Cantelowe versus Cantilupe

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the "correct" form of the surname, Cantelowe/Cantilupe, I
might direct the attention of newsgroup members to the following
comments by the noted historian, G. Herbert Fowler, Tractatus de
Dunstaple et de Hocton (Pubs. Bedfordshire Hist. Rec. Soc. 19) (1937):
92.

"Mr. Oswald Barron challenges (Complete Peerage, i, 23, note a) the
use of this form [i.e. Cantilupe] of the name in Englkish, with
perfect justice; the 'de Cantilupo' of our documents is probably the
latinisation of Chanteloup, the name of at least seven villages in
France to-day. Shall we then call the men de Chanteloup? And what
should be the proper English form? Cantelowe, Cantlow, Cauntlow,
Cantelo, Cauntelo, all of which are found, are no so familar as
Cantiluope, under which the family's chantry in Lincoln Cathedral and
the near-by house of its chaplains are always known to-day." END OF
QUOTE.

Mr. Fowler is correct that the English forms are Cantelowe, Cantlow,
Cauntlow, Cantelo, Cauntelo, not Cantilupe. And Mr. Barron is correct
to challenge the form Cantilupe as the standard spelling of this
family. Myself I use the form Cantelowe in my books.

In a related vein, I might point out the following two documents in
the online Catalogue of the National Archives. The items as
catalogued refer to Maud de Cantilupe as the petitioner in both
instances. I viewed the actual documents just now and name of the
petitioner is clearly Cauntelo, not Cantilupe. For whatever reason,
the staff archivist has altered the name of the petitioner as it
appears in the Catalogue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson

+ + + + + + + + +

Reference: SC 8/102/5097
Description:
Petitioners: Maud de Cantilupe.
Name(s): de Cantilupe, Maud
Addressees: Council in Parliament.

Nature of request: The petitioner seeks certain lands and
tenements in Gloucestershire held of the king, as the next heir by a
fine made by Nicholas de Cantilupe who died without heirs of his body.
She states that lately she brought a writ of formedon against Cecile
for the said lands etc., of a certain grant made by a certain fine
concerning John de Berkeley, William de Berkeley and John de
Gloucester with the reversion to John and Hawise his wife and the
heirs of their bodies etc., and they had issue, Nicholas de Berkeley,
who died without heirs of his body, through which the entail rightly
belongs to the petitioner etc.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Reference: SC 8/102/5098
Description:
Petitioners: Maud de Cantilupe.
Name(s): de Cantilupe, Maud
Addressees: Council in Parliament.

Nature of request: The petitioner seeks certain lands and
tenements in Gloucestershire held of the king, as the next heir by a
fine made by Nicholas de Cantilupe who died without heirs of his body.
She states that lately she brought a writ of formedon against Cecile
for the said lands etc., of a certain grant made by a certain fine
concerning John de Berkeley, William de Berkeley and John de
Gloucester with the reversion to John and Hawise his wife and the
heirs of their bodies etc., and they had issue, Nicholas de Berkeley,
who died without heirs of his body, through which the entail rightly
belongs to the petitioner etc.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Just now I reviewed seven additional petitions available through the
online Catalogue of the National Archives. The petitions range in
date from c.1274 to 1380. In two of the seven items, the names have
been misread by the staff archivist. I have placed an asterisk by the
erroneous items below. In the other five items, the names were
correctly read. The spellings of the surnames of the petitioners
included these forms are: Cantelou, Cauntelou, Cauntelowe.

In item 5 below, I note that the word "de" was missing from the names
"de Cauntelowe" and "de Roos."

In all seven items, a staff archivist has inserted after the person's
name either Cantilupe or Cantelupe in parentheses, as if Cantilupe or
Cantelupe was a correct modern form of this name. In one instance,
the name Cauntelo was also added. Nowhere was Cantelowe added as the
modern alternative.

I find no instance whatsoever of the name Cantilupe or Cantelupe
appearing in any of these petitions. And, if these petitions are any
indication, the name Cantilupe never existed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +
*Petition #1 below: Thomas Cantilou (Cantilupe) should be Thomas
Cantelou

Petition #2 below: George de Cantelou (Cantilupe) should be George de
Cantelou

Petition #3 below: Walter de Cauntelou (Cantilupe) should be Wauter
de Cauntelou

*Petition #4 below: Joan [de Cantelon (Cantilupe)], widow of Nicholas
de Cantalon. should be Joan widow of Nicholas de Cantelou.

