A Swan in Search of his "True" Clan

[Cygnus]

DWFII - It's always good to meet a new relative (even when we're very distant relations)!

Gilmore - I've looked into the DNA testing and will almost certainly have it done in the future.

Thanks again to all of you who have offered suggestions and help!

[gilmore]

Maybe it's the genealogist in me, but I would try as hard as possible to ascertain which clan my ancestors were associated with, if any, before making any claims or spending a lot of money on clan paraphenalia based on incomplete information. A wrong conclusion could steer others in your family wrong for generations to come.

In genealogy, as you probably have discovered, after a point one spends more time sorting through other people's misinformation than one does in original research. When we build on suppositions, we can create a genealogical edifice that can come tumbling down, forcing us to start from an earlier point, and lamenting years wasted in fruitless research.

Making things up to me is the worst of genealogical sins. I would advise against narrowing down the list of possible clans and then going with one that has the most appeal. It's perfectly fine to say that we don't have enough information to support further conclusions. We all get to that point sooner or later. Even those of us who have provable descents from Charlemagne and his family (as far back as one can reliably go in European genealogy) have to draw the line with his immediate ancestors. His great grandmother Berthe may or may not have been a Merovignian, and if she was, there are another two or three centuries of provable ancestors. But the last I heard, we just don't know.

[Cygnus]

Maybe it's the genealogist in me, but I would try as hard as possible to ascertain which clan my ancestors were associated with, if any, before making any claims or spending a lot of money on clan paraphenalia based on incomplete information. A wrong conclusion could steer others in your family wrong for generations to come.

My sentiments exactly - the Clan Gunn tartan tie I received as a gift a few years back has only been worn a few times and hasn't been "accessorized" for that very reason.

In genealogy, as you probably have discovered, after a point one spends more time sorting through other people's misinformation than one does in original research. When we build on suppositions, we can create a genealogical edifice that can come tumbling down, forcing us to start from an earlier point, and lamenting years wasted in fruitless research.

I'm getting close to that point, I think - my problem is that I'm a bit "tight fisted" and am reluctant to pay the subscription fees most genealogy-sharing websites charge.

Making things up to me is the worst of genealogical sins. I would advise against narrowing down the list of possible clans and then going with one that has the most appeal. It's perfectly fine to say that we don't have enough information to support further conclusions. We all get to that point sooner or later. Even those of us who have provable descents from Charlemagne and his family (as far back as one can reliably go in European genealogy) have to draw the line with his immediate ancestors. His great grandmother Berthe may or may not have been a Merovignian, and if she was, there are another two or three centuries of provable ancestors. But the last I heard, we just don't know.

Also my sentiment - I don't take any "family stories" as gospel, simply because the tendency for most people is to "exaggerate" the truth to improve the family's historical standing. After a few generations of such exaggeration, one quickly becomes the long-lost heir to the throne rather than the descendant of a weaver or swineherd!

[macwilkin]

Maybe it's the genealogist in me, but I would try as hard as possible to ascertain which clan my ancestors were associated with, if any, before making any claims or spending a lot of money on clan paraphenalia based on incomplete information. A wrong conclusion could steer others in your family wrong for generations to come.

In genealogy, as you probably have discovered, after a point one spends more time sorting through other people's misinformation than one does in original research. When we build on suppositions, we can create a genealogical edifice that can come tumbling down, forcing us to start from an earlier point, and lamenting years wasted in fruitless research.

Making things up to me is the worst of genealogical sins. I would advise against narrowing down the list of possible clans and then going with one that has the most appeal. It's perfectly fine to say that we don't have enough information to support further conclusions. We all get to that point sooner or later. Even those of us who have provable descents from Charlemagne and his family (as far back as one can reliably go in European genealogy) have to draw the line with his immediate ancestors. His great grandmother Berthe may or may not have been a Merovignian, and if she was, there are another two or three centuries of provable ancestors. But the last I heard, we just don't know.

Spt on.

My sentiments exactly - the Clan Gunn tartan tie I received as a gift a few years back has only been worn a few times and hasn't been "accessorized" for that very reason.



I'm getting close to that point, I think - my problem is that I'm a bit "tight fisted" and am reluctant to pay the subscription fees most genealogy-sharing websites charge.



Also my sentiment - I don't take any "family stories" as gospel, simply because the tendency for most people is to "exaggerate" the truth to improve the family's historical standing. After a few generations of such exaggeration, one quickly becomes the long-lost heir to the throne rather than the descendant of a weaver or swineherd!

