Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
New Big Y results; The Foster/Forrester ...........Wallace connection
|
Hi All, After hanging out with the?R-FGC910 branches for the last four years, through my Gleave surname and very small surname project, I decided to test my mother's paternal line and luckily managed to convince one of my male cousins to take the Big Y. The Foster's originate from Western Scotland and moved to Liverpool, in around 1850. My Grandad was proud of his Scottish heritage (as well as Everton while we support Liverpool!!) and I even have an old Robert Burns song book in the Forrester/Foster green colours, which has been handed down through the family. I have managed to trace the Foster's back to Greenock in Scotland but have a brick wall with my 3rd Great Grandfather as I cannot locate his birth certificate anywhere. The objective of the test was partly to see if I could break through this wall, as well as establish the origins of the Fosters. The results have now come back and I have another line which is in the R1b-U106 brotherhood although this time in a completely different branch under R-DF98. The terminal Haplogroup is R-194282 and there is not one single Foster/Forrester match at any level of testing!! Six out of nine of the Big Y matches have a Wallace surname (although they are downstream of R-194282) while the STR testing results at 111 and 67 are also dominated by Wallaces. Should we now change the Foster/Forrester colours on the Burns book with Wallace? Could this be a potential surname switch, a not the parent expected or some other explanation? I read Ian's excellent analysis on the King's cluster which provided great insight into this branch of the tree.? If anyone can recommend any further reading on ancestry in Western Scotland, that would also be greatly received. Many thanks and Best, Mike Gleave |
开云体育Hi Mike, By R-194282, I presume you mean R-BY194284? I don't know what searching you've done for your 3*great-grandfather's ancestry. I'm expecting you've already looked for records on Scotland's People. Pre-1841 records can be difficult to find, and many births were simply not registered. It can be worth going through the Kirk Session records page by page to try to find something useful. Otherwise, it's normally a case of building up evidence from unrelated sources like the 1830s heads of household indices, estate records, trade directories, company records, etc., to build up a picture of a wider family. It's an approach that works better in rural areas than urban ones (because there are fewer people to interact with), and one that works better with rarer surnames than common ones. In terms of a possible surname change, yes, that is possible. However, it's worth looking at when you are related. If you look at your Block Tree, you'll see your Forster family comes off at R-BY194284. FTDNA's Discover places at relationship at very roughly 1200 years ago, before the adoption of surnames. The Wallace fmaily all belong to R-BY194284>BY193820>Z23289, and they appear much more closely related to each other than they are to you. So it's likely that your common ancestor never held an inherited surname. Several R-DF98 lines we find in this part of Scotland seem to be post-Norman arrivals. Obviously it's difficult to be definitive in any single case, but we see suggestions that one or two (e.g. R-A6535) came up with the Norman settlements of David I, particularly with the Bruce family. We see many other lines that show similar timescales of arrival. I'd suggest your ancestors arrived in Britain about 1000 years or so, given the make-up of R-PH589. Cheers, Iain. |
开云体育I would just add that so any of these types of questions come from America. ? What will slowly but gradually change the picture is that the idea of Bigy-700 testing getting more embedded in the family history community in Britain - and that it is relevant. ? We are only at the early stages of all this.? I belong to the London Branch of the Wales FHS. Recently we had a talk by Debbie Kennett, and the Secretary did a poll of the membership on what DNA tests had been taken.? Most members are women, and most had tested with Ancestry. I think I was the only individual who had taken a BigY-700 test. ? I hope I will get to talk about it with them this year (sometime). But sometimes folk get fed up with all the talk on DNA.? And, of course, only Ancestry advertises on national TV – FTDNA has essentially no media presence at all over here. ? You just need more men to test over here – all we can do is continue to throw the mud at the brick wall – sooner or later some of it