Petition #5 below: William Cauntelowe (Cantilupe) should be William de
Cauntelowe

Thomas [Roos (Ros)], son of Robert Roos; Robert Roos (Ros) of
Ingmanthorpe; should be "de Roos"

Petition #6 below: Robert de Cauntelowe (Cauntelo, Cantilupe) should
be Robert de Cauntelowe.
Maud de Cauntelaw is correct.

Petition #7 below: Richard Cauntelo (Cantelupe) should be Richard
Cauntelo.

1. SC 8/277/13840

Record Summary
Scope and content
Petitioners: Archbishops, bishops and other prelates.
Addressees: King.

Places mentioned: Hereford, [Herefordshire]; Rome, [Italy].

Other people mentioned: Thomas Cantilou (Cantilupe), Bishop of
Hereford.

Nature of request: The prelates request that the King take advice as
to whether he is able to attend the translation of the body of
Cantilupe at Hereford in connection with the canonisation process
under way at the court of Rome.
Endorsement: It pleases the king to be there. And the King, prelates
and magnates assembled at Parliament have assented and agreed about a
precise date for the translation, that is to say, ten days before the
Nativity of John the Baptist next, and this is the Sunday after St
Barnabas the Apostle, which is Trinity Sunday [14 June 1321].
Covering dates [1321]

2. SC 8/271/13544

Language: French

Record Summary
Scope and content

Petitioners: John de Hastyngges (Hastings).

Addressees: King.

Places mentioned: Rothwell, [Northamptonshire]; Ham,
[Buckinghamshire].
Other people mentioned: George de Cantelou (Cantilupe); Jon (Eudo) de
Susche (Zouche); Milicent [de Susche (Zouche)], wife of John de
Zouche.
Nature of request: Hastyngges requests that what is found in Chancery
concerning land in Rothwell and Ham which was his part of the
tenements that were Cantilupe's be viewed by the council and justice
be done to him, as he has already petitioned on this, the lands having
been granted to the Zouches during Hastyngges's minority.
Endorsement: He should go to Chancery and the rolls should be examined
just as is contained in the petition, and he should have a writ of
scire facias to bring . . . to certify before the king.
Covering dates [c. 1274]

3. SC 8/316/E213

Record Summary
Scope and content

Petitioners: Richard [Gravesend], Bishop of London.
Addressees: King and council.

Places mentioned: Hillingdon, [Middlesex]; Uxbridge, [Middlesex].
Other people mentioned: Walter de Cauntelou (Cantilupe), Bishop of
Worcester; Godfrey [Giffard], Bishop of Norwich.

Nature of request: Gravesend requests the delivery of the keeping and
sequester of the church of Hillingdon as his predecessors have had as
the keeper of the bishopric of Worcester during its voidance has taken
it into the king's hand, a previous bishop of Worcester having
appropriated that church.
Endorsement: To the Exchequer and let it be considered there of the
appropriation of churches by bishops and abbots in similar cases in
what state they remain in time of vacancies, and certify the king in
the next parliament if it be as it is petitioned.
Covering dates [1302]

4. SC 8/247/12321

Record Summary
Scope and content

Petitioners: Joan [de Cantelon (Cantilupe)], widow of Nicholas de
Cantalon.
Addressees: King.
Places mentioned: Old Leake, [Lincolnshire]; Ingmanthorpe, [West
Riding of Yorkshire]; Lincoln, [Lincolnshire].
Other people mentioned: Robert de Roos of Ingmanthorpe; William de
Bradestoun, chaplain; John de Felicekirk, chaplain; Dean and chapter
of Lincoln.
Nature of request: Cantelon requests that she and Roos, Bradestoun and
Felicekirk be granted a licence to give meadow in the vill of Leake
and the advowson of the church there to the dean and chapter of Our
Lady of Lincoln.
Endorsement: [None].
Covering dates [1362]

5. SC 8/183/9127
Language French

Record Summary
Scope and content
Petitioners: John [Hastings], Earl of Pembroke; William la Zouche of
Harringworth.
Addressees: King and Lords of Parliament.

