Quote Originally Posted by gilmore View Post
My problem is with the statement "if you are interested in your family history I would say the first step to a larger world would be to join your clan society," which is quite unrealistic. The standard and accepted practice of genealogical research is starting with one's immediate family and working backward, generation by generation. Trying to take short cuts almost always leads to trouble at some point in the future. (The one exception is the possibility of DNA testing's being helpful.)
And you know if McMurdo has, in fact, started with his immediate family and worked backward, generation by generation, to discover his connection to the Grahams is quite real, then his statement would make a lot of sense. If the Clan Graham Society is, indeed, 'his clan society', then he has just uncovered an exciting new way to learn about his family.

Nor do I have problems with people joining clan societies. I once joined one myself. But face it, they are simply organizations for people who happen to bear the same surname, through accidents of birth and history.
No doubt joined on a drunken dare, eh?

For someone who is so insistent on careful research and study, you are certainly quick to group all clan societies under one umbrella. Although I would agree that most people are accidents of birth, although there will be those that were carefully planned out and conceived at just the precise moment specified.

My problem is with these claims and methodologies being taken seriously, passed on to those of us doing serious genealogical work, and wasting our time.
Ahhhh, so now I understand. You are a Graham descendant, yourself. And rather than asking how McMurdo came to his genealogical conclusions, you're just assuming he is wasting your time. Now I understand your motive. you're bound to lose years of research by taking the time to prove or disprove McMurdo's genealogy, aren't you?

If I wanted to be argumentative and puncture a few Brigadoonish fantasies, I would insist that the vast majority of Scots were Lowlanders descended from Anglo-Saxon-Jute Northumbrians who never spoke a word of Gaelic, were never part of the clan system, whose surnames were never associated with a clan, and looked down on the Highland clans as uncouth barbarians. But I wont.
That would not be argumentative, that would be historically accurate.

Spouting off about McMurdo's comments without having any proof or evidence of how extensively he has examined his own lineage? Now that was being argumentative. And you are finished being argumentative, aren't you? Begging your pardon, I just realized I phrased that as a question. Let me try again. You are finished being argumentative.