Fisher is an ‘occupational’ surname that derives from the Old English word ‘fiscere' meaning fisherman. Early references are frequently prefixed by the article ‘le’. A form normally understood to signify a person’s occupation rather than his surname. However, Reaney (1967) has illustrated that the contrary is also true. An unusual form is found at Mundham, Sussex in 1296: Martin ‘atte Fisshar’ meaning ‘dweller by an enclosure for catching fish’.

In many documents the Latin translation—piscator—is recorded although it is improbable that anyone would have been referred to as Piscator by his fellow men. The scribe simply rendered the name in the ‘official’ Latin rather than in the colloquial English.

Medieval records reveal numerous variations of the surname. Even for the same person it is possible to find different spellings within the same document suggesting that at a time of general illiteracy their rendition had more to do with what the clerk heard than the emergence of a potential variant. It was the establishment of parish registers in the 16th century that finally ensured the spelling of the surname was standardised and that none of the archaic variants survive today.

The adoption of hereditary surnames was not a spontaneous event nor was it governed by set rules. The process developed gradually in South England and East Anglia during 1250-1350 but was not complete until 1450 in the North of England – well after the Midlands and the South (McKinley, 1990). To find the earliest true Fisher founder ancestors we need to examine the records covering these periods for each county and establish genealogically whether a family was established and ramified.

By consulting early medieval documents we find some early examples of fishermen. They occur in widely distributed locations and are certainly not related:

• 1200 Ernoldus piscator, Fittleworth, Sussex [“Feet of Fines of Sussex” L F Salzmann, 1903]
• 1204 Adam piscator, Alrewas, Staffordshire [Assize Roll].
• 1210 Nic[holas] piscator, Leicester [“Register of the Freemen of Leicester” ed. H. Hartopp, 1927].
• 1219 Robert and Godwin, piscators, Redcote, Oxfordshire [“Feet of Fines for Buckinghamhire, 1986].

None of these men have a surname but are described by their occupation. The dates also significantly antedate the period when the custom of hereditary surnames began. If these men had male descendants there is no certainty that they would have assumed the surname Fisher and therefore would not have ‘founded’ a Fisher family.

• The one of the most ancient documented Fisher families originates with a Robert Fisher in 13th century Tydd St. Giles (Cambridgeshire)—a family extant today. (Fisher, F O, 1909-32) There are probably other old families but details remain to be established. 

Hereditary use of the surname Fisher in the late 14th century

The 1377-81 Poll Taxes recorded the occupation of 82 Fishers; of these only nine were fishermen and found widely dispersed in Yorkshire (2), Gloucestershire, Hampshire (2), Buckinghamshire, Shropshire, Lincolnshire and Staffordshire. As the remaining 73 had occupations other than fishing we can infer that they must have inherited their surname from an ancestor who was once a fisherman.

• Odstone is a small village in Leicestershire. It is difficult to image that it could have been much larger in the 14th century. Yet we find five Fishers here in 1379, each distinguished by the suffix ‘senior’, ‘junior’ or ‘filius’. Probably representing two or possibly three generations of the same family this suggests the hereditary use of the surname since at least 1320 in Leicestershire.

Surname Instability

Although by the early 15th century the use of hereditary surnames was widespread we still find examples of uncertainty.

The Visitation of Warwickshire (1619) records the father of Sir Edward Fisher of Warwick as Thomas Fisher alias Hawkins and his grandfather as Thomas Hawkins alias Fisher. In Shropshire the Lay Subsidy of 1525 records a William Fyssher who in the previous year was recorded as William Fitchell. In the Devonshire Lay Subsidy of 1525 records a “frenchman” called John Fyssher at the fishing village of Sidmouth. As late as 1618 we find Thos. Stokes alias Fysher, at Oakley Bedfordshire.

Together these examples demonstrate that even 200 years after hereditary surnames were first established cases of surname vacillation will emerge to confound the genealogist.

More of a forest than a tree!

Are all Fishers related? We can quite definitely say no. In the mid 14th century the Black Death devastated England wiping out some 2 million people, reversing the population dynamics, which for next 100 years declined and stagnated. This single event probably extinguished a number of early Fisher families and consequently retarded the ramification of the survivors. Despite this the surname is widely distributed in the late 14th century; an impossible phenomenon for a single common ancestor living a mere hundred years earlier.

The majority of Fishers living today descend from many separate ‘founder’ ancestors who lived and worked in different parts of medieval England. Others will descend from ancestors who changed or anglicised their surnames following immigration to England or the former colonies of the British Empire or who assumed the name Fisher owing to non-paternity causes such as illegitimacy and adoption.

