Nivard, A tiny bit more on census enumerations: Forty or so years ago when we lived north of where we now live in California, the census enumerator INSISTED I had to tell her what my husband's income was as it was the LAW. I had balked at divulging this information as I thought it was even more an invasion of privacy. I have never seen anyone's income listed on a census before, but maybe such is "required" in more recent censuses. I should go on Google to have a look at the census forms for California for the last few decades. I wish I could get a copy of this California census for around 1970 to see if incomes were recorded. The last time there was a census here we filled in a form and mailed it. There was no visit by a human enumerator, in other words. With the immigration laws now on the hopper for review and change, one wonders what the next census forms will include. Maisie -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:34 AM To: Maisie Egger Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: 1940 L.I., N.Y. census Education heading Hi Maisie The thing to remember with all census, is that they were not compiled for *us* but for the government of the day And that many people either distrusted the people asking the questions or simply didn't understand what was being asked of them Some gave bare faced lies, some bent them a little and some said yes when they should have said no Unless the enumerator knew otherwise the information offered (verbally in the US and on paper in the UK) was taken as given, no checks were made to ensure the veracity of the statements If Fred said he was a divorced brain surgeon and had 15 kids, thats what was entered on the enumerators returns In short, don't believe all you read in the census pages Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/10/2013 19:00, Maisie Egger wrote: > Thanks, Nivard, > > The sample censuses did not match the ones I have for 1930 and 1940, but > with much squinting and with the help of a magnifying glass I managed to > make out most of the headings. > > Being a Nosey Parker I was interested in the column headed Ages of First > Marriage, but there was not a column to indicate subsequent marriages! > > One column I could not quite understand in the 1940 census was "Attended > school or college and time since March 1937 (Yes or No)".

Thanks, Nivard, The sample censuses did not match the ones I have for 1930 and 1940, but with much squinting and with the help of a magnifying glass I managed to make out most of the headings. Being a Nosey Parker I was interested in the column headed Ages of First Marriage, but there was not a column to indicate subsequent marriages! One column I could not quite understand in the 1940 census was "Attended school or college and time since March 1937 (Yes or No)". Alongside my husband's family, it looks like No and 4.4 for the oldest son. He was born in 1912 and graduated from a private Catholic School. His sister, born 1915, also has No against her name and completed 4.8 years. One brother is serving in the army and is not included in the 1940 census; however, Joe's next in age brother, at age 16, is shown as Yes with 4.3 years (?), then Joe at 11 Yes with 5 years. Joe'ss entry is the only one that makes sense, sort of, as he would have been enrolled in public school from the age of five onward and so it should have been 6 (years) after his name if one were to count his education completed in years in 1940. Thick as a plank Maisie ---------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 2:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lanark] Radio Set: 1930 Census heading Hi Maisie You can download sample census forms from various places, including Ancestry http://www.ancestry.co.uk/download/forms Which makes the column headers much easier to read ---------------------------------------------------------

Hi Maisie You can download sample census forms from various places, including Ancestry http://www.ancestry.co.uk/download/forms Which makes the column headers much easier to read Its hard to fathom out the reasons that some questions were included but in the case of the radio question, I would suggest it was to gauge affluence in the main Radios although a luxury were becoming more and more common in most homes by 1930, the powers that be would want to know just how affluent a house or neighbourhood was at points in time They might also want to know how widespread the ownership of radios were for getting public announcements out to the population Media has changed over time from a posted notice nailed to the tree on the village green, newspapers, radio, cinema, TV then the internet and people in power have always wanted to know how people would get their news and information And you are right there is a lot more to learn from the census that just bare names, occupations and birth places Most years varied slightly from the previous ones, some also varied slightly England/Wales to Scotland for example the question asked on some of the census in Scotland regarding how many rooms with one or more windows, or how many children of a certain age were attending school or being educated at home Language, literacy and religion are also questions that crop up in some Scots and Irish census, all can help to paint a picture of the family at that time Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/10/2013 04:06, Maisie Egger wrote: > The print is very small on the Williston Park Village, Nassau County, > N.Y. 1930 census. It seems as if the heading is Radio Set, and a > capital R indicated for those homeowners who had a radio set. I > wonder what the significance was for this category in 1930 . > > Only two neighbours out of 14 houses indicated that they did not have > a radio set. They appear to be American-born, so presumably there > would be no problem with the English language. Three residents, also > with a radio set, were born in Scotland, one in Germany and one in > Austria (my husband’s father; though he indicated he was born in > Illinois, was actually born in Austria, so you can’t believe what you > read on a census!). > > I just thought this was the oddest thing that owning a radio set > would be important enough to be a heading on a census. Was there a > reason, such as in Britain where one pays a t.v. tax? Were radios > taxed then? My husband said that many radios were built into > substantial looking pieces of furniture “back then”.

