Your views (plus others) would be welcome:
I recently did a 'deep subclade' Y DNA test (Family Tree DNA), which came out as R1b1b2a1a4 and I got the best information on the web from your site in regards to geographical concentrations, etc.
My surname is Maude, and the 'origin myth' on the web says the name comes from Eustace de Monte Alto - an Italian mercenary who came over to England with with William the Conqueror. Most Maudes are congregated around the Leeds/Bradford area of Yorkshire and have been for centuries, which puts them in Danelaw territory during Anglo Saxon times.
The DNA (Saxon/Frisian) is contradictory to the Italian mercenary theory, hence the confusion about DNA evidence versus origins of surnames, although DNA is fact, whereas surname origin myths are sometimes true, sometimes not.
What is the most likely probability of my line being Anglo Saxon, versus Norman given the information above? Your views as to how all this makes sense would be welcome, as I'm sure there are other folk out there with similar contradictions.