Genealogy Chat

Thanks to everyone who replied, you are a clever lot! The jury seems to be divided on this one! The reason I thought fitz meant illegitimate was because it appears on Coats-of-Arms (i think) to indicate illegitimate children. You may be right that fitz merely means son of, however, on the same document, practically the same sentence, it calls him "son of". Seems rather odd to use two different words to describe the same thing. And, to those who think I am lucky/clever to have got so far back in my family - I'm cheating!!!! I got so sick of banging my head against the brick wall that is my 3x grandfather Holden that I decided to do some general research instead on the Holden family. I immediately came across the Holden "Bible" - a book written in 1887 by a bloke in Darwen Lancs with a "phenomenal memory". I decided to check a bit of it, it was nearly all rubbish unsubstantiated by fact, got REALLY annoyed at this, because many people base their family trees on this information and decided to do my own research. The Holdens are very well documented and I have found literally hundreds of very old documents on A2A - which has to be the most FANTASTIC site ever. Much of what I have found contradicts the "Official" genealogy, just shows it pays to check absolutely everything yourself from primary documents. Of course, there is always the possibility that Im not related to ANY Holden - my 3xGrandfather might turn out to be Archibald Snodgrass's son. In which case I will have wasted a lot of effort! And yes, all the Holdens are descended from the Holdens of Holden Manor, (first mentioned 1218) but by some very circuitous routes I can assure you! Tell me who you are looking for and I MIGHT be able to help.

Marjorie, Perhaps the dictionary definition wasn't clear enough..so here is another one..easier to understand. Fitz (Norman). Son of, as Fitz Herbert, Fitz William, Fitz Peter, etc. It is sometimes applied to illigitimate children as Fitzclarence, Fitzroy, Fitzjames. It seems that Fitz does mean "son of " as well as meaning illigitimate sons of kings and princes of the blood. I would say that in your Roberts case he is..Robert,son of Nicholas de Holden..Nicholas not being a king or prince! How amazing that you have researched so far back..you deserve a medal. Kaye

There are generally no fixed surnames at the period you are interested in. Landed families are defining themselves by their property. I suspect that context is all and the use of Fitz may simply indicate that Robert does not own the land himself. Fitzalan, Fitzwarren etc cannot be sons of kings, but they may be younger sons who subsequently acquire property by their own efforts. There are lots of pedigrees on the web. It might be worth looking for surnames of that type to see when they arise and how. Brenda

Fitz. A son;- used in compound names, to indicate paternity, esp of the illigitimate sons of kings and princes of the blood;as Fitzroy, the son of the king, Fitzclarence, the son of the Duke of Clarence. Hope this helps.

Marjorie, Where did you get the info that Fitz meant illegitimate? Carol I am sure is right "Son Of" if this proves to be right then it would make him legit? Have to mention how fortunate you were to get back so far, wonder as a Holden myself would there be the slightest chance he is one of my Ancestors too? LOL> Pat x

Battling with Christopher Brooke's "the Medieval Idea of Marriage", he says "the succession of a bastard to ... any great estate in the late Middle Ages was a very rare event" and "the lay courts might determine all the details of an inheritance, but the church courts settled first the issue of marriage, its validity and its qualities" While priests would often record baptisms, at least of the more important families, in a parish book, marriages were much more secular events. Knowing of the hoops that Henry VIII went through in his attempt to get a suitable heir, something of that kind might have happened in your family. Have you any Proofs of Age or IPMs that might help you? Brenda

Found this on another forum Fitz simply means "son of" from the French word for son, "fils" and ultimately from the Latin for son, "filius ."

I have found reference to a very early member of my family (I think). In 1372 he is described as Robert, fitz Nicholas de Holden. Now, I have always understood that fitz means illegitimate, but acknowledged son. My brother says I am wrong, it was just legalese for "son". This Robert goes on to inherit the family manor. Thats odd, I thought, surely an illegitimate son couldnt inherit in those days? However, another document a few years later gives his Legitimatisation. Can you please tell me, does fitz ALWAYS mean illegitimate? And how could an illegitimate son be legitimised in adulthood? Its quite important as it is more than possible that there were TWO Roberts, one legitimate and one illegitimate. The Holdens at that time were powerful landowners and the land was entailed for at least a century before and many centuries after. Thankyou, anyone who can help!