Well, as young as I am, I still remember not only did my parents have to have a radio license, but I also seem to recall, a car cruising the neighbourhood, with some means of detecting which houses had radios. I think when we heard a radio show such as " I Love a Mystery" ( 1939 - 1944 ) it conjured up the scenes in our minds, with the characters Jack, Reggie, & Doc. The episode with the Temple of the Vampires was really scary! Our imaginations worked OVERTIME! No videos for us! My family was not affluent, but we were curious and had to be creative. Ruth

The print is very small on the Williston Park Village, Nassau County, N.Y. 1930 census. It seems as if the heading is Radio Set, and a capital R indicated for those homeowners who had a radio set. I wonder what the significance was for this category in 1930 . Only two neighbours out of 14 houses indicated that they did not have a radio set. They appear to be American-born, so presumably there would be no problem with the English language. Three residents, also with a radio set, were born in Scotland, one in Germany and one in Austria (my husband’s father; though he indicated he was born in Illinois, was actually born in Austria, so you can’t believe what you read on a census!). I just thought this was the oddest thing that owning a radio set would be important enough to be a heading on a census. Was there a reason, such as in Britain where one pays a t.v. tax? Were radios taxed then? My husband said that many radios were built into substantial looking pieces of furniture “back then”. The 1940 census for the same street/district made no mention of a radio set; however, the demographics had changed a little with two from Norway, three from Germany and one from Scotland. The woman from Germany would listen to Hitler on the radio whilst her Norwegian neighbour would go off her rocker and they would have a verbal set-to, according to my husband who was just a young boy at the time. The German woman’s husband had fought with the German army in WWI, but had no use for Hitler, whilst his son joined the U.S.Navy, much to his mother’s great annoyance. Now this was right before the U.S. entered WWII, and so I don’t know if the German woman toned down the rhetoric, as they say. You can learn a lot from a census, particularly if they are “topical” and there are those still around who remember neighbours and can fill in some background and history. Maisie

Yes, DNA SNP testing and Y-DNA in particular is moving at a frenetic pace. What appeared to be "easy" as an admin a couple of years ago has been overtaken, replaced and overwritten every time I turn around. Consequently, to both keep up and stay aware, not to mention continue to aid the wonderful newcomers to the genetic genealogy scene is taking unbelievable hours. M222 is still in its infancy but with work from such as Susan Hedeen and the eagerly anticipated Scotland DNA 'Chromo 2' results, it may not stay that way for long. But it is the aiding in breaking down those brick walls that keeps me at it. Just today after many emails attempting to convince someone to test her father's Y-DNA, his initial results have started to arrive. Immediately I could tell exactly whose family he belonged to and when all his results are in, he will find I can take him back in his genealogy much further than his brick wall that he has faced for umpteen years, as well as put him in contact with descendants of their common progenitor. (This, to me is genetic genealogy working properly. And as a voluntary Administrator, this keeps me enthusiastic). I already know the progenitor was of Scottish descent 400 years ago but what I still don't know for certain is whether the family was Lanark based. (I need to wait for the remainder of the results because Y-12 is merely indicative and certainly not proof, in order to make absolutely certain they are not false indicators which can sometimes happen in the R1b1a2 clade). To get the proof I need, I wish that Lanark based Riddles or Riddells would take up my free Y-DNA offer. I have combed all the available parish records for the details / paper trails but either the births were not registered or the marriages were not registered or the paper trail was destroyed and so Y-DNA testing is the only option now available. Gail Riddell On 10/10/2013, at 7:09 PM, Mark Sutherland-Fisher (HFH) wrote: > Morning Gail, > Absolutely fascinating. According to my uncle's Scotlands DNA report, M222 > was described as Ancient Irish and S443 was described as Norse Viking with > S142 being Scandinavian and S68 being described as Hebridean Viking. They > described S182 as being Norse. I know the whose classification system is > constantly evolving and frankly I cannot keep up with it. > Regards, > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Gail Riddell > Sent: 10 October 2013 06:23 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Lanark] Genealogy, Lanark, R-M222 > > I have been following the comments regarding Maisie's thoughts on DNA > testing and her genealogy; regarding Cliff and other's offerings, especially > now that the Haplogroup R-M222 has been mentioned. > > I am both a long term old fashioned genealogist but a few years ago, I got > involved with DNA testing to bring both proof and truth to my "paper > findings". Although it has cost much money to test the many people I needed > to test over these years, these tests have revealed information that I could > never have gleaned from my paper trails. > > To this end, I have met (in person and via email) many people deeply > involved in Genetic genealogy plus now administer numerous Surname projects > with Family Tree DNA - all voluntarily. > > DNA testing (especially of the men) is so invaluable that prior to my > travelling through Lanark and the Lothian areas of Scotland earlier this > year seeking further paper trails/proof of my family from those areas, I > asked if any male of either the RIDDLE or the RIDDELL surname would be > interested in meeting with me and taking a free DNA test. There was utter > silence. > >

Tell me where to locate their haplotypes for comparison, please and I shall respond once I have seen them. Dating is much more accurate at Y-67, but Y-37 might suffice at a pinch… My preference is you give me the kit numbers and name the project(s) in which these persons exist and I shall go from there - this is part of my job as an admin. Gail Riddell On 11/10/2013, at 12:36 PM, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be interested on anyone's opinion about a close Y DNA match between a > Gower and a Smith, close being about 18th century, where the Smith is known > to have been born in Ireland in 1769, and the Y DNA definitively traces to a > small area on the border between Perthshire and .... the county that > contains Alloa, near Sturbridge on the Forth of Firth. The two families > had no known contact, but we don't know where either lived in 1700. >

Do you think they ever realised what was causing it <vbg> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >The family then tried to populate the new area on > their own - two McG brothers married two Smith sisters and had 38 living > children between them. > > Jo-Ann

