Talk:Roy

is ROY a caste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.2 (talk • contribs)

Roy is not a caste, but rather a conferred title of honour in India. During colonial rule by the British Raj, titles such as "Ray" were conferred and "Roy" was also used. As a family name among Europeans, it is a hereditary surname dating back to the Normans, of Normandy, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.6.44 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited information

1. The Norman people and their existing descendants in the British dominions and the United States of America. Genealogical Pub Co. 1874. p. 301 & 384. ISBN 9780806306360. for the surname of "King" and "Roy". 2. Encyclopædia Britannica

The first source is from the library of Oxford University. Curious as to why a claim of "unreliable" source is even uttered. Subjective opinion is not academic and thus removal of this source is unwarranted. You do not supersede or supplant this ACADEMIC source.

(remove irrelevancies)

Usage of surname in the modern era is not an irrelevance. It gives historical context and current language usage in the modern era. It demonstrates origin of word.

(delete plagiarized sentence)

Definition of plagiarism : Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit.

Information was cited very clearly and linked to proper references and credited. Thus, this is not plagiarism and is sourced.

That an academic library holds a copy of a source does not make it an 'academic source'. The Norman People was anonymously self-published (i.e. the publisher did not play the role of independent editor, they they just published whatever the author paid to have them print), and the author was nothing but a diletant. As to the Britannica reference, it is a reliable source, but has nothing to do with the surname Roy - it is about the Normans, which need not be described. Likewise that recent legal English happens to use a phrase that contains the word Roy is not really relevant as it has nothing to do with the development of the surname. And it is indeed plagiarism to appropriate the exact text of a source, even when cited, if no attempt is made to show it is a direct quote. (and this is not solved by the addition of quotation marks - a direct quote is only appropriate when the precise words of the source are critical. If it is the concept you are conveying, which is the case here, then it must be paraphrased. To top it off, the cited source describes the Ray surname, not the Roy surname, so it is not only plagiarized, it is taking text about one surname and presenting it as if it referred to a different surname. This is outright fraud.

All this aside, the article cannot stand in its old form. We cannot say that Roy is a Norman surname, when it is also a Scottish surname and also an Indian surname. A surname with multiple independent origins should be presented as having multiple independent origins, rather than stating it has ones specific origin, then immediately contradicting this by giving two other origins. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until an academic source outright states that this work is not reliable, your opinion on it is subjective. It stands. The background of the surname is what is being discussed here. Citing the Normans is in fact RELEVANT. They are the ones who brought it into England.

Now saying this is fraud is not only completely untrue it is a wrongful accusation. The surname of Ray quoted demonstrates the same origin that Roy shares. This is cited through ancestry and their usage of Oxford family names dictionary. If the article does not need the source for the surname Ray to further demonstrate this origin, it can be omitted in this case. Not fraud, but clearly yet another source of information for the surname Roy.

Surname Ray "English (of Norman origin): nickname denoting someone who behaved in a regal fashion or who had earned the title in some contest of skill or by presiding over festivities, from Old French rey, roy ‘king’.

The surname did not originate in Scotland or in India. Anglicizing the word Ruadh to Roy means to make it English. We know that this surname is of Norman origin in English and thus the word itself came from the Normans, not Scotland. Saying that it is also found in Scottish Gaelic highlights this. India was a conferred title, from the British Raj and that again means that it did not originate in India but was brought there. What was stated is not a contradiction, it highlighted that this surname can be found in these 2 countries as well. NOT that it is the origin of the word.76.68.6.170 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for The Norman People being untrustworthy have been given at Talk:Hewitson. THe Normans brought the Norman language to England, they did not bring the surname to England. To take a quote directly from a page about the Ray surname and pretend that it applies to the Roy surname is a clearcut example of fraudulent citation. It takes pretty extreme mental gymnastics to conclude that an Indian with the surname Roy is actually a bearer of a Norman surname. Agricolae (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy surname

Information has already demonstrated where this word and surname originated from.

Ancestry DNA:

"Scottish: nickname for a person with red hair, from Gaelic ruadh ‘red’. English (of Norman origin): variant of Ray 1, cognate of 3. French: from Old French rey, roy ‘king’ (from Latin rex, genitive regis), a nickname for someone who lived in a regal fashion or who had earned the title in some contest of skill or by presiding over festivities. Indian (Bengal) and Bangladeshi: variant of Rai."

This source demonstrates that the Old French (Old Norman) language originally has roy as meaning king. Even today, Old Norman phrases can be seen in UK parliament that demonstrate Norman usage of the word. The French families of Roy and Le Roy are the most common family names in Northern France and in French-speaking Canada. Now, Agricolae said that Roy did not originate in Normandy, which is historically incorrect. Normandy had been using roy and le roy. THAT is the origin of the surname.

