Talk:Keynes family

Comments

• The article needs better sourcing for both the family tree and history sections. Does anyone have suggestions where that might be found. Eluchil404 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Virtually all the so-called related surnames are not. I have put the "Disputed" template on for now, but only because I am too short of time to make all the necessary edits now - will be back tomorrow.HeartofaDog 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keynes family

You are disputing that the surname variants are valid. I have researched the "de Keynes" family for more than a year and can trace its roots back to "William de Cahaignes" c1035, sometimes referred to as "Cheney" or "Caineto" with descendents often referred to as Chesney,Caineto or similar. I have also researched the Dakin/Dickin/Deakin/Dicken(s) and most, if not all, descend from their ancestors in Ashbourne or Chelmorton, Derbyshire or Norfolk beforehand.

In genealogy, there is often a lot of conjecture but I have found connections linking my beliefs through many associated families which have remained connected through the generations. There have certainly been numerous changes in surname from the recent Dakin/Dickin/Dickens to the much older change from "de cahaignes" to "de keynes" and "Cheney"/"Chesney" and other varients.

There may well be individuals with names that are the same as, but not necessarily descended from, the original ancestor.

My source for many of the variants is "History & gazetteer of Derbyshire" (1833) which I have images of but is not in my opinion suitable for inclusion as a "picture" (image) in wikipedia. I would welcome a suggestion on how I might present this as some evidence for quite a few of the name variants.ken 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Surname derivatives

I am puzzled by the suggestion that there are no surname derivatives if this indeed the intended placement of this tag! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdakin (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Disputed content

Your source is unfortunately a typical example of very bad C19th genealogy and I regret that for this purpose it is without value. If you look at some authoritative modern sources on surnames - Reaney's "English Surnames" is excellent, meticulously referenced and easy to obtain - you will discover that of the names you claim as being related to Keynes, the only ones that actually are, are the spelling variants of Keynes itelf. All the rest have entirely different origins - which are fully documented and evidenced in Reaney. I am therefore removing them, and must ask you not to replace them UNLESS and UNTIL you can find some references of an equivalent standard on the basis of which to disagree with one of the principal authorities on English surnames.HeartofaDog 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thankyou for the reference to Reaney. I shall follow this up after I have had time to review it and compare with my own research on my own ancestry which certainly supports the assertion that Dakin's and other derivatives are originally from the Cahaignes root. This is supported by the many intermarriages between Keynes/Cheynes and the other derivative names as well as many connected families. I am quite confidant that Cheneys (and alternate spellings) are branches of "Cahaignes" and the fact that "Ch" in old english provided the hard "K" sound would suggest that Cheneys was in any case pronounced Kanes or Kaneys and explains why Cahaignes became Keynes when brought over to England.

Without reading the book you mentioned, it is not possible for me to be sure, but are you also saying that the other derivatives (such as Cockayne) cannot have come from the original "Cahaignes" family or just the (later) (de) Keynes?

ken 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on Reaney (the one you want is "Dictionary of English Surnames"), I am saying that the names Cockayne (etc) and Cheyney (Chesney, etc)) have nothing to do at any stage either with Keynes etc or with each other. I don't doubt, given the similarities, that there are instances of apparent overlap, but those are almost certain to be clerical or transcription error. I hesitate to get involved at all with Deakin / Dickens / Dawkins etc because there are lots of different origins for these names, which given the nature of surnames, sometimes flow into one another as well. But, to put it politely, I am extremely sceptical about the equation "de Keynes" = "Dakin" and similar. IF you can evidence it from reputable sources (by which I mean "of academic standard", like the Keats-Rohan work you cite: a huge number of bad books have been written about this sort of thing) then well done, but you WILL need to back it up (also remembering yet again No original research, because prima facie it's very implausible. HeartofaDog 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaignes? Cahagnes? Cahaignes?

Would the present Cahagnes (Calvados) or Cahaignes (Eure) not be the first places to consider as the origin of a name deriving from a place called Cahagnes or Cahaignes? Apart from anything else Chaignes doesn't begin with a hard C, so scarcely seems a good bet.HeartofaDog 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Both Cahagnes and Cahaignes are on the French Wikipedia. You actually quote Keats-Rohan to the effect that these are the places of origin of the name - although she has muddled the two of them up and put Cahaignes in Calvados. Why Chaignes? HeartofaDog 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can't answer your substantive questions, I did want to comment that modern French pronunciation is not dispositive with regards to medeaval Norman French. Eluchil404 15:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question - there is no doubt that the place of origin of the surname is either Cahagnes or Cahaignes, and I have made the appropriate changes.HeartofaDog 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are, according to Google maps, in fact two places "Cahaignes" (post code 27480) and "Chaignes" (post code 27120) both very close to Paris and within just 10 miles of each other!

