Patterns In Your Genealogy

[Brianna]

What were some patterns that you noticed while you researched your genealogy? It could be anything. I noticed that my German, Scottish, Swedish and Welsh ancestors mostly had common surnames while my English and Irish ancestors mostly had uncommon surnames. The surnames of my Scots-Irish ancestors were in the middle.

[Weedman]

What were some patterns that you noticed while you researched your genealogy? It could be anything. I noticed that my German, Scottish, Swedish and Welsh ancestors mostly had common surnames while my English and Irish ancestors mostly had uncommon surnames. The surnames of my Scots-Irish ancestors were in the middle. damn how many types of ancestors do you have?

just joking

I noticed something in my tree.

a few things

first being an American I have 2 surnames that are European in origin but were never used in Europe. They are distinctly Americanisms and Americanized, Anglicized phonetic spelling and pronunciations of those names

also, the English surnames in my tree show to have very distinct origins or spellings and are not just typical overall British surnames

yes I do have those too, Smith, Thompson, names like that but I have more distinctly English , as opposed to just pan-British surnames than I expected , when I first started looking

some have a distinct spelling to a local region in England

some are just flat out distinctly English throughout their entire history and some are distinct to a local region in England.

I noticed the same thing in some of my other relatives surnames and distant relatives as well as other people from the state and region I live on other websites sometimes

the other thing is about the Scotch-Irish surnames in my family tree.
I only found out one was Scotch-Irish from Y-DNA testing. since it is a pan-British sounding type of name

also, with the distinctly Scotch-Irish names in my tree, none start with a 'Mc' or 'Mac' pre-fix

none at all. There maybe one which may have had it at one time but it could have been dropped or it may not have ever been there to begin with.

but none of the distinctly Scotch-Irish names in my family tree have a 'Mac' or 'Mc' prefix or anything. Even though they are distinctly Scotch-Irish.

the other thing I noticed in my genealogy is how it's basically the same as many typical families ad people in the region of the U.S where my family comes from, with pension records from the American Revolution in both the regular army and fighting in the backcountry too and having fought in battles in the Carolinas. Then of course the Civil War too.

very typical of the region in America where my family is from and my ancestry mix is extremely typical for the region my family is from.

[Linebacker]

I don't really have exact data or documentation on my predescesors older than 1945.That`s when the communists took power,and a lot of things and people were erased.

My grandfather tells me they were Partisan,who fought with Nazis,then Communists.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Lots of Mcs and Os and a couple Macs and a brunn as the origin of the male like.

[SupaThug]

...

[Brianna]

damn how many types of ancestors do you have?

just joking

I noticed something in my tree.

a few things

first being an American I have 2 surnames that are European in origin but were never used in Europe. They are distinctly Americanisms and Americanized, Anglicized phonetic spelling and pronunciations of those names

also, the English surnames in my tree show to have very distinct origins or spellings and are not just typical overall British surnames

yes I do have those too, Smith, Thompson, names like that but I have more distinctly English , as opposed to just pan-British surnames than I expected , when I first started looking

some have a distinct spelling to a local region in England

some are just flat out distinctly English throughout their entire history and some are distinct to a local region in England.

I noticed the same thing in some of my other relatives surnames and distant relatives as well as other people from the state and region I live on other websites sometimes

the other thing is about the Scotch-Irish surnames in my family tree.
I only found out one was Scotch-Irish from Y-DNA testing. since it is a pan-British sounding type of name

also, with the distinctly Scotch-Irish names in my tree, none start with a 'Mc' or 'Mac' pre-fix

none at all. There maybe one which may have had it at one time but it could have been dropped or it may not have ever been there to begin with.

but none of the distinctly Scotch-Irish names in my family tree have a 'Mac' or 'Mc' prefix or anything. Even though they are distinctly Scotch-Irish.

the other thing I noticed in my genealogy is how it's basically the same as many typical families ad people in the region of the U.S where my family comes from, with pension records from the American Revolution in both the regular army and fighting in the backcountry too and having fought in battles in the Carolinas. Then of course the Civil War too.

very typical of the region in America where my family is from and my ancestry mix is extremely typical for the region my family is from.

You bring up an important point. Many names were Anglicized or otherwise changed over the years. This was true even for British Isles surnames. FE, "McIntyre" was sometimes changed to "Tyree". There also can be instances where "English" surnames turn out to be Irish, Scottish or Welsh. The reverse is also true. "Jones" is just one example.

I'm not all that mixed. I just happen to have roots in many locations in the BI. I have some in continental Europe. The ties are fewer there than they are in the BI and they're mostly limited to countries in Scandinavia and the old Holy Roman Empire. I have more of a pan-Isles ancestry with a few additions.

[Smitty]

There also can be instances where "English" surnames turn out to be Irish, Scottish or Welsh. The reverse is also true. "Jones" is just one example.

Very true. My dad's side goes back quite a ways in the US, and obviously immigration records are scant. So it's anybody's guess where in the British Isles names like Rodgers, Adams, and Shepherd come from.