Places mentioned: Harringworth, [Northamptonshire]; Yorkshire;
Ingmanthorpe, [West Riding of Yorkshire].
Other people mentioned: William Cauntelowe (Cantilupe); Thomas [Roos
(Ros)], son of Robert Roos; Robert Roos (Ros) of Ingmanthorpe;
Marmaduke Constable, knight; William Aldeburgh (Aldborough,
Aldbrough), knight; Robert Clecham, steward of William Cauntelowe;
Richard Ravenser, clerk.

Nature of request: The petitioners request the examination in the
present parliament of documents relating to an enfeoffment made by
Cauntelowe with Constable, Aldeburgh and others, upon which they, as
Cauntelowe's heirs, are being sued in Yorkshire by Robert Roos, on
behalf of his son Thomas. A commission directed to Ravenser and others
found that the enfeoffment was made on conditions which preserved the
rights of the petitioners, but Robert Roos has challenged this on
behalf of his son.

Endorsement: The Justices and others have been assigned to examine
Robert Roos of Ingmanthorpe upon the matter, of which examination
there is a certain act made and enrolled on the roll of this
parliament.
Covering dates [1380]

6. SC 8/182/9090

Record Summary
Scope and content

Petitioners: Robert de Cauntelowe (Cauntelo, Cantilupe).
Addressees: King.

Places mentioned: Moundon [unidentified].

Other people mentioned: Maud de Cauntelaw (Cauntelo, Cantilupe); John
Bussard, late husband of Maud de Cauntelaw.

Nature of request: Robert de Cauntelowe requests letters to the
justices hearing the case brought against him by Maud de Cauntelaw
regarding certain tenements in Moundon.
Endorsement: [None]
Covering dates [? 1308]

7. SC 8/95/4739D

Record Summary
Scope and content

Other people mentioned: Thomas de Agmodesham (Amersham); Stephen Neel
(Neil); Robert Mountfort; Nicholas Plomer (Plumber); John Draper;
Matthew le Smyth (Smith); Ralph Aley; Richard Dreu; Nicholas Asketil;
Henry Ledbetere (Ledbetter); John de Bretewell (Britwell); John de
Cippenham (Chippenham); John Sampson; Thomas de Astburnham
(Ashburnham); John atte Grove; Philip de Chesham; Roger Hykebyd;
Richard de Bolistrod (Bulstrode); William Gerveys; Ralph ate Dene;
Richard de Broughton; John Broun (Brown); Richard Cauntelo
(Cantelupe); John atte Grove; Philip Broun (Brown); Thomas atte Lese;
David Notevyle; Thomas Cop; Robert Neel (Neil); William Neel (Neil);
William Plomer (Plumber); Thomas atte Grove; John Dreu (Drew); William
Dreu (Drew); Ralph Toky; William atte Grove; Richard atte Grove; Ralph
Hykeby (Hykebyd).

Nature of request: List of jurors in an inquisition into Geoffrey de
Bolestrode's seisin of certain tenements in Chalfont St Peter and his
expulsion from them by Hugh le Despencer, junior.

Endorsement: [None]
Covering dates [1327]

[Matt Tompkins]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Just now I reviewed seven additional petitions available through the
online Catalogue of the National Archives.  The petitions range in
date from c.1274 to 1380.   In two of the seven items, the names have
been misread by the staff archivist.  I have placed an asterisk by the
erroneous items below.  In the other five items, the names were
correctly read.  The spellings of the surnames of the petitioners
included these forms are: Cantelou, Cauntelou, Cauntelowe.
In item 5 below, I note that the word "de" was missing from the names
"de Cauntelowe" and "de Roos."
In all seven items, a staff archivist has inserted after the person's
name either Cantilupe or Cantelupe in parentheses, as if Cantilupe or
Cantelupe was a correct modern form of this name.  In one instance,
the name Cauntelo was also added.  Nowhere was Cantelowe added as the
modern alternative.
I find no instance whatsoever of the name Cantilupe or Cantelupe
appearing in any of these petitions.  And, if these petitions are any
indication, the name Cantilupe never existed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

But it's a bit harsh to accuse the archivists who prepared those
calendar entries of *error*, Douglas - they were just following the
traditional convention that the normal English-language form of the
name was Cantilupe/Cantelupe/Cantiloup (and if they weren't always
consistent in their approach, that's probably because there were
several of them, working decades, even centuries apart). As Fowler
pointed out in that excerpt you quoted, Cantilupe etc. is the form in
which the name is most familiar to historians, academic and otherwise,
and there is always good reason to stick to the customary,
recognisable forms of names, even if they are a little anachronistic.

