Tineke, I agree with everything you say here. The fact is that one of the results of the Norman invasion of England was that everyone had to adopt a second name. The Normans were already in the habit of using two names, but the Saxons and the Celts were not- if they needed to sparate one Cedric from another Cedric, they usually just tacked on an attribute, but it wasn't necessarily permanant.

Somehow we have gone from that to "establishing " that all french-sounding names must be Norman (or if not Norman, then Hugenot) and they must indicate a connection with the nobility (or a rather romantic set of refugees).If you look up any particular name (and Darcy is a really good example of this) you'll find exactly the same wording used in all of them. This suggests to me that they are all copied from the same source. The source is never mentioned- what is it? I have a nasty feeling that, like an awful lot of these things, it is just a reiteration of somthing dreamed up by some Victorian over-romanticised schoolteacher who had no backing for his claim whatsoever.

I've not really thought much about the idea that it wasn't a town but a hill- feature or something. I've been too busy trying to make some sense out of what is generally believed. It's an intereating idea If you are right, then it doesn't have to be french, either. It might be Arc, as you say, or arceau, arsouille (;-))orsay, Os, osée, oseille, ossu or anything. It might be a Irish, old English, old Norse, old Latin, or something totally different. Who knows what was going on in JA's head when she wrote this?

Thanks. It's nice to see you are still around, my dear!