After reading all the pros and cons of DNA and who belongs to who, my only connection throughout what has been described is Mark's comment - based in the Parish of Clyne, the village of Brora in Sutherland – my DNA would connect me to the consumption of the beautiful liquid gold product at and from the Clynelish Distillery in the village of Brora! Cliff – you mentioned a few years back the DNA grouping of the surname KEITH, my own maiden name, how I would love to find where my lot arrived from into Edinburgh.....fancy trying to tie that in with female SMITH.....then from a death registration I have a Mary JOHNSTON wife of Thomas CARNIE, they “presumably” from Ayr/Wig. For Irene and the McLEOD / MacLEOD researchers - Would any of our senior Glaswegian listers remember being taught by a Jock MacLeod? Great to see the list with activity! Jenny

Dora,   The information that you asked about was left out on purpose.  I gave only a skeletal version, and it will stay that way on a public list.  We are very satisfied with our research and probable causes.   Good hunting,   Cliff. From: Dora Smith <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA Cliff: You do not mention what is your genetic distance from this family with the different surname.  Also if more than one Johnston has the same Y DNA, and how closely you are to each other, or when the earliest known common ancestor of the people who have the same Y DNA lived, or, if you don't know, what is the genetic distance between you. Especially without that information, your speculations assume quite a lot. Even if you and this family were closely related, it would still assume quite a lot.  Maybe someone was adopted and this wasn't known! And even if a baby weren't fathered by its mother's husband, you've still got no idea what happened. I am however fascinated by Scottish culture.  Some of my Scotch-Irish histories say that before Presbyterianism and sometimes after, the Scots were pretty indiscrimantly promiscuous.  I think this was the old Celtic culture.  My brother belongs to a 1700 year old DNA clade.  Its common ancestor clearly followed the Roman army around England and the middle Rhine.  Thus they were there too early to have hung onto their seemingly Germanic identity.  There is one lineage in the group where 7 families who all lived in one county in Maryland in the 18th century have a genetic distance of 0. Now, in Scotland, if you get back to the 17th century in Lanark you're in a time when surnames hadn't been fully adopted.  Even the 18th century. Dora -----Original Message----- From: Cliff. Johnston Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:13 PM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; richardkendell Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA Richard, I've been looking at a case for about 6 months now in which our Johnston genes appeared in a family with a different surname.  Adoption has been ruled out.  The surnames were not changed.  This leaves us with one other choice.  The wife looked elsewhere for companionship and a pregnancy resulted.  This then raises the question, "Was the pregnancy planned or an accident?"  It appears that the husband may have been injured and unable to reproduce.  His wife had her needs, and she proceeded to have them fulfilled.  The child was at the end of a line of her husband's children and appears to have been well loved and provided for by him.  Other than this one, I have come across at least 4 instances where the husband had been unable to provide his wife with a child when she wanted one.  The wife proceeded to become pregnant with another man.  Whether this was by mutual agreement or not we may never know, but she and her husband raised the child (or 3 children in one instance) as their own and lived together until death - happily we hope. It is not always all that easy when trying to sort out different surnames appearing suddenly when the DNA indicates that some unknown event happened. One needs to be aware of the many reasons for this happening.  Gossiping tends to favor illicit relationships more often than not.  After all, who doesn't enjoy a juicy bit of gossip???  lol...  ;-)  From private letters held in various museums we know that women back then had their own ways of handling extra-marital affairs, and they were very judicious about how they carried on in private.  For a woman looking to "sample the wares" of a man other than her husband she would typically wait until she became pregnant by her husband.  Only when she was pregnant by her husband would she then have her affairs.  Then she didn't have to worry about becoming pregnant as she was there already.  We should not sell our ancestors short.  They knew what they were doing. Good hunting, Cliff. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; richardkendell <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA While that cannot be ruled out, Black is one of the names known to have been taken by the MacGregors at the time of proscription. In any case, what I found of interest was that the DNA showed our family's MacGregor connection regardless of what our name is now. Sheila ---- richardkendell <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the > illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely > faithful! > > Richard Kendell > (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have > been > others- on my male surname line) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM > To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA > > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what > emerged > from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea > about > our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who > have > close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or > associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We > assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was > proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black > being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name > Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely > worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer > > ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > > pedalling dna checks and databases > > > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > > the following link to the list information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. > Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the > following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message   ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'd be interested on anyone's opinion about a close Y DNA match between a Gower and a Smith, close being about 18th century, where the Smith is known to have been born in Ireland in 1769, and the Y DNA definitively traces to a small area on the border between Perthshire and .... the county that contains Alloa, near Sturbridge on the Forth of Firth. The two families had no known contact, but we don't know where either lived in 1700. McGowan has the root Gow and means Smith. Gower has a whole separate history, but the name could have been mangled from Gowan or