APPENDIX C 599 nor (as in a recent work on the Peerage) to say that Hugo de (— ) had a son and heir Hugh, as if these men had borne different Christian names. Again, a man may have been Doun and his father have been Downe, or he may have been called Downe in his youth and Doun in his age, or Downe in the south of England and Doun in the north, but at no tirne and nowhere in England, Dodo. We cannot tell for certain that a woman was called Denise, but we know she was not called Dionysia. Accordingly in this work Almeric^ Emeric, Nigel, Reginald and Alured (for which there is little more justification than for Galfrid, Henric, and Carol) give place to Amaury, Emery, Neil, Reynold and Alfred, and so far as surnames or titles are con- cerned, de Albini and Albemarle to d'Aubigny and Aumale. When, however, people actually used certain names or titles, they will be Pscudo antique given, however absurd : and it would seem very suitable that owners of titles, pseudo antique titles, like "de Radley of Radley House " and "de Bungay of Bungay Abbey " (on which G.E.C. used to pour scorn), should also select sham mediajval Christian names like Nigel and Almeric for their offspring. It is true that Lord Kinsale, in his Will dated 20 Oct. 1699, signed himself "Almarick de Courcy," which shows that by that time, at any rate. Christian names formed from the Latin instead of the old French or English names, were coming into vogue. In this connection we may deplore the tendency displayed by nineteenth century gentry to displace their old family names by what G.E.C. used to call " Victorian Gothic " appellations: thus, Mullins becomes de Moleyns, while Wilkins turns into de Winton, and the undistinguished Morres gives place to the illustrious Montmorency (for other instances see vol. vi. Appendix A). Some ot these examples recall a burlesque advertisement which appeared in The Times many years ago, beginning, " I John Bunn do take the name of de Bohun," and was, if memory serves, dated from " our chateau de Paille in the County of Ayr." Of the same character, too, is the adoption of the title "de Freyne " by an Irishman named French, under the delusion that his surname was a form of Freyne (Jat. de Fraxinis), though any Mr. Dash or Dashwood would have been better justified in the choice of such a title. It will probably come as a shock to many that the first person to bear the title "Albemarle" was General Monck, in 1660, and that of "de Montalt " a gentleman of Ireland, in 1776. There is not nearly the same objection to using the Latin names by which people were contemporaneously described [noi called), as there is to bastard hybrids of the " Montacute " and " Montalt " order, but even this seems useless and unreasonable. It is certainly quite inconsistent to speak in the same work of Beauchamp and Montacute. If we are not to latinize Beauchamp, why should we subject Montagu or Mont Aigu to this treat- ment. Why call a man John and his wife Johanna, another Giles and his wife Egidia. There would be something incongruous if we were to read in the nursery rhyme that " Jack and Egidia went up the hill to fetch a pail of water!" As to the principal source from which evidence of the use of medi^xval Sources of names is obtainable, the following letter to the Editor from H. J. Ellis, names.
