Talk:Hubert

In my own genealogical research, I found the claim that Hubbard is a corruption of Hubert. I’ve seen this claim repeated a few times in different sources (most often in booths selling "coats of arms" at Renaissance Festivals, Fairs, etc.), none able to substantiate it. Unfortunately, errors are easily repeated in genealogical research.

In the book “One Thousand Years of Hubbard History: 866 to 1895” by Edwin Day, published in 1895, it actually shows the reverse, that Hubert is a derivation of Hubbard. Day’s book explains a detailed history that Hubba was a Danish king who raided the south of England in the late 9th century. Many of Hubba’s heirs had a variety of spellings to the name and after the Norman Conquest in 1066 there was a tendency to create French-looking spellings of this name, commonly Hobart and Hubbard. In that dialect, each of these spellings would have an identical pronunciation – something like “’O-bah”. All of our historical research shows that Hobart and Hubbard spellings were virtually interchangeable and we have many well-documented examples of parents taking one spelling, and children taking the other and the same person using both spellings. Any detailed history of Hobart or Hubbard show they are directly derived from King Hubba. In none of the history do we find any mention of the spelling “Hubert” being prior to Hubbard or Hobart.

I’ve also seen that “Hubba” was a Norse Sea God. Detailed geneological histories do not support this as the source of the Hobart/Hubbard names, however. Nor does any detailed geneological source show that the names had any other meaning (eg. the often claimed meaning being "bright mind") other than to refer to descendents of King Hubba.

All we can tell at this point is that any explaination or records that goes into great historical detail, seems to agree with Edwin Day while the “Hubbard as a corruption of Hubert” claim never seems to have any historical detail behind it. Does anyone have a source for the claim – one that actually gives some historical details and doesn’t just repeat the claim (eg. don't just repeat the questionable sources at a "coat of arms" vendor)?

Not Surprising
Removed this statement, which is POV, and originally referred to another sentence that disappeared a long time ago.
 * This is not surprising when considering its Huber element as a derivation of Heber. Rojomoke 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)