something else. Evidently, it was common for McGowans and others with the Gow root to anglicize their names to Smith in Ireland. Gower more likely came north during Norman times, or later. Now, two other families share the same Y DNA with common ancestry around the 14th century. They lived in 1600 or else claim to have come from the area I just described. I don't really know where in Scotland Smiths came from - but when they got to Pennsylvania they could not have more strongly appeared to be Scotch-Irish. Presbyterian weavers, even though their initial master was Baptist, the Baptist church was closer, and they had to transport 7 children 12 miles to the Presbyterian church with one wagon and one horse, which is what I call a serious Presbyterian, industrious and thrifty, got off the boat at New Castle, Delaware, in the mid 1790's, children succeeded against the odds, everything they did pretty much beat the odds except ultimately lose their farm. Back to the two other families, that there don't appear to be any other families in Scotland with that Y DNA and they lived within a few miles of each other, suggests to me that they were recent arrivals, at a time when they more than likely came from the south, when the likely alternatives were England anyplace near a Roman fort or fortified city (which seriously includes Yorkshire among other places), and the middle Rhine. In other words, more than likely they weren't from Flanders, and if they were for instance Freskin and descendants (one of the two families insists it was), the Y DNA lineage would be scattered widely across two counties and found across Scotland. This leaves us needing to explain the different surnames. Well, now, both of what I have from these two families was grandmothers trying to learn who was really the grandson's babydaddy, and neither of the kids wore the names Patterson or Murray. But they were born in a more permissive time and place, the United States in the Age of Anything Goes. Both Y DNA lineages are worn by big family groups that for instance trace to 1600 or to around 1700, and the Y DNA lineages bred true for hundreds of years in these family groups. It is reasonable to think that either some recent arrival from northern England, maybe a soldier near Alloa, slept around, or perhaps the lineage in Scotland was not yet attached to any surname. Anyhow, in addition to making the possible explanations for a Y DNA lineage with several surnames in Scotland clear, I want to know what is other peoples' knowledge about promiscuity in Scotland. I do not even want to hear how normal and jolly it is for anybody to just sleep with anyone, because it is nothing of the sort - unless, of course, you also explain how your mother and father passed down to you such an idea, and how their parents passed it down to them, and how many people your mother slept with while she was married to your father, if she ever troubled to marry your father. Now, I spelled that out in real detail, because if you don't ACTUALLY believe it wasn't wrong for your mother to sleep with however many whoevers and God even knows who fathered her children, you won't trouble us by saying anything at all, once you realize how you are causing your mother to come across. THAT would be historically important information. And I’M pretty certain that's what my Scotch-Irish 3x great grandmother would have said. My own mother didn't sleep with anyone but her husband, and her husband didn't sleep with anyone but her; neither would have heard of it, and they were married just short of 50 years when my father died. My father was a minister, and I once overheard a serious practical discussion of how he handled temptation, but he didn't do it! I myself have never slept with anyone. Sex to me is about commitment, as it was to all of my forebears as far as I know, atleast, since the advent of Presbyterianism. I've never met anyone with whom commitment developed, so no sex. Yours, Dora -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:26 PM To: [email protected] ; richardkendell Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA While that cannot be ruled out, Black is one of the names known to have been taken by the MacGregors at the time of proscription. In any case, what I found of interest was that the DNA showed our family's MacGregor connection regardless of what our name is now. Sheila ---- richardkendell <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the > illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely > faithful! > > Richard Kendell > (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have > been > others- on my male surname line) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM > To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA > > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what > emerged > from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea > about > our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who > have > close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or > associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We > assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was > proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black > being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name > Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely > worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer > > ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > > pedalling dna checks and databases > > > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > > the following link to the list information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. > Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the > following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have been following the comments regarding Maisie's thoughts on DNA testing and her genealogy; regarding Cliff and other's offerings, especially now that the Haplogroup R-M222 has been mentioned. I am both a long term old fashioned genealogist but a few years ago, I got involved with DNA testing to bring both proof and truth to my "paper findings". Although it has cost much money to test the many people I needed to test over these years, these tests have revealed information that I could never have gleaned from my paper trails. To this end, I have met (in person and via email) many people deeply involved in Genetic genealogy plus now administer numerous Surname projects with Family Tree DNA - all voluntarily. DNA testing (especially of the men) is so invaluable that prior to my travelling through Lanark and the Lothian areas of Scotland earlier this year seeking further paper trails/proof of my family from those areas, I asked if any male of either the RIDDLE or the RIDDELL surname would be interested in meeting with me and taking a free DNA test. There was utter silence. But that offer still holds, although it will now be by post. And so to my reason for posting this message. When I saw the interest turn to M222, I contacted my friend Susan Hedeen who has done much research on this Haplogroup (coupled with genealogy of this area of Scotland), and asked would she be willing to share her knowledge. The