will stick. ? Brian ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 7:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] New Big Y results; The Foster/Forrester ...........Wallace connection ? Hi Mike, ? By R-194282, I presume you mean R-BY194284? ? I don't know what searching you've done for your 3*great-grandfather's ancestry. I'm expecting you've already looked for records on Scotland's People. Pre-1841 records can be difficult to find, and many births were simply not registered. It can be worth going through the Kirk Session records page by page to try to find something useful. Otherwise, it's normally a case of building up evidence from unrelated sources like the 1830s heads of household indices, estate records, trade directories, company records, etc., to build up a picture of a wider family. It's an approach that works better in rural areas than urban ones (because there are fewer people to interact with), and one that works better with rarer surnames than common ones. ? In terms of a possible surname change, yes, that is possible. However, it's worth looking at when you are related. If you look at your Block Tree, you'll see your Forster family comes off at R-BY194284. FTDNA's Discover places at relationship at very roughly 1200 years ago, before the adoption of surnames. The Wallace fmaily all belong to R-BY194284>BY193820>Z23289, and they appear much more closely related to each other than they are to you. So it's likely that your common ancestor never held an inherited surname. ? Several R-DF98 lines we find in this part of Scotland seem to be post-Norman arrivals. Obviously it's difficult to be definitive in any single case, but we see suggestions that one or two (e.g. R-A6535) came up with the Norman settlements of David I, particularly with the Bruce family. We see many other lines that show similar timescales of arrival. I'd suggest your ancestors arrived in Britain about 1000 years or so, given the make-up of R-PH589. ? Cheers, ? Iain. |
开云体育This will become a not uncommon problem. ? I have had to tell one family in America fairly recently that they have an NPE event around 1675 in America – and they are all really Swanns – all of them. ? We even have this problem with the Royal Family – if you recall the Y-DNA testing of Richard III – the one male line which should correlate with his Y-DNA signature did not. ? And they would not let Turi King into Westminster Abbey to look at the royal bodies buried there to find out the truth. ? Of course, one interpretation of the origin of the surname Wallace was that they came from Wales. ? Brian ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Michael Gleave via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 2:55 PM To: R1b-u106 Groups IO <[email protected]> Subject: [R1b-U106] New Big Y results; The Foster/Forrester ...........Wallace connection ? Hi All, ? After hanging out with the?R-FGC910 branches for the last four years, through my Gleave surname and very small surname project, I decided to test my mother's paternal line and luckily managed to convince one of my male cousins to take the Big Y. ? The Foster's originate from Western Scotland and moved to Liverpool, in around 1850. My Grandad was proud of his Scottish heritage (as well as Everton while we support Liverpool!!) and I even have an old Robert Burns song book in the Forrester/Foster green colours, which has been handed down through the family. ? I have managed to trace the Foster's back to Greenock in Scotland but have a brick wall with my 3rd Great Grandfather as I cannot locate his birth certificate anywhere. The objective of the test was partly to see if I could break through this wall, as well as establish the origins of the Fosters. ? The results have now come back and I have another line which is in the R1b-U106 brotherhood although this time in a completely different branch under R-DF98. The terminal Haplogroup is R-194282 and there is not one single Foster/Forrester match at any level of testing!! Six out of nine of the Big Y matches have a Wallace surname (although they are downstream of R-194282) while the STR testing results at 111 and 67 are also dominated by Wallaces. ? Should we now change the Foster/Forrester colours on the Burns book with Wallace? Could this be a potential surname switch, a not the parent expected or some other explanation? I read Ian's excellent analysis on the King's cluster which provided great insight into this branch of the tree.? ? If anyone can recommend any further reading on ancestry in Western Scotland, that would also be greatly received. ? Many thanks and Best, ? Mike Gleave ? |
|
