Thomas Becket was not called Thomas à Becket during his own lifetime. He was called Thomas à Becket, by people who wrote about him much later, possibly in imitation of the name Thomas à Kempis, who was another medieval monk. Also Thomas Becket was commonly known as "Thomas à Becket", although this form seems not to have been contemporaneous, but a post-Reformation adornment, possibly in imitation ofThomas à Kempis.
Chat with our AI personalities
it was called makyle and his mum was called lillie......
Thomas Becket was never called "Thomas a Becket" during his life, nor for many hundreds of years after his death. It is a later mistake and should be treated as such.He was born in England in 1118 of noble Norman parents; his father was Gilbert Becket, who was possibly sheriff of London. Thomas was most often called "Thomas of London" during the early part of his life.In Anglo-Norman French, the language he would have used among his own family, the word a can mean at, in, located in, on, against, around, to, as far as, towards. . . and many more prepositional meanings. If he had been Thomas a Becket, then the element Becket would have to be a place-name, in order for the a to make any sense.The problem is that there is not (and has never been) a place in England called Becket, so Thomas a Becket is not a sensible or feasible name for anyone to have.He was plain Thomas Becket and that is how he should be known everywhere today.
Thomas Becket's middle name was Edward.
No, Becket was not a soldier and he did not destroy anything.
Thomas Becket was the Archbishop of Canterbury. His connection was that he was the Archbishop in Canterbury Cathedral.