following is her response - for which she has given me full permission to post. (Sadly, her attachment will not come through, but if you email me, I can send it directly. I encourage this because she truly knows what she is talking about… and this is such an important issue for those who are looking at the Scottish or Irish or Viking ancestry). Kind regards Gail Riddell Dear Gail, You may forward this response in its entirety inclusive of the attachment. In regard to whether or not R-M222 had presence in England and whether or not there may have been Viking association, the answer to both questions is yes. Let's discuss the 2nd first. There was a culture in Atlantic Argyll known as the Gal Gaedhil. This culture has been thought by some to be Gaelic speaking Vikings while other historians more carefully describe them as a cooperative of both Vikings and Gaels; because they also spoke Gaelic, the term Gal Gaedhil, seemingly coined in old manuscripts of Ireland (this spelling one of several variants), literally means foreign Gael. Of course being a mix of Viking and Gaels speaking Gaelic would be considered in Ireland as foreign. Atlantic Scotland was known to be a hot bed of the Gal Gaedhil eventually coalesced in the SW Scotland area of Galloway, hence also known as Gallowglass. The Islands in the Firth of Clyde being in that hot bed of Atlantic Argyle were also in the center of the Kingdom Dal Riada. The entire area saw a mix of cultures all at the same time: Britons, Picts, Gaels, Irish, Vikings...and as mentioned, a cooperative, the Gal Gaedhil. A suspected historical reference of Viking descent and YDNA of R-M222 is entirely consistent potentially with the Gal Gaedhil, of course theoretically. For references, two recent books which discuss some of this are the first 2 volumes of the New Edinburgh History of Scotland: From Caledonia to Pictland to 795, James Fraser, University of Edinburgh and From Pictland to Alba, Alex Woolf, University of St. Albans. These books are highly referenced with citations from original manuscripts, historical reviews, archeological and linguistic studies...well researched, well written and in my opinion, a 'must read' for all those interested in the history of the Isles, in particular the populations of Scotland and its neighbors, England and Ireland. Another authority worth scouting out, is Thomas Clancey. To add a bit of flavour in tying England to this, please note a communication from a research associate, Alan Millikin, regarding this subject. I am going to insert here his entire communication regarding this (I have highlighted some particularly important aspects in red): "I have created a map tonight, which I trust illustrates visually those areas or locations that have been identified by scholars to show the earliest movements of the Gall Gaedhil in the Firth of the Clyde area into modern Galloway. The map is located at the foot of the following page, which I have placed there temporarily. _Scottish M222_ (http://regarde-bien.com/scottish-m222.htm) Firstly, you will note on the map, I have circled three distinct areas in red that preserve the highest concentration of R-M222+ Surnames with some known to have origins going back over 500 years plus. Some of these surnames may hold clues that if linked together, push the history of the R-M222+ in Scotland back to a period that pre-dates the 1100s. This however is for another email. On the map, I have highlighted that area in modern Wigtownshire identified as Na Renna, which is associated with the Vikings of Dublin. This is contrasted against that area in Kirkcudbrightshire that seems to have been in the possession of the Gall Gaedhil about the same time the Norse held Na Renna in the 11th century. It has been shown that earliest extant record that gives a firm geographical location to the Gall Gaedhil is found in the Martology of Tallaght. It refers to St. Blann of Kingarth in Bute in a marginal note, which has been dated by different Irish scholars to the 10th century. However, some date it to the mid 800s... Clancy discusses in detail the significance of this reference and its context in relation to the collapse of Dumbarton Rock, the capital of the kings of the Britons, which the Vikings sacked in 870... St. Blann of Kingarth is highlighted on the map as no. 2, and as will be noted the Island of Bute lies on the Firth of the Clyde. By 1034, we have the first clear reference to a king of the Gall Gaedhil, 'Suibne mac Cinaeda, ri Gallgaidhel', who died in that year. The extent of his kingdom is uncertain, but the evidence emerging in the first part of the 12th century suggests the territory of the Gall Gaedhil, included, the Irvine valley (no. 4) and from other sources, the district of Kyle and Carrick also in Ayrshire, 1130-41. There are other interesting texts that are not quoted by Clancy in English sources. For example, the men of Galloway, the Galwegians, are called ‘ vassals’ of Malcolm III when they took part in his military campaign in northern England c.1070. This reference is found in Ailred of Rievaulx’s On the Saints of Hexham. In Ailred’s account of the Battle of the Standard in 1138, fought by King David I against the northern English, he narrates a dispute that broke out in the Scottish camp, when the king gathered ‘his earls and highest nobles of his realm’ to discuss his battle strategy. The dispute was about who would lead the vanguard with the king’s own preference being his knights and armed men. The context of the narrative clearly implies, the leaders of Galwegians were amongst the King’s earls and the highest nobles in his realm. At this meeting of earls and nobles, the Galwegians opposed the king’s plan to place his knights and armed men in the front column, saying that it was their ‘ right to fill the front line, [and] to make the first attack upon the enemy’ , a right that has puzzled some historians, since the Hiberno-Norse are believed to have been independent of the Scots. The word ’right’ suggests the Gall Gaedhil did not regard themselves as being distinct from the Scots, so much so, their appeal to the king that he ‘ grant’ them their ‘right’, points to a relationship based on some form of military obligation to the king of Scots, probably similar to that held in the time of Malcolm III. After the intervention of Malise, earl of Strathern, the king reluctantly granted the Galwegians their wish. If we are to accept the chronicles, when the Galwegians lead the attack, they joined the great cry heard from the Scottish camp, calling out ’Albani’, ‘Albani’. In the light of the revised thinking that the Gall Gaedhil in Ayrshire, Kirkcudbrightshire and Nithsdale are more likely to owe their origins to the Norse-Gaelic speaking areas in the Firth of the Clyde, the Galwegian ‘right’ in 1138 to lead the Scottish vanguard becomes believable and more realistic. The push then, is one that points directly to a southward progression out of the Bute/Cowal and Firth of the Clyde basin in southern Argyleshire, with gains probably made after the collapse of the kingdom of the Britons of Strathclyde/Cumbria in the middle of the 11th century. This picture makes sound sense, and connects not only the