[Weedman]

You bring up an important point. Many names were Anglicized or otherwise changed over the years. This was true even for British Isles surnames. FE, "McIntyre" was sometimes changed to "Tyree". There also can be instances where "English" surnames turn out to be Irish, Scottish or Welsh. The reverse is also true. "Jones" is just one example.

I'm not all that mixed. I just happen to have roots in many locations in the BI. I have some in continental Europe. The ties are fewer there than they are in the BI and they're mostly limited to countries in Scandinavia and the old Holy Roman Empire. I have more of a pan-Isles ancestry with a few additions. yeah I know you aren't mixed but you have a lot of unique British Isle origins and NW Europe.

Irish and Scotch-Irish and English and Scandinavian etc...

very pan-NW European as opposed to just pan-U.K.

but yes I had one name in my family tree I always thought was English my entire life from how it sounded, but then I found out it can't be anything else at all but this one specific German surname that was anglicized and Americanized in colonial times.

some of the Scotch-Irish names in my tree were also anglicized either in Lowland Scotland or in the north of Ireland in the 1600's.

[Brianna]

Very true. My dad's side goes back quite a ways in the US, and obviously immigration records are scant. So it's anybody's guess where in the British Isles names like Rodgers, Adams, and Shepherd come from.

Is Shepherd a Welsh surname? My Welsh surnames include Davis, Evans, Lewis, Morgan, Howell, Blevins, Wynn, Price and Jones (all six of them).

[Smitty]

Is Shepherd a Welsh surname? My Welsh surnames include Davis, Evans, Lewis, Morgan, Howell, Blevins, Wynn, Price and Jones (all six of them).

Could be...one of those generic occupational names that could come from anywhere really. But I do have some Welsh in me, including my 4th-great grandmother who was a Morgan also. Welsh culture is very fascinating.

[Weedman]

Is Shepherd a Welsh surname? My Welsh surnames include Davis, Evans, Lewis, Morgan, Howell, Blevins, Wynn, Price and Jones (all six of them). have you ever read the books, Albion's Seed:4 British Folkways in America, and another one called Bound Away: Virginia and the westward movement, both by David Hackett Fischer?

[Brianna]

have you ever read the books, Albion's Seed:4 British Folkways in America, and another one called Bound Away: Virginia and the westward movement, both by David Hackett Fischer?

That first one has been on my must-read list for a while. I'm not as sold on its template as many people seem to be. It's a good starting point for researchers, though. You can use it as a rough guide while realizing that its basic premise doesn't hold true for ALL families.

[Anglojew]

I always seem to be descended from the "cadet" lines of families i.e. descended from younger sons rather than the first-born line.

[Weedman]

That first one has been on my must-read list for a while. I'm not as sold on its template as many people seem to be. It's a good starting point for researchers, though. You can use it as a rough guide while realizing that its basic premise doesn't hold true for ALL families. true but it just largely depends on where your family history is from in America and if it has more than one regional origin in America too.

but just so you know, both books dot just talk about the British immigrants in America during that time.

they do mention the non-British groups then too, especially the Palatine Germans, and even French Hugonauts, Scandinavians, Dutch and some others.
even some Irish Catholics from Barbados.

a very small portion were sent to Virginia and The Chesapeke Bay with the English indentured servants of the area.

the second book even has maps as to where African slaves in the west Indies, Virginia and the Chesapeke Bay came from specifically in Africa and shows African artifacts found in colonial Virginia as well as older English style helmets that looked like Spanish ones and some other older English artifacts found in Virginia and the tidewater dating from the 1600's and 1700's.

[Brianna]

true but it just largely depends on where your family history is from in America and if it has more than one regional origin in America too.

but just so you know, both books dot just talk about the British immigrants in America during that time.

they do mention the non-British groups then too, especially the Palatine Germans, and even French Hugonauts, Scandinavians, Dutch and some others.
even Irish Catholics from Barbados.

I'm sure I'd enjoy them, even though their portrayals of Irish immigrants seem woefully incomplete. To relegate them to just the West Indies is pretty outdated, like Oppenheimer's theories about Ireland's genes.

[Weedman]

I'm sure I'd enjoy them, even though their portrayals of Irish immigrants seem woefully incomplete. To relegate them to just the West Indies is pretty outdated, like Oppenheimer's theories about Ireland's genes. No its not that. It's just because the books only deal with the pre-19th century American colonial time frame.

Most Irish Catholics came to America in the 19th century but the books only deal with the 1600's and 1700's and at that time most of the Irish Catholics in America were sent here from the wars of the three kingdoms as POW's or as indentured servants from the English.

and they were mainly sent to Barbados at the time but some were sent to the Chesapake too.

there may have been some others at that time, but most of Irish immigrants in the 1700's who were not mainly indentured servants, were Scotch-Irish protestants and Albion's Seed talks about that.

it's just because the 2 books only deal with the time frame of 1600's-1700's colonial America when there weren't many Irish Catholics here, and for the ones who were sent to America at the time, most were sent as captives from religious wars in the British Isles.