Ruadh in Scottish has been ANGLICIZED to meaning roy, but it did not originally mean that word. Thus, the origin is still Old Norman. Robert Ruadh Macgregor was not a Roy by way of a family surname but his middle name was anglicized to Roy.

India is a conferred title from the British Raj during colonial rule. That is not an origin of the word but rather another language using an anglicized word.

I have already linked another use of surname infobox (Smith) to show the exact same set-up that shows its origin and region and even in that surname page you can see other languages using the word but that does not denote it having originated in all those examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.57.220 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are hung up on etymology, and indeed, the word from which the name derived did come from Norman French, and before that, from Old French, and before that from its Latin roots, and before that from its Indo-European origins on the Pontic steppe. By your criteria, ignoring the actual origination of the name and only looking at the origin of the word, we could just as well assign its origin to France or Italy or Ukraine. That is not the origin of a name though. The name does not exist in the records of pre-Conquest Normandy. Find for me one person named Roy who lived in Normandy during that period, either as surname or given name, and we will have something to Talk about. The name originated in England, among people using the Anglo-Norman dialect, not in Normandy. The name independently originated in Scotland. The fact that the form Roy there was originally a nickname is completely irrelevant - nicknames become given names (i.e. Rufus). That Ruadh was Anglicized as Roy does not miraculously appropriate the Gaelic name as English, let alone mean that it is from Normandy. The name originated separately, again, in the Raj, and that is not Normandy either. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while I am at it, your own claimed source, Ancestry DNA (which I would not consider very reliable) says that there are separate origins, a Scottish one, and an English one, and a Bengali one. It never once says Normandy. That the language originally had this word is not the same as the people having this name. Agricolae (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Etymology.

Definition: the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history

You stated the name originated in England. Ancestry DNA states it is of Norman origin. That is what is being cited here.

"In Anglo-Norman England, the name derived from the Norman word roy, meaning "king"

Notice? The origin of the word in the infobox is Old Norman which is exactly where it comes from. It still lists where the surname was used but as pertaining to word origin and where the surname derived from is from Normandy. Hence it became Anglo-Norman, when the Normans came over in 1066.

You did not see the Smith (surname) article did you?

"The name refers to a smith, originally deriving from smið or smiþ, the Old English term meaning one who works in metal related to the word smitan, the Old English form of smite, which also meant strike (as in early 17th century Biblical English: the verb "to smite" = to hit). The Old English word smiþ comes from the Proto-Germanic word smiþaz. Smithy comes from the Old English word smiðē from the Proto-Germanic smiðjon."

Hung up on Etymology? That is the EXACT same set-up Roy has been listed as with showing the origin of the word and how it came to be a surname. There is no ignoring of the origin as that is what I am citing! Cited sources already prove the origin of the word and surnames deriving from that word already confirm information present.

Your own words establish this:

"and indeed, the word from which the name derived did come from Norman French"

Just as the Smith surnames states: Old English The surname Roy states: Old Norman (which has an article itself and is also called Old Northern French)

The surname did not just miraculously appear out of nowhere in England, later in Scotland and India. It has an origin, that is what is stated. The article also states other languages having used it. The word does not have 3 different origins, but rather one with later languages using the it. Many of the Roy or Le Roy French families are in Northern France, as well as from the Acadia settlement in Canada come from Normandy and Northern France.

Do I need to pull up people in genealogy to prove they were a Smith from Old English in England? No, same applies here. Sources already provide proof.

The fact you do not find Ancestry DNA reliable is laughable. They are the world's leading DNA testing company citing academic sources that somehow YOU override. 70.53.57.220 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be simpler. At the start of this very response, you cite YOUR SOURCE as saying the name originated in Anglo-Norman England from a Norman language word. THE NAME ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND FROM A NORMAN LANGUAGE WORD, not in Normandy. The name Smith has absolutely nothing to do with it. Agricolae (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name Smith is being brought up in regards to you stating that I am putting too much emphasis on etymology. Of which, I cited another article that completely disregards your claim to make light of the fact that Roy is structured as an article correctly.

Can you explain how Roy just miraculously appeared in England? They did not just one day call someone a Roy or Le Roy and that was the development. And yet, Roy or Le Roy families are still in France and not in England? They came from the region of Normandy, bringing it into what would be called Anglo-Norman England. Hence why OLD NORMAN is cited correctly as it is in other articles. Search for yourself the Le Roy or Roy family genealogies and you will see many of whom date back to the regions of Normandy.70.53.57.220 (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own source says it is Scottish and English and Bengali. Why are we still talking about this? Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick history for you:

- Norman conquest of England in 1066, Normans introducing their language into England to form Anglo-Norman. Roy was Old French (which is another term used for Old Norman) for king as source indicates.

