An unauthored book entitled "The Norman People", published by the Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore (1874, 1975, 1989), p. 313, notes that William and Robert London were Normans, 1180-95. "Of this family was William de Londres, one of the conquerors of Glamorgan, 1090, ancestor of the Lords Loundres de Naas, and Thomas de Londres who settled in Scotland before 1163". (Note that "Londres" is the French name for London and "Loundres" would simply be a deformation of the same name.) That's for the "facts". Now for the theory. London being the long-standing name for the capital of England (the Romans called it Londinium, meaning 'swamp' as London lies on low ground along the Thames River), I'm quite sure the surname London is from that placename and that the original people who took this name were from there, as in "John of London". We know that many current proper names are taken from a placename.
Why the notion, then, that London is a Norman name? This is my explanation. From ca. 800 and well into the 11th century, England was constantly being invaded by Vikings who ransacked the country and destroyed much of the Saxon culture. Many Englishmen went over to Normandy as refugees in an attempt to escape Viking persecution, including the 10 year-old son of King Ethelred the Unready, the future King Edward the Confessor who ruled from 1042 to 1066. Edward's mother was the daughter of Count Richard I of Normandy, and she and her son spent many years (1013-1041) in Normandy. Now, I believe that someone bearing the 'name' ".... of London" (.... de Londres) was among those Saxon (English) refugees who went over to Normandy. He very likely had children in Normandy bearing the name "de Londres", hence the notion that the name is of Norman origin. The family probably went back over to England as part of the Norman Conquest of England by William the Conqueror in September 1066, and that since that time the name has been anglicized to the present form "London". (We know that Normandy had, too, been invaded by the Vikings (Northmen = Normans, hence the name "Normandy") but by 11th century the Dukes of Normandy, descendants of the Vikings, were strong enough to fend off attacks from the North and so the dukedom was relatively peaceful.)
If you have, like me, spent a few dollars to purchase one of those pretty useless imitation parchment sheets giving the so-called history of a particular surname (pretty much the same text for every surname, with only a few changes here and there to give the impression of authenticity), you'll have read the following:
"The history of the most ancient Anglo/Saxon surname of London reaches far into the chronicles of the Saxon race... History researchers... found the first record of the name London in Berkshire were they were seated from early times and their first records appeared on the early census rolls taken by the early Kings of Britain... this notable English family name, London, emerged as an influential name in the county of Berkshire where they were recorded as a family of great antiquity seated with manor and estates in that shire (county). Jordan of London was Lord of the manor and lands in 1214 and adopted the name London as his surname. By the 14th century they had branched to the counties of Wiltshire and Somerset to the west. In Norfolk a branch of the name became Londham and this branch also branched into Suffolk.... The surname London flourished during the turbulent middle ages, contributing greatly to the cultural development of England...
Amongst the first settlers in North America which could be considered a kinsman of the surnmen London... were John London who settled in Virginia in 1636; Humphrey London who settled in Virginia in 1639; Richard in New England in 1654; Robert London settled in Nevis in 1660".
Dr. Dalton London
Professor Emeritus - University of New Brunswick
140 Surrey Crescent
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 4L3
Telephone: 506-457-4459
Return to London Family Genealogy