their LNAB.

Answer 1

The Complete Peerage, 2nd ed. Vol 5, calls Miles, eldest son, Roger, 'of Gloucester' or 'FitzMiles' but calls 3 of the other sons 'of Hereford'.  I notice in the bio for Lucy, Douglas Richardson apparently calls her Lucy of Hereford.

I think Hereford might be the best option.

Answer 2

Miles was only Earl of Hereford for the last 2-3 years of his life, so most if not all of his children were born before then.  What other writers call people might not be relevant to WikiTree's rules.

Comments

That's true, RJ.  But we need to remember that we do need to take into consideration what name most people think of someone or refer to someone as, since otherwise we end up with lots of duplicates.  Perhaps 'Gloucester' would be a good LNAB, and then 'of Hereford' as a CLN or OLN for the children?  What do you guys think, and is there anyone else out there besides the three of us with an opinion?!  ;)

Answer 3

What about, FitzWalter, (Miles FitzWalter), for father and children, then 'Of Gloucester' for father, and 'Of Hereford' for the children in CLN?

 

* Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson Vol. I. p. 402:  Margaret (or Margery) Of Hereford, daughter of Miles of Gloucester (also known as Miles Fitz Walter, 1st Earl of Hereford. 

* Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson Vol. I. p. 415:  Eleanor, was co-heiress in 1230 to her father, by which she inherited the manor of Denford, Berkshire, as well as 1/4th share of a 1/3rd share of the barony of Miles of Gloucester. 

* Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson Vol. II. p. 82:  Eve, was co-heiress in 1230 to her father, by which she inherited a 1/4th share of a 1/3rd share of the barony of Miles of Gloucester. 

* Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richarson Vol. II. p. 645:  Margaret (or Margery) daughter of Miles of Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, Constable of Glioucester. 

Name Fields for European Aristocrats

7. CURRENT LAST NAME: For nobility, the country, dukedom, etc., may be used here, with a preposition, as for example, of England or de León.

Answer 4

Fitz is a patronymic meaning 'son of'. Miles' father was Walter so he was known as Miles fitz Walter as well as Miles of Gloucester. It would be completely incorrect to call his children fitz Walter! The sons should be fitz Miles while the daughters can be known by the most prestigious title held by their father (in this case Earl of Hereford).

I take the point that they were not "of Hereford" at birth but you can't apply LNAB rules rigidly to a situation where last names didn't really exist.

Comments

Fitz names do obviously sometimes become heritable surnames.

I suppose the point you are making is about second names which were only used for one person or one generation. Indeed converting these into heritable surnames (or implying it) seems to be something to avoid.

Personally I do not really think we can avoid medieval families sometimes showing a new second name every generation. The Wikitree demand that we must have a family name and then use it English style for a long male line, does create more confusion than it avoids in my humble opinion.