Hi Ian and Brian, Thank you for the feedback and advice. The terminal haplogroup is?R-BY194284. This is a similar situation to my Gleave line in which I was all alone? on R-BY55111 for several years until another BIY Y result placed me and the tester in FTA 81892. The surname is Merchant rather than Gleave and estimated that our common ancestor was born around 1400 CE. Another puzzle to solve........ Cheers, Mike
On Sunday, 4 February 2024 at 23:30:14 CET, Brian Swann <brian_swann@...> wrote:
I would just add that so any of these types of questions come from America. ? What will slowly but gradually change the picture is that the idea of Bigy-700 testing getting more embedded in the family history community in Britain - and that it is relevant. ? We are only at the early stages of all this.? I belong to the London Branch of the Wales FHS. Recently we had a talk by Debbie Kennett, and the Secretary did a poll of the membership on what DNA tests had been taken.? Most members are women, and most had tested with Ancestry. I think I was the only individual who had taken a BigY-700 test. ? I hope I will get to talk about it with them this year (sometime). But sometimes folk get fed up with all the talk on DNA.? And, of course, only Ancestry advertises on national TV – FTDNA has essentially no media presence at all over here. ? You just need more men to test over here – all we can do is continue to throw the mud at the brick wall – sooner or later some of it will stick. ? Brian ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Iain via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 7:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] New Big Y results; The Foster/Forrester ...........Wallace connection ? Hi Mike, ? By R-194282, I presume you mean R-BY194284? ? I don't know what searching you've done for your 3*great-grandfather's ancestry. I'm expecting you've already looked for records on Scotland's People. Pre-1841 records can be difficult to find, and many births were simply not registered. It can be worth going through the Kirk Session records page by page to try to find something useful. Otherwise, it's normally a case of building up evidence from unrelated sources like the 1830s heads of household indices, estate records, trade directories, company records, etc., to build up a picture of a wider family. It's an approach that works better in rural areas than urban ones (because there are fewer people to interact with), and one that works better with rarer surnames than common ones. ? In terms of a possible surname change, yes, that is possible. However, it's worth looking at when you are related. If you look at your Block Tree, you'll see your Forster family comes off at R-BY194284. FTDNA's Discover places at relationship at very roughly 1200 years ago, before the adoption of surnames. The Wallace fmaily all belong to R-BY194284>BY193820>Z23289, and they appear much more closely related to each other than they are to you. So it's likely that your common ancestor never held an inherited surname. ? Several R-DF98 lines we find in this part of Scotland seem to be post-Norman arrivals. Obviously it's difficult to be definitive in any single case, but we see suggestions that one or two (e.g. R-A6535) came up with the Norman settlements of David I, particularly with the Bruce family. We see many other lines that show similar timescales of arrival. I'd suggest your ancestors arrived in Britain about 1000 years or so, given the make-up of R-PH589. ? Cheers, ? Iain. |
|
I would like to add a brief comment on A-6535, of which I am a member. While the Bruce grant of lands in Annandale dates to 1124, it appears that the 1st Lord of Annandale did not take up residence in Scotland, and while his earliest descendants may have done so, at least a few generations of them continued to be buried at estates in Yorkshire,? England. Walter FitzAlan, meanwhile, after having to forfeit his baronial holdings in Shropshire and Norfolk due to his support for Empress Matilda, ventured north to Ayrshire at the invitation of David I, undoubtedly with his entire household and a large retinue of dependents in tow, in 1141, witnessing a charter for the king the following year. His mandate was to implant Norman style feudalism, for which purpose he created a system of vassals who were allotted holdings for their own maintenance in return for military and other service. The the Viking presence in the Isles remained a threat that did not abate until the Battle of Largs in 1263, after which grants of land were made to Boyds, Cunninghams and Muirs in Ayrshire for their role in the conflict.
