RootsChat.Com

Thanks for your input. I'm afraid I tend to agree with you -- I certainly wanted it to be true but it does seem like a stretch for the first letter to totally change. Our mediaeval ancestors may not have known how to spell but they certainly would have known what their names sounded like!

That's a fantastic resource -- thank you!

I see that h3-12 (pg. 22), and H7 (pg. 23) all look essentially identical to a b/B (to my untrained eye, of course!), which actually further confirms my suspicions. But of course I may be entirely out in left field here.

Dear gobbitt,

I am deeply indebted to you for your incredibly helpful find. In all my hours of searching I had never come across the 'Bauleie' variation, and yet it appears to be the oldest of them all!

Upon further investigation, I discovered that the (very) nearby village of 'Haughley' is actually pronounced 'Horlee.' This helps me better understand how 'Bauley' may have been pronounced 'Borlee,' hence the variations that are spelt with an 'r'.

In fact, the more I think about it, the combination of 'bau' is a strange set of letters that, frankly, doesn't appear very often in many English words or names. My latest theory is now that 'Bauley' may have begun life as 'Haughley' (also spelt 'Hauley'), and that a scribe made an error somewhere by writing a 'B' instead of an 'H.' This makes a lot of sense, especially in light of how similar 'B' and 'H' can look, especially in mediaeval script. The geographical proximity of 'Haughley' to the villages of Hessett, Woolpit, and Wetherden (all 'Bauly/Borley' hotspots!) makes this overwhelmingly likely in my view. At any rate, there seems to be a high degree of etymological overlap.

I'd love to hear from anyone with philological expertise or familiarity with mediaeval typos!

Regards,
suffolksophist