Still, it's been a revelation - I never realised Cantilupe was not the
original vernacular form of the name, but just a construct of later
generations.

Though I'm not sure it's right to choose Cantelowe as the 'correct
modern form of the name'. Judging by the variants in the 1881 census,
that honour would go to Cantelo/Cantello - the 198 occurrences of the
name in that census comprise the following:

Cantelo 72
Cantello 62
Cantlow 19
Cantilo 13
Cantellow 9
Cantelow 8
Cantalow 4
Cantiloe 4
Cantaloe 3
Canteloe 3
Cantilowe 1

Matt Tompkins

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Post by Matt Tompkins
But it's a bit harsh to accuse the archivists who prepared those
calendar entries of *error*, Douglas - they were just following the
traditional convention that the normal English-language form of the
name was Cantilupe/Cantelupe/Cantiloup (and if they weren't always
consistent in their approach, that's probably because there were
several of them, working decades, even centuries apart).

Thank you for your comments, Matt.

My feeling is that the staff archivists should have known the correct
modern form(s) of this surname. That's their job. And, if I can spot
the numerous discrepancies in their transcripts, so can they. Where
is quality control?

My harshest criticism is of the archivist who changed the name of the
petitioner, Maud de Cauntelo, and rendered her name as Maud de
Cantilupe in the Catalogue, with no reference to Cauntelo. I'm also
intrigued that another archivist rendered the name of one petitioner,
Joan widow of Nicholas de Cantelou, as "Joan [de Cantelon
(Cantilupe)], widow of Nicholas de Cantalon." The record is clearly
Cantelou, not Cantelon or Cantalon. Moreover, the petitioner Joan de
Cantelou could easily have been identified by the archivist.

Post by Matt Tompkins
Still, it's been a revelation - I never realised Cantilupe was not the
original vernacular form of the name, but just a construct of later
generations.

Yes, one does get surprises when one reads the actual contemporary
documents. That's why I spend time in original documents whenever I
have access to them. I find historians and archivists sometime fudge
on the actual rendering of names. This is why I believe modern
archivists should always give us an exact Latin/French/older English
transcript followed by a modern English transcript/translation.

Post by Matt Tompkins
Though I'm not sure it's right to choose Cantelowe as the 'correct

I believe Cantelowe/Cantelow are both acceptable forms for this
surname. Here are two examples of Thomas Cantelow/Cantelowe, mercer,
of London which occur in the online Catalogue. In the first entry,
his name is spelled Cantelow. In the second entry, it is Cantelowe.
The entries appear to concern the same debt dated 1427. Please note
that the staff archivist did NOT insert the alternative name form,
Cantilupe, for these entries as he did with the earlier catalogue
items for this surname.

1. C 131/75/10

Debtor: Thomas Cantelow, of London, mercer. Creditor: John Forster,
citizen and skinner, of London, and William Chivaler, chaplain. ...
Record Summary
Scope and content

Debtor: Thomas Cantelow, of London, mercer.
Creditor: John Forster, citizen and skinner, of London, and William
Chivaler, chaplain.

Amount: £220.

When taken: 18/07/1457

2. C 131/236/28

Debtor: Thomas Cantelowe, of London, mercer. Creditor: John Forster,
citizen and skinner of London, and William Chivaler, chaplain. ...

Record Summary
Scope and content

Debtor: Thomas Cantelowe, of London, mercer.

Creditor: John Forster, citizen and skinner of London, and William
Chivaler, chaplain.
Amount: £220

When taken: 18/07/1457

< Judging by the variants in the 1881 census, that honour would go to
Cantelo/Cantello - the 198 occurrences of the

Post by Matt Tompkins
Cantelo 72
Cantello 62
Cantlow 19
Cantilo 13
Cantellow 9
Cantelow 8
Cantalow 4
Cantiloe 4
Cantaloe 3
Canteloe 3
Cantilowe 1

Thank you for posting the list of the various name forms for this
surname which are found in the 1881 Census. Much appreciated. I
assume Cantilupe/Cantelupe don't appear in the 1881 Census. Right?

