Hello all, first forum post here.
I'm currently researching my Great Grandmother's side of the tree, Sarah Knight who married Alfred Cox. As I trace backwards I get to George Knight 1625-1695(my 8xGGF)m.Elizabeth, who according to Ancestry family tree connections is the son of John Neate 1591-1697 and Joanne Ruddle. At this point I began thinking that this might be a phonetic issue, as the further back you go surnames become more ambiguous. I traced back Neate until Meade became synonymous with Neate right back through to Sir Thomas Mede Neate 1410-1475 sometimes labelled as 'Sir Knight'. After some digging I saw that this name Mead was more to do with the land/Meadow that was granted to the Medes previously. His father was Rector Thomas Atte Mede, and his father, another Sir Thomas Atte Mede 1350/60-1455 (i.e. Thomas at or of the Mead(ow)). Before this, where there is no mention of Sir or Knight Neate does not show up next to Mede as the surname and the surname is listed as just Mede back to Fransois de la Mede b.1175 at I stopped.
Phew this is so long and confusing and I've tried to be a brief as possible!
Can someone out there please help and shine some light on this, as I would like to confirm whether the Neates/Meades are actually my ancestors or not and where things have gone awry. - Even though according to all I can see on Ancestry so far shows that through the the above George Knight, they are. If this is correct Fransois would be my 23xGGF !