In fact, the surnames under A-6535 fit quite comfortably into Ayrshire: among the FitzAlan/Stewart vassals are Richard Wallace and Peter de Curri, as well asTempleton, Pattison, and Thompson. My own Keys most likely derives from McKey, potentially traceable to a modern-day Keys Hill, which is probably identical to a feature that appears on a 17th century map as Makiestoun. The temptation to associate Peter de Curri with Annandale entails certain risks, as the Annandale name is invariably spelled with an "o", while the Ayrshire one is most often "u", e.g., Petrus de Curri (even though it may be rendered "Corrie" in modern sources). Black's Surnames, which refers to Currie as simply a variant of Corrie, mistakenly attributes a grant of land in Ayrshire in favour of Melrose Abbey to "Phillip de Curry", whereas it was in fact made by Peter. Another Curri, Perus or Piers, is identified as the knight whose name is linked to the Battle of Largs, where the Scottish contingents were almost certainly under the command of Alexander of Dundonald, High Steward of Scotland. It may be sheer coincidence that my first ancestor in Ireland, Duncan McKey, held the position of steward (seneschal) in the household of the undertaker (Plantation land grantee) Sir William Hamilton. Anyone wishing to explore the early Norman presence in Ayrshire further may consult this essay: <> Cheers, Roy |
|
The only comment I would make about the essay quoted is that it seems to have been written around 1950.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Would modern scholars in early Scottish history agree with the conclusions promulgated in a 1950 article. A lot of effort has been put in recent years to generate information on names in early charters, etc. It works better with most forms of science and history if the references you quote reflect more modern thinking on the subject. Anyway, the University of Strathclyde will sort out all Scottish history and it will all become done and dusted. Brian -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Roy Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] New Big Y results; The Foster/Forrester ...........Wallace connection I would like to add a brief comment on A-6535, of which I am a member. While the Bruce grant of lands in Annandale dates to 1124, it appears that the 1st Lord of Annandale did not take up residence in Scotland, and while his earliest descendants may have done so, at least a few generations of them continued to be buried at estates in Yorkshire, England. Walter FitzAlan, meanwhile, after having to forfeit his baronial holdings in Shropshire and Norfolk due to his support for Empress Matilda, ventured north to Ayrshire at the invitation of David I, undoubtedly with his entire household and a large retinue of dependents in tow, in 1141, witnessing a charter for the king the following year. His mandate was to implant Norman style feudalism, for which purpose he created a system of vassals who were allotted holdings for their own maintenance in return for military and other service. The the Viking presence in the Isles remained a threat that did not abate until the Battle of Largs in 1263, after which grants of land were made to Boyds, Cunninghams and Muirs in Ayrshire for their role in the conflict. In fact, the surnames under A-6535 fit quite comfortably into Ayrshire: Among the FitzAlan/Stewart vassals are Richard Wallace and Peter de Curri, as well asTempleton, Pattison, and Thompson. My own Keys most likely derives from McKey, potentially traceable to a modern-day Keys Hill, which is probably identical to a feature that appears on a 17th century map as Makiestoun. The temptation to associate Peter de Curri with Annandale entails certain risks, as the Annandale name is invariably spelled with an "o", while the Ayrshire one is most often "u", e.g., Petrus de Curri (even though it may be rendered "Corrie" in modern sources). Black's Surnames, which refers to Currie as simply a variant of Corrie, mistakenly attributes a grant of land in Ayrshire in favour of Melrose Abbey to "Phillip de Curry", whereas it was in fact made by Peter. Another Curri, Perus or Piers, is identified as the knight whose name is linked to the Battle of Largs, where the Scottish contingents were almost certainly under the command of Alexander of Dundonald, High Steward of Scotland. It may be sheer coincidence that my first ancestor in Ireland, Duncan McKey, held the position of steward (seneschal) in the household of the undertaker (Plantation land grantee) Sir William Hamilton. Anyone wishing to explore the early Norman presence in Ayrshire further may consult this essay: <> Cheers, Roy |
|
Hi Brian,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for chiming in. I think that the key data cited in the essay is taken from the same sources any newer research might have relied upon, in particular the charters. It is fortunate for us that Walter FitzAlan endowed a branch of Melrose Abbey in Mauchline, as this generated a number of records for posterity. The PoMS website contains much key material here. For a more general history, there are recent references in Wikipedia articles, e.g., to works by MacDonald and Barrow, though they might not possess the specificity we might achieve by correlating historical records with DNA. Cheers, Roy On 2/5/24 18:05, Brian Swann wrote:
The only comment I would make about the essay quoted is that it seems to have been written around 1950. |