Barbados was the number one destination for many Irish Catholic POW's at the time but a small few were sent to Virginia and the Chesapeke Bay too, to be indentured servants.
the other, larger Irish Catholic migrations to America happened in the 19th century. But the books just dont cover that time period. which is why when it mentions groups like the Irish catholics it talks mainly about places like Barbados or being indentured servants in the 1600's and 1700's.

they aren't a comprehensive study of european migration to America. They only cover the period from the 1600's to the later 1700's

[Brianna]

No its not that. It's just because the books only deal with the pre-19th century American colonial time frame.

Most Irish Catholics came to America in the 19th century but the books only deal with the 1600's and 1700's and at that time most of the Irish Catholics in America were sent here from the wars of the three kingdoms as POW's or as slaves/servants from the English.

and they were mainly sent to Barbados at the time but some were sent to the Chesapake too.

there may have been some others at that time but most of non-indentured servant Irish immigrants in the 1700's were Scotch-Irish protestants and Albion's Seed talks about that.

it's just because the 2 books only deal with the time frame of 1600's-1700's colonial America when there weren't many Irish Catholics here and for the ones who were sent to America at the time of most weren't sent as captives from religious wars in the British Isles.
Barbados was the number one destination for many Irish Catholic POW's at the time but a small few were sent to Virginia and the Chesapeke Bay too, to be indentured servants.
the other, larger Irish Catholic migrations to America happened in the 19th century. But the books just dont cover that time period. which is why when it mentions groups like the Irish catholics it talks mainly about places like Barbados or being indentured servants in the 1600's and 1700's.

they aren't a comprehensive study of european migration to America. They only cover the period from the 1600's to the later 1700's

Oh, I DEFINITELY get that. I wasn't even talking about 1840s Irish immigrants. I meant that not all pre-Famine Irish immigrants were just limited to slaves in the West Indies, or even indentured servants, for that matter. It's more complicated and, thus, more interesting than these pat summaries make it out to be. That's why I look for more comprehensive histories, although the books you recommend are very good for what they are. They're great, albeit limited, starting points.

[Weedman]

Oh, I DEFINITELY get that. I wasn't even talking about 1840s Irish immigrants. I meant that not all pre-Famine Irish immigrants were just limited to slaves in the West Indies, or even indentured servants, for that matter. It's more complicated and, thus, more interesting than these pat summaries make it out to be. That's why I look for more comprehensive histories, although the books you recommend are very good for what they are. They're great, albeit limited, starting points.

well they do deal mainly with the British colonial migration,

there were always others in the mix besides what the chapters talk about

there were Scottish Highlanders coming here after the Jacobites in 1745, many went to Cape Fear, N.C but they were completely independent of the Scotch-Irish and Anglo-Scottish Border British migrations here

I don't think the books are meant to be a true completely fully comprehensive study of all colonial migration to America. You are right thy are starting points and they deal mostly with the broader, British migrations of the period, but they are also 2 of the very few books that really do have a more comprehensive look at the specific English migrations to America in the colonial period.

that's why I like them. As hard as it maybe to find books on pre-19th century Irish migration to America it's not really easy to find any complete books specifically on the English colonial migrations to America either.

these books are 2 of the few that do really do that. I was just mentioning how they also talk about other, non-British settlers who were also in America at the time too but its mainly against the backdrop of the main British population. It only has brief remarks about the others.

Im not sure if they talk about the French Catholic population of New France and the Gulf region and Louisiana though, from the 1600's and 1700's?
probably not much if they mention them at all.

but you're right, They cant account for every migration group who was in America at the time. It is a broad history of British colonial America, most of all.

[Brianna]

well they do deal mainly with the British colonial migration,

there were always others in the mix besides what the chapters talk about

there were Scottish Highlanders coming here after the Jacobites in 1745, many went to Cape Fear, N.C but they were completely independent of the Scotch-Irish and Anglo-Scottish Border British migrations here

I don't think the books are meant to be a true completely fully comprehensive study of all colonial migration to America. You are right thy are starting points and they deal mostly with the broader, British migrations of the period, but they are also 2 of the very few books that really do have a more comprehensive look at the specific English migrations to America in the colonial period.

that's why I like them. As hard as it maybe to find books on pre-19th century Irish migration to America it's not really easy to find any complete books specifically on the English colonial migrations to America either.

these books are 2 of the few that do really do that. I was just mentioning how they also talk about other, non-British settlers who were also in America at the time too but its mainly against the backdrop of the main British population. It only has brief remarks about the others.

Im not sure if they talk about the French Catholic population of New France and the Gulf region and Louisiana though, from the 1600's and 1700's?
probably not much if they mention them at all.

but you're right, They cant account for every migration group who was in America at the time. It is a broad history of British colonial America, most of all.

I think that they're great explanations of the four main ENGLISH settler groups. "Albion's Seed" might be the gold standard in that regard. From that standpoint, it's a valuable explanation of the differences among and between the seed. I suppose that it's a good narrative of regionalisms found in both Great Britain and the colonies. It's probably more beneficial for people whose genealogy follows the patterns set forth in the book. It's still a good read for those of us whose ancestors don't match the predicted settling patterns.