What's the site-wide policy for use of "de" for Anglo-Norman families? I'm sure this has come up a zillion times, and there's a definitive policy page somewhere. I can't find it.
I will say it's bothersome -- tiresome, eye-boring -- to see both forms included in peoples' names "(de Foo) formerly Foo" and especially with the almost-always-wrong "formerly" word stuffed in there.
That only makes sense if the individual himself (or his living father) formally changed his name, for the various reasons. In those cases it ought to "de X formerly Y" and with no parenthesis, as we do maiden names, right?
If I were in some conference room with the folks who own this policy, I'd humbly suggest:
1. Before some year TBD (by policy, not fact) this "de" doesn't exist. When, for England?
2. After that year, it does, and should be used broadly for all Anglo-Norman families where it's supported by contemporary sources or common practice in that era. We could probably inherit some authoritative external guidance on this.
3. At some point (year TBD by policy) this stopped, for the most part. 1400s? So "De Trafford" or whatever becomes the "Trafford" family.
4. But in some cases, specific to individual families (like Trafford) the de particle was formally or informally re-incorporated into the name permanently, but totally without any historical meaning (of place) and no mandatory inference of nobility either.
5. My general sense is that we are getting this OK-ish-ly right now on the site... but at the cost of formatting brain damage right at the top of the profile page. And that isn't needed in the era(s) when "everybody" was using the de. For example did anybody ever refer to the 6th Earl of Leicester as merely Simon Montfort? Leicester, yes. Montfort, maybe. But if saying his whole name, I would guess the "de" was included. (If I'm wrong, lemme know!)
If that's correct, perhaps we could simplify the display values on the site by omitting the non-de variant of the name for those centuries; and especially by omitting the "formerly" when it's not explicitly required due to a name change or inheritance etc during lifetime. Because it's simply not true they were called one, and then the other.
This is in contrast to say Ancestry.com where the de is far too enough copied way, way down in time-- into near modern eras for people where it definitely doesn't belong, on families that didn't use it at that time. (Say, in colonial New England.) This happens presumably because American (or whatever) amateur researchers think it looks fancy, like Sir or Lady, or perhaps think it belongs there, you know, forever.
Then, on a new topic, I would ask somebody far more wise than I am, what do about sons who changed titles over time: who had a lesser title until they inherited their father's major title, later in life; and so went by X for say fifty years (and while having kids, which affects them too) and then inherited dad's name/title Y eventually. I'm sure we don't handle those cases consistently well on this site. Where Baron or Earl so-and-so later becomes Duke such-and-such. At that almost always changed their name from one place-name/title-name to another. Sometimes this was forced on men at marriage, or the death of their father-in-law, not just their own dad.
So, should we always use their highest title, even if they weren't known by that for most of their lives? Or do we list both (all?) and if so, in what order: descending precedence, or chronologically-held order etc? Now THIS seems like a great use of "formerly" akin to how we handle maiden/first-husband names.
Sorry if this last is a subject for another G2G question entirely, but I mention it here on tangent from the "de" issue, because of the "formerly" syntax.
Thanks in advance for your replies-- and if you could send me links to past discussions, and current policy, I thank you in advance!