ken 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cahaignes (Eure) has the post code 27420, not -80. The post code of Chaignes is indeed 27120 but there is nothing to suggest that this place has anything to do with the surname Keynes, about the origin of which there is no mystery. Moreover, even if you could obtain reliable information demonstrating that the form of the place name in the 11th century was such that it could be an alternative origin for the surname (which is what would be necessary to bring Chaignes into the picture) No original research (and that includes guesswork and conjecture in spades) would apply. So please forget Chaignes as far as Wikipedia is concerned. HeartofaDog 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps you didn't read my above note carefully enough; I didn't say there wasn't a Cahaignes in Eure! I simply stated that there is a place called "Cahaignes" 10 miles from "Chaignes" (post code 27120) - according to google that is. I don't know their source so perhaps they are incorrect! What I said was correct in other words, irrespective of the relevance of the "other" cahaignes.

(I understand that the possible origin of "Cahaignes" is a name of the "Juniper" plant which is used in gin making and this seems to have more of a resonance with the Calvados area in any event - in view of its obvious connection with distilled beverages)ken 08:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cahaignes (Eure) IS the same one that you have found on google - you have just got the post code wrong: you put 27480, whereas it is really 27420.

What is under discussion here is not French post codes but what can be written about the origin of the surname Keynes on Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, whatever statement is made has to be evidenced by reliable sources: the reliable sources here name two places - Cahaignes (Eure) (which is the same as the Cahaignes you have googled, and given the wrong postcode for) and Cahagnes (Calvados) - as possible places of origin, and only those two. Any other place - wherever it is and however interesting it may seem as a conjecture - is irrelevant unless it comes with an equally reliable source, in which case it can be added as another possible place of origin. Please try and grasp this. HeartofaDog 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Keynes's

Since the current list of Keynes's is now just current family members already in the family tree I suggest axing it as redundant. Dates could be added to the tree if people want, but the information on individual achievements belongs in the seperate articles, IMO. Eluchil404 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Already on Keynes (disambiguation) anyway. HeartofaDog 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins

Unless the 20th century family claims descent from the Domesday Normans, perhaps there should be two pages - one just with this family tree, relating to one specific modern Keynes family and the other a general page the Keynes name / origins. I dislike that sort of page greatly, but they seem to be here to stay, and I don't really see how the origins and medieval history of the surname has much bearing on John Maynard Keynes and his immediate family. For the avoidnace of future confusions, can you rename this page "Keynes family tree"? Then the other can be "Keynes family". HeartofaDog 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's demonstably the same family they can stay on the same page, but I wouldn't be opposed to a split otherwise. If you look at the history, you'll see that the two disparate sections were added by different people at different times. On the otherhand, if there is likely to be lots of duplication (in for instance a section on the origin of the name) they could well be kept together. Eluchil404 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's surely not usual to begin a modern biographical article with a paragraph on the origin of the surname. Better split them.HeartofaDog 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Keynes family a modern biographical article? It focuses more on family relationships and history so I would consider a name origin to be very much on topic. It is also entirely possible that there are (or rather were) notable members from the early 19th and previous centuries that should be added. To be clear, I would like to keep the cited name origin info in this article: The name originates in a Norman place name, either Cahagnes or Cahaignes. but don't have strong feelings about anything else. It is not at all clear to me what the proposed de Cahaignes article would look like though. It shouldn't just list random facts but rather deal encyclopediacally with a particular topic. Eluchil404 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an article which is primarily a family tree illustrating the biographes of one particular family called Keynes in the late 19th/20th/early 21st centuries, so yes, it is a modern biographical article. It began as a useful and sober family tree of the immediate family of John Maynard Keynes, and I think that is what it should remain.

If there are earlier notable members of the same family they should have their own articles. If there are earlier notable people called Keynes who are NOT members of this particular Keynes family - not all people called Keynes are related to each other - it would entirely wrong to imply that they have any relation to this family.

If there is any value in adding antiquarian inf to Wikipedia about the Norman origins of the name - and let's be very clear about the difference between this one specific family of Keynes's and the name Keynes - it will be clearer that the two are distinct subjects if there are two separate articles. There is IMO no value at all in a ragbag article on "everyone I can think of who happens to be called Keynes", especially if there is no proof of whether or not they are actually related.HeartofaDog 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

References