R-M222+ in Kirkcudbrightshire and Nithsdale with southern Argyleshire, it also draws another link with Perthshire, which raises the question, could all these M222+ clusters share a much earlier ancestry that lies in southern Argyleshire? Alan Now to further this a bit, I will attach a Report I wrote in 2012 from YDNA analysis of certain M222+ lineages from SW Scotland and Bute in comparison to a N. Ireland lineage associated with the Ui Neill R-M222. Anyone interested in R-M222 should get much better understanding of the complexities of this sub-clade, particularly the reality that it is not simply an Irish defined YDNA. See attachment. Now to the first question regarding England specifically. Recently Scotland's DNA announced confirmation of R-M222 down stream SNPs. Previous to posting James Wilson's proposed R-M222 SNP tree, let me mention that DF85 (Scotland's DNA names S675/S673--equivalents) and DF97 discovered down stream of R-M222 in 1000 genomes data by geneticist, Andrew Grierson are available for single SNP testing for $39.00 each from the advanced testing SNP catalog at FTDNA. I strongly encourage M222+ people to test at least DF85, and if positive, DF97. Due to the number of samples viewed by Andy, it is anticipated that 25% of All confirmed R-M222 may be positive for DF85, and 12.5% may be positive for both DF85 and DF97. Because of STR foot print signatures, we are confident that the McConechy/Duncan identified with Isle of Bute (see the Report attached) will be confirmed of one or both SNPs, and we are awaiting their test results now. See below James Wilson's proposed SNP tree for R-M222. Now note the English samples. He goes further to say that he is changing his mind as to the origins of R-M222, and is now speculating England, perhaps NE England as a geographical location for the man who first mutated. This is no news to me, as you know. The 2 year research project which I and Anatole Klyosov began in 2011 using the public data base results revealed the oldest ages for R-M222 among the results of English descendants who were confirmed as R-M222 in their YDNA. We have been working on a paper which is yet not published. I see Wilson's work as a validation of our research regarding the STR analyses. "Hot news from Jim Wilson today. Jim noted that initial Chomo2 results included M222+ individuals from the following backgrounds:" * tested ten men with grandfathers from NE Scotland and Scottish surnames * ten men with English grandfathers and English surnames * eight men with grandfathers from NW Ireland and Uí Néill surnames * plus a few others Jim also said S592 and some of S555-S567 may be private. Jim went on to say: ---Quote (Originally by Jim Wilson)--- As I said, what is quite exciting is that we can now split the M222 group up into 12 subgroups, at least eight of which are of substantial size, having been seen in at least two unrelated individuals! Even more interesting is the distribution across geography - I freely admit numbers are rather small at the minute - but the S568 and possibly S588 groups look to be quite enriched for Scots and the S668 group has 4 or 8 men with grandfathers from NW Ireland and Uí Néill surnames! Could this be a marker of Niall Noigiallach? All the Irish are derived for S661, whereas British examples are found in both S661, S568 and in the M222* paragroup, as yet ancestral at all subgroup markers. This could be taken as evidence for a British origin of the marker, as some have claimed. Again, numbers are far too low for any certainty at all, but these markers will allow these questions to be investigated in more detail, once large numbers have been genotyped. ---End Quote--- For more information on Chromo2, please see: http://www.scotlandsdna.com/demos/chromo2" I hope you find this helpful, Susan Hedeen

Cliff: You do not mention what is your genetic distance from this family with the different surname. Also if more than one Johnston has the same Y DNA, and how closely you are to each other, or when the earliest known common ancestor of the people who have the same Y DNA lived, or, if you don't know, what is the genetic distance between you. Especially without that information, your speculations assume quite a lot. Even if you and this family were closely related, it would still assume quite a lot. Maybe someone was adopted and this wasn't known! And even if a baby weren't fathered by its mother's husband, you've still got no idea what happened. I am however fascinated by Scottish culture. Some of my Scotch-Irish histories say that before Presbyterianism and sometimes after, the Scots were pretty indiscrimantly promiscuous. I think this was the old Celtic culture. My brother belongs to a 1700 year old DNA clade. Its common ancestor clearly followed the Roman army around England and the middle Rhine. Thus they were there too early to have hung onto their seemingly Germanic identity. There is one lineage in the group where 7 families who all lived in one county in Maryland in the 18th century have a genetic distance of 0. Now, in Scotland, if you get back to the 17th century in Lanark you're in a time when surnames hadn't been fully adopted. Even the 18th century. Dora -----Original Message----- From: Cliff. Johnston Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:13 PM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; richardkendell Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA Richard, I've been looking at a case for about 6 months now in which our Johnston genes appeared in a family with a different surname. Adoption has been ruled out. The surnames were not changed. This leaves us with one other choice. The wife looked elsewhere for companionship and a pregnancy resulted. This then raises the question, "Was the pregnancy planned or an accident?" It appears that the husband may have been injured and unable to reproduce. His wife had her needs, and she proceeded to have them fulfilled. The child was at the end of a line of her husband's children and appears to have been well loved and provided for by him. Other than this one, I have come across at least 4 instances where the husband had been unable to provide his wife with a child when she wanted one. The wife proceeded to become pregnant with another man. Whether this was by mutual agreement or not we may never know, but she and her husband raised the child (or 3 children in one instance) as their own and lived together until death - happily we hope. It is not always all that easy when trying to sort out different surnames appearing suddenly when the DNA indicates that some unknown event happened. One needs to be aware of the many reasons for this happening. Gossiping tends to favor illicit relationships more often than not. After all, who doesn't enjoy a juicy bit of gossip??? lol... ;-) From private letters held in various museums we know that women back then had their own ways of handling extra-marital affairs, and they were very judicious about how they carried on in private. For a woman looking to "sample the wares" of a man other than her husband she would typically wait until she became pregnant by her husband. Only when she was pregnant by her husband would she then have her affairs. Then she didn't have to worry about becoming pregnant as she was there already. We should not sell our ancestors short. They knew what they were doing. Good hunting, Cliff. