O! Horror!

[McFarkus]

I agree with what has been said above. My Gordons migrated from Scotland to County Down, Ireland about 1645 and then two Gordon brothers emmigrated from Down to Virginia in 1738 (I'm descended from both of them). This was a typical pattern for the so-called Scots-Irish.

[beloitpiper]

I agree with what has been said above. My Gordons migrated from Scotland to County Down, Ireland about 1645 and then two Gordon brothers emmigrated from Down to Virginia in 1738 (I'm descended from both of them). This was a typical pattern for the so-called Scots-Irish.

My Gordon side emigrated to Cork during the Clearances, then to the US during the Hunger. My Holmes (Hume) side went from Berwickshire to Down during the Plantation and then to the US during the Revolution.

[MacLowlife]

About people moving around and what identity they have or don't based on their present location: Just because the cat had kittens in the oven doesn't make them biscuits.

[BroosterB1]

About people moving around and what identity they have or don't based on their present location: Just because the cat had kittens in the oven doesn't make them biscuits.

Ah yes, but their names could be Biscuit, Muffin and Cookie.....

[GreenDragon]

I've been poking around on ancestry.com, and found that they have some tools to make preliminary tree-filling really fast by letting you borrow and build upon what others have already found. I know that I still have to verify, but it gives me direction and makes the whole task seem less daunting. So anyway. I found a hypothetical paternal line starting with my mum's pop back to 1634...

In Edinburgh. Scotland.
Not Ireland.

My illusions from growing up have been shattered! Why have we always been told we were Irish? Why was my Great Grandpa Max called "Pat" if he wasn't Irish?! So many questions! But that's half the fun of genealogy, right?

At least now I guess I'm officially more "entitled" to wear the kilt than I had been before!

We Irish proudly wear Kilts, too, sir.

[EagleJCS]

As with anything else, accept, but verify. Don't rely on just one source for your information. See if you can find wills, church records, or tax records from the same time period. Having more than one document can help confirm what has been posited. If certificate numbers have been provided as proof, get copies for yourself to make sure.

Some people make connections that are unverified, but are posted as correct. (I've run into this myself, trying to untangle several James and Alexander Scotts who settled in Kentucky around the same time. A couple came from VA, a couple came from NC, and at least one came from PA.)

There was at least one fellow in the late 1800's or early 1900's who published 'family histories' (I can't recall his name at the moment), but made conclusions based simply on similar names. Much of his "research" was later proven to be complete fabrication, but some people still believe it to be true and will republish the errors.

And, as good as the LDS records may be, some of those errors have crept into the LDS records as well. I believe there are researchers trying to clear things up, but it takes time.

[lethearen]

GreenDragon: Absolutely! Scottish, Irish, or just plain ol' Texan, I plan to continue wearing my kilts with pride

And EagleJCS, I agree wholeheartedly. The farther you go back in time, the greater the margin of error will be. I fully plan to document everything fastidiously... I don't know that I trust family "facts" that my parents recall, let alone a stranger on the internet! I found out how easy it is to just pilfer other people's research on ancestry.com... if one doesn't verify, it can spread and pretty soon entire family forests are built of nothing but misinformation.

[Inchessi]

For decades I was informed that my grandfather was half Irish, half Cherokee. I spoke with my Aunt. She did a detailed research and had to go to Scotland to verify. She said that he "IS" Scottish, Choctaw. My birth certificate says Californian, I'll stick with that, as long as I can still wear my kilt.

[lethearen]

My mom's uncle married my dad's mother... so my duplication happens pretty quickly

25 yrs? That's some dedication, Steve! Good on you And good luck on the Lamont angle.

[skauwt]

Ive used just two sites for my tree
Scotland's people and genes reunited
i started about 8 years ago then i decided to get back into it 2 years ago currently have about 666 people on my tree most of my lines Ive traced back to the 1500-1600s the irish parts of the line are the hardest to trace mainly due to the costs with the offices that hold those records but i know most came over during the famine era
if you cant prove the person with paperwork or prove someone Else's data then avoid adding the information into your tree its worth using a back up tree for refining and adding to rather than screw up the main tree your working on