In 1967 I went up to university in Bristol. For the first two years I lived in a hall of residence on the Somerset side of the Avon Gorge. The hall was a collection of large, rather grand houses which had been bought up by the university for use as student accommodation. Each house had a ‘sub-warden’, usually a lecturer, whose role was to supervise and support us.
My sub-warden was a lecturer in English called Basil Cottle, whom I discovered to be the author of The Penguin Book of Surnames. In the first few weeks after or arrival he would invite small groups in for sherry and conversation before one of the formal evening meals for which we were obliged to wear academic gowns. It seems like another world, doesn’t it?
At these gatherings, designed to make us feel at home and get to know each other, he would tell us the meaning and origin of our surname. I expected that he would find mine fascinating and unusual. But no. ‘A simple locative,’ he said, ‘place name.’
Nevertheless, I’ve always been fascinated by names and words in general, and wrote about it earlier in the year.
Posting Evelyn’s pen-portrait of Cornelius Bradley Hundleby – sounds like an American general, doesn’t he? – reminded me of when I first came across the name Cornelius. I was doing some desultory browsing through some census records for Hundleby when the name jumped out at me. Such an unusual name amongst all the Henrys, Williams, Samuels and Thomases.
When eventually Susan sent me some of her charts I found more Corneliuses (Cornelii?) and wondered where it had come from and why it had been chosen in the first place. I learned it had been used originally by the Bradley family and imported along with names like Nathaniel and Susanna.
The first instance I find is Cornelius Bradley (born ca 1837), son of Susanna Bradley. He was therefore the nephew of the Ruth and Ann, the sisters who married Thomas and John respectively. Susanna, at some stage, married Daniel Pocklington. Was he the father? If so, why didn’t Cornelius bear his name?
Let me digress to ask the same question about John Hundleby Bradley, born ca 1811 and the first child of the aforementioned John and Ann. Was he John’s child? Why did the parents wait 6 years to marry? Again, why didn’t he take his father’s name?
The fact of being born ‘out of wedlock’ is irrelevant to most people today but I find it a little odd that it happened so often at this period. Other examples are my own great-grandfather, Henry, and Samuel Fox Hundleby (born 1799). It was contrary to the prevailing morality, and many of the family seem to have been keen Christians. But since when have things like that hindered the course of true love?
I was wrong to say that Susanna’s Cornelius was the earliest we know about, for his Aunt Ruth had provided Thomas with a son of that name in 1830, Cornelius (Bradley).
My sub-warden was a lecturer in English called Basil Cottle, whom I discovered to be the author of The Penguin Book of Surnames. In the first few weeks after or arrival he would invite small groups in for sherry and conversation before one of the formal evening meals for which we were obliged to wear academic gowns. It seems like another world, doesn’t it?
At these gatherings, designed to make us feel at home and get to know each other, he would tell us the meaning and origin of our surname. I expected that he would find mine fascinating and unusual. But no. ‘A simple locative,’ he said, ‘place name.’
Nevertheless, I’ve always been fascinated by names and words in general, and wrote about it earlier in the year.
Posting Evelyn’s pen-portrait of Cornelius Bradley Hundleby – sounds like an American general, doesn’t he? – reminded me of when I first came across the name Cornelius. I was doing some desultory browsing through some census records for Hundleby when the name jumped out at me. Such an unusual name amongst all the Henrys, Williams, Samuels and Thomases.
When eventually Susan sent me some of her charts I found more Corneliuses (Cornelii?) and wondered where it had come from and why it had been chosen in the first place. I learned it had been used originally by the Bradley family and imported along with names like Nathaniel and Susanna.
The first instance I find is Cornelius Bradley (born ca 1837), son of Susanna Bradley. He was therefore the nephew of the Ruth and Ann, the sisters who married Thomas and John respectively. Susanna, at some stage, married Daniel Pocklington. Was he the father? If so, why didn’t Cornelius bear his name?
Let me digress to ask the same question about John Hundleby Bradley, born ca 1811 and the first child of the aforementioned John and Ann. Was he John’s child? Why did the parents wait 6 years to marry? Again, why didn’t he take his father’s name?
The fact of being born ‘out of wedlock’ is irrelevant to most people today but I find it a little odd that it happened so often at this period. Other examples are my own great-grandfather, Henry, and Samuel Fox Hundleby (born 1799). It was contrary to the prevailing morality, and many of the family seem to have been keen Christians. But since when have things like that hindered the course of true love?
I was wrong to say that Susanna’s Cornelius was the earliest we know about, for his Aunt Ruth had provided Thomas with a son of that name in 1830, Cornelius (Bradley).
Thomas and Ruth went on to have three grandsons with the name
Their sons William and Joseph (the latter incidentally an example of the name of a deceased child being given to a later baby) used the name for their own sons, Thomas ‘Cornelius’ (b 1848) and Cornelius (b 1859). The third (b 1864) was the namesake of his father.
Cornelius Bradley Hundleby’s wife, Rebecca, was probably glad of the two servants they had acquired by 1871, because theirs was another large family, seven boys and one girl (Ruth of course), who was the eldest. One of the boys was another Cornelius (b 1864) and his brother George continued the tradition by naming his younger son Cornelius Frank (b ?, d 1974). So did Ruth, whose marriage to George Griffin produced Cornelius Griffin.
Going back to Thomas and Ruth, another of their sons was John (b 1833), whose grandson Cornelius was born in 1901 and died 1971 in Louth. Is he the last?
I have been reading up on the original Cornelii of Rome and may write about that soon.
In the meantime I’ll provide this link as I’m wondering which Cornelius is referred to. And who might be the ‘Miss Hundleby’ mentioned? The name Elmhirst also recurs, reminding me of Evelyn’s reference to Moses Elmhirst JP in her essay on Cornelius Bradley Hundleby.
Their sons William and Joseph (the latter incidentally an example of the name of a deceased child being given to a later baby) used the name for their own sons, Thomas ‘Cornelius’ (b 1848) and Cornelius (b 1859). The third (b 1864) was the namesake of his father.
Cornelius Bradley Hundleby’s wife, Rebecca, was probably glad of the two servants they had acquired by 1871, because theirs was another large family, seven boys and one girl (Ruth of course), who was the eldest. One of the boys was another Cornelius (b 1864) and his brother George continued the tradition by naming his younger son Cornelius Frank (b ?, d 1974). So did Ruth, whose marriage to George Griffin produced Cornelius Griffin.
Going back to Thomas and Ruth, another of their sons was John (b 1833), whose grandson Cornelius was born in 1901 and died 1971 in Louth. Is he the last?
I have been reading up on the original Cornelii of Rome and may write about that soon.
In the meantime I’ll provide this link as I’m wondering which Cornelius is referred to. And who might be the ‘Miss Hundleby’ mentioned? The name Elmhirst also recurs, reminding me of Evelyn’s reference to Moses Elmhirst JP in her essay on Cornelius Bradley Hundleby.
http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/custompages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=63664
If the link doesn't work - and it didn't when I checked - try googling "cornelius hundleby", using the quotation marks.
No comments:
Post a Comment