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; richardkendell <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA While that cannot be ruled out, Black is one of the names known to have been taken by the MacGregors at the time of proscription. In any case, what I found of interest was that the DNA showed our family's MacGregor connection regardless of what our name is now. Sheila ---- richardkendell <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the > illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely > faithful! > > Richard Kendell > (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have > been > others- on my male surname line) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM > To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA > > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what > emerged > from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea > about > our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who > have > close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or > associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We > assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was > proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black > being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name > Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely > worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer > > ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > > pedalling dna checks and databases > > > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > > the following link to the list information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. > Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the > following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely faithful! Richard Kendell (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have been others- on my male surname line) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what emerged from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea about our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who have close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely worthwhile. Sheila Brewer ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > pedalling dna checks and databases > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I just want to point out that United States immigration NEVER EVER changed your name. Your immigrant ancestor might have changed it himself for various reasons or had it changed due to phonetic spelling by a clerk at some point, but it was not changed during your entrance to America. Here is a nice article from a genealogy newsletter that covers the subject. http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2013/10/no-family-names-were-not-changed-at-ellis-island.html#more What people tend to forget is that a change of surname was not illegal unless you were attempting to defraud someone and, until modern times, was not uncommon. Personally, my mother's paternal branch had their surname, McLaughlin, changed to McGlauflin when some sons moved from a Scots-Irish settlement in New Hampshire to their newly acquired war bounty land in Washington County, Maine, where the majority of the settlers were from the Boston, Massachusetts area. The family then tried to populate the new area on their own - two McG brothers married two Smith sisters and had 38 living children between them. Jo-Ann

I don't doubt you feel its worthwhile but all it has told you is more or less the same as many a researcher might have suggested anyway As I said previously, if it works for you fine :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 10/10/2013 14:00, [email protected] wrote: > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what emerged from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea about our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who have close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer

Jo-Ann,   Ellis Island did not open as an immigration center until 1892.  I stand by my original post.  I have evidence in my own family of names being changed by Canadian Immigration as recently as 1929 because the immigration officer didn't think that Hedwiga sounded so great for such a sweet young girl.  She became Margaret in the stroke of a pen :-)   Cliff. From: Jo Ann Croft <[email protected]> To: Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA and Genealogy I just want to point out that United States immigration NEVER EVER changed your name.  Your immigrant ancestor might have changed it himself for various reasons or had it changed due to phonetic spelling by a clerk at some point, but it was not changed during your entrance to America.  Here is a nice article from a genealogy newsletter that covers the subject. http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2013/10/no-family-names-were-not-changed-at-ellis-island.html#more What people tend to forget is that a change of surname was not illegal unless you were attempting to defraud someone and, until modern times, was not uncommon. Personally, my mother's paternal branch had their surname, McLaughlin, changed to McGlauflin when some sons moved from a Scots-Irish settlement in New Hampshire to their newly acquired war bounty land in Washington County, Maine, where the majority of the settlers were from the Boston, Massachusetts area.  The family then tried to populate the new area on their own - two McG brothers married two Smith sisters and had 38 living children between them. Jo-Ann   ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

While that cannot be ruled out, Black is one of the names known to have been taken by the MacGregors at the time of proscription. In any case, what I found of interest was that the DNA showed our family's MacGregor connection regardless of what our name is now. Sheila ---- richardkendell <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the > illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely > faithful! > > Richard Kendell > (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have been > others- on my male surname line) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM > To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA > > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what emerged > from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea about > our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who have > close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or > associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We > assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was > proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black > being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name > Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely > worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer > > ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > > pedalling dna checks and databases > > > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > > the following link to the list information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. > Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the > following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jenny,   Ayr?  