Don't forget that many local public libraries provide FREE access to several of the "pay-per-view" sites such as Ancestry and Heritagequest, as well as othe FREE genealogical services.

T.

[Cygnus]

on't forget that many local public libraries provide FREE access to several of the "pay-per-view" sites such as Ancestry and Heritagequest, as well as othe FREE genealogical services.

T.

Well I'll be..!

I just checked my local library's website and there's a link to Ancestry.com hidden down at the bottom - all I have to do is enter my library card number!

I have to admit, it's nice having a librarian around to direct us to the references we need - thank you, Cajunscot!

[macwilkin]

Well I'll be..!

I just checked my local library's website and there's a link to Ancestry.com hidden down at the bottom - all I have to do is enter my library card number!

I have to admit, it's nice having a librarian around to direct us to the references we need - thank you, Cajunscot!

Always happy to be of service.

T.

[gilmore]

...

Also my sentiment - I don't take any "family stories" as gospel, simply because the tendency for most people is to "exaggerate" the truth to improve the family's historical standing. After a few generations of such exaggeration, one quickly becomes the long-lost heir to the throne rather than the descendant of a weaver or swineherd!

It's true that family stores often get mangled over the years, but sometimes they can have a grain of truth that verifies more reliable research, and they can also be helpful in pointing you in the right direction.

There is an example in the Gilmores. One of my relatives in the 1930's wrote down a family history based solely on what she had been told over the years. She started with a mangled version of the story of the first of the Gilmore/Morrisons being shipwrecked and clinging to driftwood, etc, as is told in the clan histories. She got the location wrong, as well as several other bits of information, but the fact that the story had been passed down for some 200 years since they/we came to America lent it its own kind of credibility.

[Bugbear]

It's true that family stores often get mangled over the years, but sometimes they can have a grain of truth that verifies more reliable research, and they can also be helpful in pointing you in the right direction.

There is an example in the Gilmores. One of my relatives in the 1930's wrote down a family history based solely on what she had been told over the years. She started with a mangled version of the story of the first of the Gilmore/Morrisons being shipwrecked and clinging to driftwood, etc, as is told in the clan histories. She got the location wrong, as well as several other bits of information, but the fact that the story had been passed down for some 200 years since they/we came to America lent it its own kind of credibility.

I'm aware of an intentional brick wall in one line of my family a few generations back. What ever happened, they ain't going to tell.

The other side had it all mixed up and it turns out, they are Irish and English, along with a bunch of other things, but I have found no proof of Scottish ancestors. Just playing the surname game, I could have claimed to be of Gordon or MacMillan, or several other clans, but it's all English or Irish, or misspellings.

[Chas]

Because we live in a computer age, with on-line spell-checkers, it is easy to forget that only two generations ago spelling was an adventure and not a science.

Dictionaries were only introduced into the majority of UK schools in about 1910. It is said that for many British men, the first time that they saw their own name in print was when they signed up for war in 1914.

For those who could read and write their own name, it was mainly not them who were writing it. Civil servants, Parish, Town, Army, Military clerks, Census takers all did the writing themselves - and spelled things as they understood them.

Finally, on my mother's side of the family the name is Jackson. Two generations before her, were two brothers who lived in properties side by side. One was a Jackman and the other was a Johnstone. The father of both was a Jackson.

Spelling is interesting, but should never be taken as Gospel.

Regards

Chas

[Bugbear]

Because we live in a computer age, with on-line spell-checkers, it is easy to forget that only two generations ago spelling was an adventure and not a science.

Dictionaries were only introduced into the majority of UK schools in about 1910. It is said that for many British men, the first time that they saw their own name in print was when they signed up for war in 1914.

For those who could read and write their own name, it was mainly not them who were writing it. Civil servants, Parish, Town, Army, Military clerks, Census takers all did the writing themselves - and spelled things as they understood them.

Finally, on my mother's side of the family the name is Jackson. Two generations before her, were two brothers who lived in properties side by side. One was a Jackman and the other was a Johnstone. The father of both was a Jackson.

Spelling is interesting, but should never be taken as Gospel.

Regards

Chas

Plus there is the whole word Meme evolution going on as the cultures and ruling class change. I guess sometimes the only way to settle it is to draw blood... and have it DNA tested.