Skip to main content

View Diary: Who Am I?: Not So Irish After All (A Big Genealogy Surprise, Part 2) (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huguenots are one group... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, KenBee, richardvjohnson

    ... about which I know nothing, other than the name and they were French.


    My Alsatian ancestors, altho US data says they were from Alsace, France, their names were Germanic, and I found NY Lutheran church records online that state where some of the three family lines came from in Alsace.  The one for whom I have immigration and naturalization records arrived in 1851 and became a citizen in 1856.  The others came earlier and I have years of immigration for them from US census data.  Some of these families connect to the Pennsylvania Deutsch [Germans] families from the neighboring or same areas.

    I have multiple English lineages, some even documented back farther than I would have thought they could be tracked, knowing that most places didn't start keeping records until the 1600s, and - if one were very, very, very lucky, maybe the 1500s [a few records, not many].  I discount the so-called royal lineages that have me twice-descended from Henry II Plantagenet, once via Eleanor of Aquitaine and once via his mistress, Rosamund Clifford.  I've never seen anything that says there are valid documents for such links, so until or unless someone contacts me with authentic proofs, it remains an interesting myth.

    My Dutch ancestry is from 1630, only 10 years after my Mayflower ancestors arrived.  My first Dutch ancestor is alleged to come to Ft. Orange, NY [Albany].  I don't know much about that line yet, other than the spelling went from Van Goes to Goss by the time my ancestor, Ephriam Goss, is recorded at Valley Forge, PA during the Rev. War.  They hopped and skipped about with a kind of patronymic naming system I don't understand as readily as I do for my Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish ancestors patronymic naming system which is crystal clear to me.  Names that married siblings of my Dutch ancestors allegedly connect me to Martin Van Buren, but I haven't proved that to my own satisfaction.

    My RI and MA ancestors have books on their lineages, and they are reasonably easy to track in documents and books, and even valid and reputable online history web sites now.

    My Irish ancestor from ME is a hoot.  He allegedly lived to age 124, and there are headlines in newspapers when he voted at age 122, then again when he died in the summer of 1813.  The doctors at Hallowell/Augusta, ME did the autopsy and declared him to be the stated age.  North's Augusta gives his physical description and how he and Capt. Howard determined his age based on a shared remembrance of a "hard winter" in Ireland.  Problem: there were several "hard winters." Ancestor gave a location of birth, but didn't know his birth date when he tried to enlist in the Rev. War.  Us descendants?  We don't think he was really 124, but we do think he lived to a ripe old age.  In trying to find something to prove his age, I've got a nicely detailed timeline for his life in America.

    One of our other ancestors in the Carver line did, in fact, live to the age of nearly 102, and his birth and death are both documented, so people living in that day and age could survive past the normally short lifespan.  A great many of my ancestors on both sides did, in fact live to 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s.  Quite a feat in a day and age when that was most abnormal.  [My Carver line originates in Doncaster, Yorkshire, and were Separatists.  Gov. John Carver of the Mayflower was the uncle of my Robert Carver, son of Isaac Carver, bro of John; Isaac stayed in Leyden and apparently died there.]  There are several other Carver lineages in the US since it's an occupation name, but they're not related.  The one that spawned William Carver of Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid fame arrived about a century after mine did, and they're from Bucks Co., PA., and some migrated west and south, and Will was killed in Sonora, TX in 1901.]

    I thought the Huguenots were from more of the coastal areas of France, around Brittany (another Celtic/Gaelic stronghold)...?  I don't recall the Huguenots were from Alsace, but it would be interesting if they were.

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:01:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I've spent some time working with the patronymic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, NonnyO

      system in the Dutch/Frisian online archives; I was able to trace my maternal grandfather's ancestry into the late 1600s. One advantage of their system was that the women didn't change their names when they married, which made it easier to follow maternal lines. There was a traditional pattern for naming children, too. The first-born son was named after the father's father, and the second after the mother's father. That was reversed for girls: the first girl was named after her maternal grandmother. If a child died, the names were often recycled, especially if the next name hadn't been used yet. Third sons & daughters were often named after their great-grandparents, although favorite uncles and siblings were also used, especially if the family was lucky in the children surviving infancy, (and women surviving childbirth.) Surnames were mostly introduced in Friesland as a Napoleonic decree in 1811. The French conquerors required surnames to simplify record-keeping for taxation & military conscription. My mother's family was named for the farm they worked on. But the patronymics lived on as "middle" names. So my grandfather was Ruurd Baukes Sieperda, son of Bauke Jorrits Sieperda.