The most recent batch of my newfound cousins came from the Loch Doone area of Ayrshire.  We've just started researching this branch which is closely connected to mine, indeed it appears that my gggrandfather or his father or an uncle may have come over to Upper Canada with some of them.   Cliff. From: Jennifer Myers <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA and Genealogy After reading all the pros and cons of DNA and who belongs to who, my only connection throughout what has been described is Mark's comment - based in the Parish of Clyne, the village of Brora in Sutherland – my DNA would connect me to the consumption of the beautiful liquid gold product at and from the Clynelish Distillery in the village of Brora! Cliff – you mentioned a few years back the DNA grouping of the surname KEITH, my own maiden name, how I would love to find where my lot arrived from into Edinburgh.....fancy trying to tie that in with female SMITH.....then from a death registration I have a Mary JOHNSTON wife of Thomas CARNIE, they “presumably” from Ayr/Wig. For Irene and the McLEOD / MacLEOD researchers - Would any of our senior Glaswegian listers remember being taught by a Jock MacLeod? Great to see the list with activity! Jenny   ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Richard,   A wee bit of "afternoon delight on the side" is always a possibility;  however, in the almost 9 years that I have been dealing with our extended Johnston family and a handful of others I must say that it should not be considered first.  The most common reason for a different surname "popping up" unexpectedly is adoption.  In second place I would put hiding from the legal establishment.  In third place I would put immigration authorities who sometimes looked at a name and asked it the bearer wanted to change it, or the bearer wanted it changed and the official complied.  This happened all too often, IMO, when entering Canada and the U.S.A. for a period of time up to at least the 1930s.  In fourth place I would put a male other than the husband, and this can be for at least one of two reasons:  1.  inability of the husband to impregnate his wife, and 2.  the husband being cuckolded.    I've been looking at a case for about 6 months now in which our Johnston genes appeared in a family with a different surname.  Adoption has been ruled out.  The surnames were not changed.  This leaves us with one other choice.  The wife looked elsewhere for companionship and a pregnancy resulted.  This then raises the question, "Was the pregnancy planned or an accident?"  It appears that the husband may have been injured and unable to reproduce.  His wife had her needs, and she proceeded to have them fulfilled.  The child was at the end of a line of her husband's children and appears to have been well loved and provided for by him.  Other than this one, I have come across at least 4 instances where the husband had been unable to provide his wife with a child when she wanted one.  The wife proceeded to become pregnant with another man.  Whether this was by mutual agreement or not we may never know, but she and her husband raised the child (or 3 children in one instance) as their own and lived together until death - happily we hope.   It is not always all that easy when trying to sort out different surnames appearing suddenly when the DNA indicates that some unknown event happened.  One needs to be aware of the many reasons for this happening.  Gossiping tends to favor illicit relationships more often than not.  After all, who doesn't enjoy a juicy bit of gossip???  lol...  ;-)  From private letters held in various museums we know that women back then had their own ways of handling extra-marital affairs, and they were very judicious about how they carried on in private.  For a woman looking to "sample the wares" of a man other than her husband she would typically wait until she became pregnant by her husband.  Only when she was pregnant by her husband would she then have her affairs.  Then she didn't have to worry about becoming pregnant as she was there already.  We should not sell our ancestors short.  They knew what they were doing.   Good hunting,   Cliff.      From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; richardkendell <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA While that cannot be ruled out, Black is one of the names known to have been taken by the MacGregors at the time of proscription. In any case, what I found of interest was that the DNA showed our family's MacGregor connection regardless of what our name is now. Sheila ---- richardkendell <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I have missed something but couldn't the Black connection be the > illegitimate father of one of your ancestors. Not all wives were entirely > faithful! > > Richard Kendell > (Descended from 2 illegitimate liaisons that I know of - there may have been > others- on my male surname line) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:00 PM > To: Nivard Ovington ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lanark] The lighter side of DNA > > Regarding the usefulness of DNA testing, I am very pleased with what emerged > from my brother's test. With the surname Black we didn't have any idea about > our origins. The FTDNA results came with a list of names of others who have > close DNA matches and we found that the majority had the name MacGregor or > associated names such as Greig or McGhee as well as a few Campbells. We > assume that our name goes back to the time when the MacGregor name was > proscribed in Scotland and the clan members had to take other names, Black > being one of them. I have read that some of them also took the name > Campbell, which this DNA match list would seem to confirm. > > We did the 37 marker test back in 2008 and in my opinion it was definitely > worthwhile. > > Sheila Brewer > > ---- Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly I appear to be in a minority of one <g> > > > > I can see no use at all for dna in my own research, I have no desire to > > know that a person whose name I don't know and likely never will, came > > from XXXXX several hundred years ago > > > > Neither do I see the need to line the pockets of the many companies > > pedalling dna checks and databases > > > > That is not say I don't think there should be discussion about dna on > > the lists, I really don't mind, my delete button works just fine :-) > > > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier > > message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on > > the following link to the list information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. > Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the > following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > >  > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message   ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message