I've copied below two additional petitions from the online Catalogue
of the National Archives. The first petition is dated c.1427 and the
catalogue entry states it is for "William Cantilowe (Cantilupe)." I
just checked the actual petition and the name there is clearly William
Cantelowe, not Cantilowe. There is no mention of the name Cantilupe,
even though the modern archivist has added that an an alternative
form.

The second petition is dated 1302, the petitioner being Robert de
Cauntelue [correct]. In this case, the modern archivist has added an
alternative form, Cantelow, rather than Cantilupe. In this case, I
think Cantelow as an alternative form is fine. For once I'm glad the
archivist avoided Cantilupe. Even so, the archivists aren't being
consistent.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

1. SC 8/104/5176

Description:
Petitioners: William Cantilowe (Cantilupe); John Trethewy; John
Noblet; Joyce Fakes; William Tiller; Agnes Noblet of London.
Name(s): Cantilowe (Cantilupe); Trethewy; Noblet; Fakes; Tiller;
Noblet, William; John; John; Joyce; William; Agnes
Addressees: The Commons in Parliament.
Nature of request: The petitioners ask that no petition of Walter
Lucy should be allowed to delay any of their actions for recovery of
certain debts from the estate of the late earl of March. They state
that the late earl owed ... Cantilowe £802 2s 6d, Trethewy £616 13s
4d, Noblet £795 8s 6d, Fakes £399 12s 2d, Tiller £110 6s 3d, for part
of which the petitioners hold several warrants of payment sent to
various receivers sealed with the earl's arms ... without any other
surety. Walter Lucy received various goods of the earl since his
death, enough to pay for the said sums and ... administered, and will
make no payment or agreement to them of the said dues, notwithstanding
that he has often enquired by them ... the said earl maintained by the
common law because they have no bonds from the said earl of the dues,
without payment of which the petitioners will be finally undone.
Nature of endorsement: [On face] To be delivered to the lords.
[On dorse] For the creditors of the earl of March.
Places mentioned: London.
People mentioned: Edmund [Mortimer], Earl of March; Walter Lucy,
knight.
Date derivation: Notes on the guard date this petition to c.
1427.

2. SC 8/316/E204

Description:
Petitioners: Robert de Cauntelue (Cantelow).
Name(s): de Cauntelue (Cantelow), Robert
Addressees: King and council.

Nature of request: Cauntelue requests that the king will grant to
him for his service what it pleases the king of the waste near his
manor of Heddington as while he was in the king's service in the
Scottish war his neighbours in the forest of Chippenham have taken
from the king's ministers a great part of that waste to his great
damage.

Nature of endorsement: To the Exchequer.

Places mentioned: Chippenham, [Wiltshire]; Heddington,
[Wiltshire].

Date derivation: The petition is dated to 1302 as the petition
belongs to an original file of petitions returned to the Exchequer
from the summer parliament of 1302. For a confirmation of this dating,
see SC 8/314/E107.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup (and Matt) ~

Here is yet another petition from the online Catalogue of the National
Archives. The petition is dated c.1287-1288 [16 Edward I]. The staff
archivist states that the petition names "Millicent Mohaut" and
"William de Caunteleu." I checked the petition just now. It is faint
in places and hard to read. The first person occurs as "dame
Milice... de Mohaut." The second person is "Wylyam de Canteleu."
Please note that the archivist has not correctly rendered Lady
Milicent's name. The "de" is missing from Mohaut, for example, and no
mention is made that Milicent is styled "dame" [i.e., the wife/widow
of a knight]. Possibly Matt Tompkins can get a better reading of
Milicent's name from this document.

The first person mentioned in the petition is none other than Milicent
de Cantelowe (died 1299), wife of Sir Eudes la Zouche, of
Harringworth, Northamptonshire, from whom numerous members of the
newsgroup descend. As an adult, she was known as Milicent de Mohaut,
from her 1st marriage to John de Mohaut. I presume that "Wylyam de
Canteleu" named in this document is Milicent's father. Please note
that the name form Cantilupe appears nowhere in this document. Nor
has the archivist added it as a variant name form in parenthesis.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +
SC 8/107/5338
Description:
Petitioners: Richard Peres.
Name(s): Peres, Richard
Addressees: King and council.

