And, while it is the chance of Robin Hoode
To live in Sherwodde a poor outlaw’s life,
She by Maid Marian’s name be called.’
[67]. It has been thought by some that our ‘Makins’ and ‘Makinsons’ are from Matthew, and not in any way connected with feminine nomenclature. This may be so, for although there is the entry ‘Maykina Parmunter’ in the Parliamentary Rolls, there is also ‘Maykinus Lappyng’ in Materials for Hist. Reign of Henry VII.
[68]. Thomas Mawdeson (F. F.) would lead one to suppose that Mawson was a direct corruption. It may be so, but ‘Maw’ itself seems to have existed as a pet form of Maud. In the ‘De Lacy Inquisition’ (1311) there occurs ‘Richard, son of Mawe, for 25 acres, etc.’—p. 10 (Chelt. Soc.)
[69]. The preceding paragraphs will sufficiently answer, I doubt not, the questions of correspondents in ‘Notes and Queries,’ as to whether we have any surnames derived from female baptismal names.
[70]. Elizabeth came into use too late to leave any mark upon our surnames. I have not come across, to the best of my remembrance, a single instance in any record earlier than the fifteenth century. ‘Bess,’ or ‘Bessie,’ was the first pet name formed from it, and this very probably began to grow into favour about the time of Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage. With the proud imperious Queen Bess, however, came in every conceivable variety that could be played upon the name, ‘Betsey,’ or ‘Betsy,’ ‘Betty,’ ‘Eliza,’ ‘Lizzie,’ and ‘Libbie’ being the favourites. The first ‘Bessie’ I find is that of ‘Bessye Tripps,’ 1558; the first ‘Betty’ being that of ‘Bettye Sheile,’ 1580, both being in a Newcastle will. Betty for two centuries was, perhaps, the form most in favour in aristocratic circles. How fickle is fashion! It is entirely tabooed there in the nineteenth.
[71]. Thomas and John Ibson are recorded in the ‘Corpus Christi Guild,’ York. (Surt. Soc.)
[72]. ‘George Hall et Ezota uxor ejus.’ York Guild (W. 11).
[73]. ‘Hamne, son of Adecok, held 29 acres.’ (De Lacy Inquis. p. 19, Ch. Soc.)