- After 1130, parts of southern and eastern Scotland came under Anglo-Norman rule (the Scoto-Normans), in return for their support of David I's conquest. Ruadh was originally a nickname for a red headed individual in Scottish Gaelic. The WORD Roy would come to anglicize this word, but that was from the English (Anglo-Normans).

- Fast forward, colonial rule of the British Raj in India refers to the period of British rule on the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. Rai would become anglicized as well to Roy. Having been a conferred title, not an origin of the surname directly.

We are talking about this, because all of these are addressed in the article. The word/origin in the infobox is correct and still holds where the source of the initial surname came from.70.53.57.220 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick history for you:

Your own source says the surname is Scottish, English, and Bengali. Full stop. Agricolae (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are addressed, you have not provided any academic sources as every time you were presented with evidence you called it "unreliable" as your "opinion" was.

This is not academic and does no justice to the discussion. Even sources as Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press you have called "unreliable". That is a red-flag for any further discussion. You have not read the information or history provided. That is full-stop from here.

We will let administrators sort out your editing and lack of sources you have provided for this. Everything has been done like other surname articles and sourced correctly.70.53.57.220 (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR SOURCE SAYS SCOTTISH, ENGLISH AND BENGALI. NONE OF YOUR SOURCES SAY NORMANDY. This is ridiculous. Agricolae (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are done this discussion, wait for administrators to check.70.53.57.220 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those following at home who may miss the subtle distinction, the sources say Norman (the people or the dialect), not Normandy. There are English names of Latin linguistic origin, but that doesn't make their place of origin Italy. There are also surnames expressed in the English language that did not originate in England, e.g. Standing Bear. These two concepts, the linguistic origin and the geographical origin, are distinct. The name Roy is linguistically Norman, geographically English; also linguistically anglicized Gaelic, geographically Scottish. That is what the cited source says. Agricolae (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing a surnames origin, we are identifying the word/name in which that was first used and then cite where derivations end up. Roy was introduced into England, from the Normans who used Roy in Normandy. The french families that descend from Roy or Le Roy are not from England, just so we are clear. The french families that came to Canada and even the USA were not from England. Roy/ Le Roy in Canada are families that came to Acadia from Normandy and other regions in France. Again, not English. The origin of the surnames was originally in Northern France, which was the region of Normandy. When the surname came to be passed down it found its way into other languages (ex: Anglo-Norman Fitzroy), ruadh (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruadh) in Scottish Gaelic became anglicized to Roy etc. In Normandy, Roy or Le Roy was used by the Normans to denote king or kingly. Hence words like Viceroy came into fruition. Thus, the origin in the info-box is correct, clearly as other surname articles like Smith_(surname) demonstrate this etymological distinction with how a surname can be found in other languages and geographical places, but its source is Old English and England. Just as Roy is Old Norman and from Normandy.70.53.57.220 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just making things up. You don't have a single source that says people named Roy in Normandy crossed to England to give rise to the surname there, and this is not how such surnames originated. Then you say that there were French families named Roi that became Roy in Canada. That may well be the case, but there is a better way of expressing what you call "Normandy and other parts of France" - it is called simply France, and the only reason you are calling it 'Normandy and other parts of France' is to pretend that it is linked to its adoption in Anglo-Norman England. Instead, this would be another independent origin of the name, one for which you have no source. When you say "the origin of the surnames was originally in Northern France", you are just making it up outright in the face of your source saying explicitly that the name Roy is English and Scottish and Bengali. AND SMITH IS IRRELEVANT. Smith is Old English from England because its roots are Old English, and because it became a surname in England - two separate things both independently correct but not one dependent on the other. Roy is derived from a word in the Norman French dialect spoken in England when it became a surname in England, contrary to your claims to the contrary that directly contradict your own source. Independently, Roy is also linguistically anglicized Gaelic, and it became a name in Scotland. That is what YOUR SOURCE SAYS. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are finished administrators can see information.70.53.57.220 (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, going back to the cited source, it does give Old French as yet another separate origin for the name - that makes four independent origins, and none of them are Normandy. The article now relates all four origins given by the cited source, and the infobox reflects what is said in the article. Agricolae (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was already put to the administrator's noticeboard and any further revisions by you demonstrate that you are trying to instigate an edit war. Wait until administrators response.70.53.57.220 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That information you just reverted - the fifth time within 10 hours when any more than three is an absolute policy violation WP:3RR - came directly from your source. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy & Le Roy

Couple of links to check records of French immigrants into North America, demonstrating that Roy (formerly Le Roy) as pertaining to the French word was established in France already and not a derivative of roi. Instead, the article "le" was dropped and thus Roy derived from Le Roy.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Roy-1390