Nature of request: Petition concerning a legal dispute between
Peres and Mohaut.

Nature of endorsement: In Chancery. Let him have a writ to bring
the record and process before the justices.

] People mentioned: Millicent Mohaut; William de Caunteleu;
William Peres; William de Burneston; James Baynard (Banyard).
Date derivation: The petition may be dated roughly by reference
to the mention of the Hilary term in the sixteenth regnal year in SC
8/107/5339; the hand suggests that this must be the sixteenth regnal
year of Edward I.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Here is a weblink to a partial transcript of a law suit published in
Year Books of Richard II: 13 Richard II, ed. by Theodore F. T.
Plucknett (1929) p. 24-36:

http://tinyurl.com/46d2smy

The lawsuit is dated 1389-1390 and names "Joan, wife of John Maynford"
as cousin and heir of John de Cauntelou. Joan, wife of John Maynford,
can be readily identified as Joan de Chastelyn, wife of John
Manningford, of Somerset, whose ancestry can be found in Susan
Johanson's fine genealogical database at the following two weblinks:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=johanson&id=I33572

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=johanson&id=I68239

Once again the name Cantilupe/Cantelupe disappears in this record.
Instead we have Cauntelou.

I might add the following particulars: John de Cantelou was a member
of the Cantelowe family of Chilton Cantelo, Somerset. Joan de
Chastelyn is ancestral to Katherine Affeton (died 1467), wife of Hugh
Hugh Stukeley (or Stuckley), Esq. and William Bourgchier, Knt., 9th
Lord Fitz Warin.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Joe]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Here is a weblink to a partial transcript of a law suit published in
Year Books of Richard II: 13 Richard II, ed. by Theodore F. T.
 http://tinyurl.com/46d2smy
The lawsuit is dated 1389-1390 and names "Joan, wife of John Maynford"
as cousin and heir of John de Cauntelou.  Joan, wife of John Maynford,
can be readily identified as Joan de Chastelyn, wife of John
Manningford, of Somerset, whose ancestry can be found in Susan
   http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=johanson&id=I33572
   http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=johanson&id=I68239
Once again the name Cantilupe/Cantelupe disappears in this record.
Instead we have Cauntelou.
I might add the following particulars: John de Cantelou was a member
of the Cantelowe family of Chilton Cantelo, Somerset.  Joan de
Chastelyn is ancestral to Katherine Affeton (died 1467), wife of Hugh
Hugh Stukeley (or Stuckley), Esq. and William Bourgchier, Knt., 9th
Lord Fitz Warin.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Doug,

If you are interested here is a transcript of the case you mentioned:
http://tinyurl.com/86fbaqa

And the ancestry of Joan le Chastelyn which the case helped prove:
http://tinyurl.com/85fq6qx

Joe

[Alex Maxwell Findlater]

While I agree with the thrust of the above, I would point out that the
indexers are required, at least now, to enter in parentheses the
modern standard form of the name, for purposes of searching the
database. Clearly this has not happened consistently, and was not
necessary before digital searching was invented. If a modern form is
not correct, or shall we say has been incorrectly identified, then
they are in a dilemma - one can hardly expect an indexer to go through
re-indexing all previous entries for an oft-recorded family.

I have had just the same experience with the place-name 'Martnaham',
which, as is normal with place names, follows the Ordnance Survey
spelling, for consistency. Unfortunately in this case, as in many
others, the OS spelling is far from reality. In the C18 the standard
polite spelling was Martinham, with many variants as might be
expected. However historically the name was most frequently rendered
'Mertname'. Etymologically the most likely derivation, based in early
forms from around 1300 would be 'Meer-toun-hame', ie the ham of the
farmtown by the lake, which is of course somewhat tautological,
although '-tonham' is a not uncommon place-name ending. So if the OS
had got it right, as 'Mertonham' perhaps, we would all happily be
working with a word which was of a correct formation for its origin
and was comprehensible as well. But alas, such perfection is beyond
us!

At least with personal names there are not so many variants as with
place-names.