• In the 1881 UK Census records almost 100 foreign male Fishers born in continential Europe: Germany 50, Poland 15, France 5, Austria 4, The Netherlands 3, Portugal 3, Russia 3, Denmark 3, Belgium 2, Hungary 1, Norway 1, Switzerland 1.   This level of immigration, however, is insignificant as it represents less than 0.5% of all male Fishers recorded and indicating that mass immigration from Europe in the 19th century did little to alter the genetic profile of Fishers in the UK.

How big is the forest?

Attempting to estimate the number of separate Fisher families established in the Middle Ages is fraught with unknown variables.

In the wake of the Black Death the 1377-81 Poll Tax records reveal some 390 Fishers from over 200,000 people listed. How many of these became the founder ancestor of extant Fisher families is impossible to say. Furthermore the national coverage of the Poll Tax is quite poor so there are probably many founder ancestors missing from the records. We may be able to estimate the number by extrapolating back from modern statistical records.

The population of England and Wales in 1881 was almost 26 million; of these the number of Fisher “heads of households” was about 5800. The population of England in 1381 was between 2 and 3 million. Using simple ratios the estimate of Fisher families in 1381 would be about 600. Alternatively applying the 1881 Fisher surname frequency (0.12%) with the “heads of household” ratio to the average 1381 population would suggest about 625 families. These are no more than crude estimates but they suggest an order of magnitude for the surname at this time.

To some degree the number of founder ancestors in the 14th century has less relevance than the numbers of families that exist today. In the first 100 years a significant number of Fisher families probably died out in the male line. The survival of any family depends not only on the numbers of males born but the numbers who reach adulthood and father sons themselves in sufficient numbers for that family to ramify. Therefore to some extent in the early period ramification would only be found in economically and socially successful families. It was not until the Industrial Revolution did this process extended to families lower down the social scale.

• A statistical simulation (Sturges and Haggett, 1987) based on a sample size of 1000 separate surname ancestors living in 1350 projected that, after 23 generations, only 350 families would survive to the present day and of these 150 were under threat of extinction. This has important implications for the DNA project by suggesting that either there were 2000 or 3000 Fisher founder ancestors in the 14th century or there are less than 200 original Fisher families extant today!

Who were the Fishers?

Herring fisheries were of major importance in medieval England but curiously, where the late 14th century records include occupations, all (sea) fishermen bore surnames other than Fisher! This is not what we would expect if sea fishermen took that surname in any significant numbers. Instead the surname appears to be favoured by fishermen labouring at river fisheries, fish weirs and fishponds and shunned by those who earned their living on the sea. Fishing villages often formed close-knit communities: with so many people engaged in fishing it would have been impractical for them all to be called Fisher.

 The name was also adopted by fishmongers who simply traded in fish and did not engage in the activity of fishing.There is after all no record of any families bearing the name Fisherman or Fishmonger.

• Richard Hawkyns alias Fyssher of Warwick, fishmonger, 1549
• The Crownmote Court Rolls of Chester records the presentment of fishmongers including a [Richard] le Smyth “fyssher” in 1406-7
• In 1482-3 Thomas Fyssher, fishmonger was entered into the registers of freeman of Leicester

The 13th and 14th centuries were the heyday of inland fisheries. However, owing to its high cost, the consumption of freshwater fish was the preserve of the religious houses, royalty and nobility. The labouring man could only afford sea fish.

• Robert piscator sent by the King to Feckenham to catch 40 breams and 40 pikes for the King…[Cal.Cl.R.1231-4]
• William, the King’s fisherman, sent to fish the royal ponds at Foss and the Archbishop of York was asked to give help in providing a store pond……[Cal.Cl.R.1251-3]

The frequency of references found in medieval records tends to support the exclusive origin of the surname Fisher at inland locations. But it would be impausible to maintain that these occurrences coincide with the all the known locations of fish weirs and fishponds. Medieval fisheries were so numerous it would be impossible to attribute a Fisher family to every site. This resonates with McKinley (1990) who says there is often little connection between the importance of an occupation locally and the number of surnames derived from it.

Although we cannot expect an exact correlation between the number of “fisheries” and the number of Fisher families a causal relationship probably exists. Fishponds were particularly well developed at religious houses and on royal estates. It may be that these sites employed fishermen on a sufficiently continuous basis to give rise to the conditions that encouraged the adoption of the surname. It is aslo likely that a siginifcant number of families descend from fishmongers, who very probably originated in market towns and ports.

Social advancement for a Fisher family came through marriage or commercial success a process doubtless facilitated by the labour crisis in the aftermath of the Black Death. In the 17th century two related Fisher families were created baronets. Other families became part of the land gentry, country gentlemen and farmers. Until the 18th century the majority of families were artisans, labourers and tradesmen. Thereafter we find politicians, clergy and military men, who pursued distinguished careers amongst others who endured hardships and whose lives but for a misdemeanour or misfortune would otherwise have disappeared without trace.