Check Sources: Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes

L'Académie française a adopté l'orthographe « roi » en 1740 "The French Academy adopted the spelling "roi" in 1740"

http://www.academie-francaise.fr/essai-dun-portrait-du-roy ( Article written Le 25 juin 1711) Showing Roy still in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.129.97 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitree is a self-published non-reliable source (WP:RS). The French Academie article does not say anything about the etymology of either the word or the surname. The fact that the Academie adopted a preferred spelling in 1740 says nothing about the origin of that spelling. That being said, removal of any reference to the surname in the Francophone world hardly satisfies your complaint - did you consider fixing it rather than deleting it? Agricolae (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Unless someone can give me a good reason why a page about people named Roy should completely ignore a number of people named Roy Anderson, I will be putting back reference to the Roy Anderson disambiguation page. Agricolae (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it spans multiple categories, it would need to go in the see also section. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really serving the readers, hiding this name at the bottom of the page? Agricolae (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman origin

The claim here that "[i]n Anglo-Norman England, the name derived from the Norman roy, meaning 'king'" is contradicted by the following source: "Roy", isof.se (in Swedish), Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore, [Namnet Roy] har ibland felaktigt uppfattats som bildat till franskans roi 'kung'. [[The name Roy] has sometimes been falsely believed to originate from the French roi 'king'.] Glades12 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit tricky to deal with, due to the way our page groups use as a given name and use as a surname. Our source for the Norman origin is a surname dictionary, and is describing its use as a surname long before the Swedish source attributes its first use as a Swedish given name. Also it appears to be specific to its use in Sweden and Finland - it puts the first use in 1881, when I can find it in England by the 1590s, in France by 1603, and in the US by the late 1600s, all in people with surnames not suggesting the Gaelic origin attributed by the Swedish source. In short, I don't think a Swedish-specific source for usage as a given name in Sweden overrides a sourced use as a surname, or even as a given name, in other places and times. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Glades12 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the surname Roy in FRANCE

Roy is absolutely not a Norman surname in France, of course it may be different in America, but I'm talking about FRANCE. The source I cite is perfectly recognized. In France the works of Albert Dauzat and Marie-Thérèse Morlet in onomastics are authoritative, not only are their work on French onomastics recognized in France, but also abroad. Plus it turns out I'm Norman and I study last names, especially those from the country of my ancestors, Normandy. You should check on the French Wikipedia my skills in onomastics. Come to Normandy and you will see that this name did not exist in the past. No trace on the war memorials of the WWI in the villages whose lists I study regularly. The only known form of the name in Normandy is Leroy. Nortmannus (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only Norman here and that is not a justification. I am as well, that is not relevant.

And saying just because you have seen no trace on the war memorials on the WWI is almost as insulting as it is ridiculous to use as an argument on Wikipedia.

Previously you had incorrectly stated that it was never Roy in the past and was Middle French, when in fact that was completely false and you had never seen the research showing it was Old French. You cited the word "viceroy" and had no idea that the name had already been a byname pre-Norman conquest with cited sources, manuscripts confirming otherwise.

We have medieval experts in surname histories, a knighted French expert with sources from the National Library of France that state its origin and you then said the "dictionary was wrong". That in of itself indicates we have a problem, as you are not a leading expert in the field.

Also we have leading experts in Onomastics that identified Roy, Roi, Le Roi, Le Roy & DE ROY. Stating that it is "only Le Roy" is incorrect, DE ROY means "of Roy", which we have an example of and used by a Templar, William of Roy/"King" (Guillaume De Roy) who came from Normandy in the late 13th to 14th century and is not the first to have done so, dropping the genitive "le" from his name.

I don't need to "come to Normandy", I have experts in the field and have studied medieval surnames professionally as well. This is not an argument, nor befitting.

"Ecrit indifféremment dans quelques actes: Roi, Le Roi, De Roy et Le Roy, D'origine normande"

PAR LE CHER DU CLUZEL DE REMAURIN, CHEVALIER

-ANCIEN GARDE-DU-CORPS DU ROI CHARLES X ET CAPITAINE DE CAVALERIE, DEMISSIONNAIRE EN 1830 PAR REFUS DE SERMENT

-MEMBRE TITULAIRE DE L'INSTITUT D'AFRIQUE

-MEMBRE TITULAIRE CORRESPONDANT., CLASSE DES BELLES-LETTRES, SECTION DE LITTÉRATURE

-COMITÉ DES SCIENCES HÉRALDIQUES DE L'ACADÉMIE UNIVERSELLE DE PARIS

"Roy: English (of Norman origin): from Old French roi 'king' used as a nickname (see 3 below) and also as a personal name." "French: from Old French rey roy 'king'. Compare Deroy and Leroy."

Knight De Roy (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]