The only thing known about Daniel Fisc is that he was one of a number of people who received a grant of land in Laxfield, Suffolk from the Duke of Lorraine dated 1 May 1208. F.C. Pierce in his influential Fiske genealogy claimed that "according to Heralds visitations" (without citing anything in particular), a "Symond Fiske, Lord of the Manor of Stadhaugh" was "probably" the grandson of this Daniel Fisc. However, the Fiske family employed H.G. Somerby as their researcher, and Somerby is well documented to be a prolific genealogical forger, so such unsourced statements must be approached with extreme skepticism, particularly since Symond Fiske and Daniel Fisc lived almost 200 years apart. None of the known Suffolk visitations contain such a claim (Fiske of Stadhow is mentioned in a 1634 Hertfordshire visitation and given as an additional pedigree in one edition of the Suffolk visitations) and it would be very unusual for one to extend a pedigree as far back as 1208, particularly for a relatively unremarkable family.
The authority upon which a "Hugh Fiske" is attached to this profile as Daniel's son is unclear, since no such person is discussed by Pierce.
Because of the very early date of the grant, it is unclear whether "Fisc" in the original text should be taken as a hereditary surname or simply the byname "Fish". Hereditary surnames had come into use by 1208, but they were still less common than simple patronymics and bynames (as can be seen from other individuals in the list). "Fisc" was the conventional spelling of "fish" in Old English, so it is also unclear whether this name should be taken as the English common noun "fish" or the Danish-influenced Northern form "fisk." (Compare in the Rotuli the spelling Marescallus for modern Marshal but also Wisc for modern Wisk; the orthography is ambiguous.) The next known appearance of the name in Laxfield comes nearly 90 years later when the land of Hugh Fisk is mentioned in a 1297 feoffment. It seems hardly credible that this Hugh Fisk is the son of Daniel Fisc, as has often been claimed, but given the evidence of land ownership, some family relationship is plausible.
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.