A Swan in Search of his "True" Clan

[Cygnus]

Nope. The Gunns & Mackays are in the far north of Scotland, and the Macfarlane territory is over by Loch Lomond. The Williamsons in Eastern Scotland were somehow involved in cattle droving, and are briefly mentioned in The Drove Roads of Scotland by A.R.B. Haldane.

T.

I suppose it would make sense to have Williamsons all over the place; after all, all one needs to be a "Williamson" is to have an ancestor named William, and it's a common enough name.

[macwilkin]

I suppose it would make sense to have Williamsons all over the place; after all, all one needs to be a "Williamson" is to have an ancestor named William, and it's a common enough name.

One of the most common names in Scotland.

T.

[DWFII]

Welcome...cousin?

My links to Scotland seem to be through Ireland. Me mither's mither's da was a Sweeney. According to some people all Irish Sweenys are descended from clan MacSuibhne which was effectively kicked out of Scotland after the battle of Bannockburn in 1314...and then settled and became quite influential in Ireland. Nevertheless those that remained became clan MacQueen( although you will find MacSweens) in Scotland.

All that said, I know several Swans who wear the MacQueen tartan and I am of the opinion from talking to them and looking at all the variations and the ways the pronunciation has morphed that a good case can be made for Swan being a variant of Suibhne.

The real dilemma for me has always been which tartan...since my putative ancestors came to Argyll from Ireland in the 10th century and returned to Ireland in the 14th and since tartans and kilts were unknown until probably 2 centuries later...I'm not sure the MacQueen tartan is truly mine to claim. The only thing that sustains me is that my earliest ancestors had no surname until they had been in Scotland for some time. But by the time they left for Eire in the 14th century they were definitely macSuibhnes.

[gilmore]

I had an experience similar to yours.

Many years ago my father went into a shop, saw a list of septs with our surname in the Gunn section and decide that was our clan, most probably in great error. One nephew got a kilt made in Gunn tartan, another had a large Gunn clan crest tattooed on his back, others spent quite a bit on Gunn paraphenalia, and few in my family are overly interested in hearing that they got it all wrong.

Evidently the Gunn clan associations cast their net wide in collecting septs, claiming very common names with little historical evidence to support the massive numbers involved. If you do a search here on X Marks, you will find a post in which I set out detailed evidence that shows both demographically and genetically that most people with the alleged Gunn sept surnames are no such thing.

Or you can see for yourself. Google "Surname profiler" and take a look at the geographic distribution of these surnames for the year 1881. They are all over the place. Many are not even predominately Scots.

Or you can go to www.familytreedna.com, and look at their surname projects, especially two: one for Gunn clan, and the other for Gunn clan septs. Genetically, there are two patrilineal branches of the Gunn clan. Again, the Gunn clan septs surnames are all over the place, most are not related to each other and very, very few are related to anyone surnamed Gunn.

The only way to discover which, if any, clan one's ancestors were associated with is genealogical research. It's painstaking, and to do it with reliability one must go back in time, one well-documented generation after the other. Most of us hit a brick wall sooner or later, as you did. Usually. However, in recent years a shortcut has become available that may, and only may, be helpful, and that is genetic testing. It has been used for genealogical purposes commercially for only 7-8 years or so. A man can test his Y chromosomes, which we inherit from our fathers (sorry, girls, you don't have any,) as we usually do our surnames. The test results are compared to others in the company's database and show which men you are related to, and thus can give you an idea of where it would be fruitful to do further research, and where it would likely be a waste of time. It can also be determined within degrees of probability how closely you are related to other men whose DNA matches yours, and thus the date of your common male ancestor can be estimated.

In your case at least it should show related surnames, which may or may not be associated with a clan. But nonetheless there is a degree of certainty far greater than spurious lists of clan septs.

The company most use nowadays is Family Tree DNA at the above website. It has the largest database, and therefore is likely to have more results for you. You can get a 12 marker test for $99 and upgrade to a more detailed, and expensive, test if you have matches at 12 markers. Most men get a 25 or a 37 marker test. I got a 63 marker test, and it was overkill.

The process is simple and painless. They mail you three cotton swaps, you swap the inside of your cheek and mail it back to them. In around six weeks you have the results, available on their website. Also there are links to a larger, free database, Y Search, that FTDNA has some sort of relationship with, for more possible matches.

One thing to bear in mind. It's a good idea to be prepared for anything. Your grandmother may have lied about a few crucial facts, but your DNA won't. In the US and the UK about 3-4% of births are misattributed paternity. This isn't much, but over a few hundred years, the effect is cumulative. Also, at a time when divorce was only for the rich and well connected, people sometimes changed their names when a couple separated and one (usually the husband) would go away to a place he wasn't known, marry another woman, and have children who you descend from. Or sometimes some one was an adopted orphan whose name was changed. Or sometimes men who were in trouble with the law would move to a place where they weren't known and start a new life with a new name. To me these surprises are more interesting than things that merely confirm what I already know or suspect. But that's just me. I have been doing genealogy for a few decades and am rather jaded.

Good luck in your search. I find it a lot of fun, and hope you do as well.

[Cygnus]

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

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

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

[gilmore]

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

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

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

[Cygnus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[macwilkin]

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

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

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

Spt on.

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



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



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

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

T.

[Cygnus]

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

T.

Well I'll be..!

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

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

[gilmore]

...

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

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

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