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:42:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very similar for the Scandinavian countries (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, marykk

        Women kept their own names their entire lives.  Makes it easy to find them after they're married.  [As one person on a genealogy email list I belong to said: "Why would she change her patronymic name to that of her husband?  Her father-in-law was not her father, after all.]

        Norway, in particular, adhered strictly to the naming pattern for children [for legitimate children, that is].  Eldest son for paternal grandfather, second son for maternal grandfather, eldest daughter for paternal grandmother, second daughter for maternal grandmother.  Yes, even if the maternal and paternal grandparents had same names, the children were given the same names!  After those four names came children named for gr-grandparents, aunts, uncles, as the whim took them.

        For names of illegitimate children, there was more leeway and I find the child is named for a maternal grandparent, sometimes for an aunt or uncle, sometimes even a name that's not within the family.  If the couple married, the naming pattern started with the child born before marriage.  [A betrothal was as good as a marriage, so often couples started living together and husband and wife before the vows were said or the banns being read.  Breaking a betrothal agreement was a grave undertaking and more difficult than divorce, it seems.]

        Exception: When a child died as an infant, the next child born was named for that child.  [There are masculine and feminine forms of most names.]  Sometimes they waited until a child of the same sex as the dead child was born before giving that child the same name.  One of my families had four infant deaths in a row, all boys, and all died as infants, and all were named Ole. [For St. Olaf - Ole, Ola, Olaf, Olav, Oluf, Oluv, Olau, Olaus, are among the multiple spellings for boys named for St. Olaf; Oline is the feminine form.]  The next child was a girl and named for one of the grandmothers who didn't have anyone named for her yet, so a different name was used for a change.

        Another Exception: When the first spouse of one parent died, if that parent remarried and they were young enough to have more children, the first child of the second union that was the same sex was named for the dead spouse, and occasionally the first next child of a second union was named for the dead spouse with the appropriate masculine or feminine form of the name of the dead spouse.  Then the usual naming pattern resumed.

        In Norwegian cities I don't find such a strict adherence to that naming pattern for children most of the time, altho the various children are named for the grandparents at some point, but out in the rural countryside it's like the naming rules were carved in stone next to the church door, including the exceptions!

        In the case of my Norwegian gr-gr-grandparents, when they arrived in the US they used the name of the last farm they lived on as their US surname.  Each was born on a different farm, they lived on different farms again after marriage, but it was the last one that became their US surname so they could fit in.  Their patronymic names became their "middle names" in the US, but they only used the middle initials in most official records.  [Farm names were technically an address of sorts, not part of a person's name there, until after the law mandating surnames became reality - IF the person chose to use the farm name and not a patronym, that is.  Otherwise the farm name was an address/identifier of sorts because if someone had to distinguish between two or three Ole Olsens, for example, adding a farm name determined which one the writer was talking about.]

        On a side lineage for the spouse of one of my aunts, his Norwegian immigrants on one line maintained the patronymic naming system for the kids for one generation after they arrived in the US.  It's all right there in the US census data!  [I thought that was interesting when I ran across that.]

        Sweden's records for my paternal line surprised me.  No adherence to strict naming patterns.  The location they came from might have made a difference because it was a small town not all that far from Göteborg.  My grandfather's [misspelled] patronym became his US surname; luckily, I knew about all the alternate forms of spelling for the time period on both sides of the pond.  When I did a bit of research in Sweden for a couple of friends, the children were named for the grandparents, etc., but not necessarily in order, and they were from the northern areas of Sweden where it was more rural.

        My Danish ancestors seem to have sometimes used the strict naming pattern for their kids, and sometimes not.  My gr-gr-grandfather's patronym became the family's surname in the US, and some of the offspring retained the Danish sen suffix spelling and some went to the [technically] misspelled American son suffix.

        I most definitely prefer working with the patronymic naming system for the simple reason I always know the name of the father I'm looking for in the next generation back..., and I never lose the women to those horrid name changes when they married.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:39:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Huguenots all over France (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, NonnyO

      I think there were Protestants in all towns and cities in France before Louis XIV.  They were predominantly urban bourgeoisie - only literate people would have wanted to read the Bible for themselves, and it was a forward-looking, very 'transgressive' thing for anyone to do.  Many went East, but many also came to the New World - there's a strong Huguenot influence in South Carolina, for example.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site