|
-
8th September 07, 01:55 PM
#11
 Originally Posted by Mr. MacDougall
I've started to write a response to this three times, and each time, I've not posted it, and gone away from this thread.
I sympathise with your desire to know more about your ancestors. But I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a subtext that I'm reading, which may not be intended. The subtext is this: that being American is somehow inferior to being Celtic.
My family has been in America for a long time. My earliest ancestor arrived here somewhere in the neighborhood of ten thousand years ago, while the latest arrived more than a century ago. In other words, in the living memory of my family, the only nation we've known is America. For me, this is not a disconnection from my roots -- it is my roots! When I think of who I am, and where I came from, my answers tend to center around Tucson and Arizona.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
And I think you're reading too much into this gentleman's post.
Regards,
Todd
-
-
8th September 07, 02:05 PM
#12
 Originally Posted by Mr. MacDougall
I've started to write a response to this three times, and each time, I've not posted it, and gone away from this thread.
I sympathise with your desire to know more about your ancestors. But I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a subtext that I'm reading, which may not be intended. The subtext is this: that being American is somehow inferior to being Celtic.
My family has been in America for a long time. My earliest ancestor arrived here somewhere in the neighborhood of ten thousand years ago, while the latest arrived more than a century ago. In other words, in the living memory of my family, the only nation we've known is America. For me, this is not a disconnection from my roots -- it is my roots! When I think of who I am, and where I came from, my answers tend to center around Tucson and Arizona.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I can see where you're coming from, but to me, it sounds more like Packhound is under the mistaken impression that the only tartans he will find to represent his roots are clan tartans.
I personally find this a bit odd, as I don't see why you would wear a tartan to represent a family history that you aren't aware of. I'd say find one that represents a part of your roots that you do know. But maybe that's just me.
I'm no expert on tartans, but I do know there are lots of options other than clan tartans. For example, if you have ancestors who fought in the American revolution, you could honor them with a tartan which represents the military or a specific branch, or a state or even the American tartan. It's not so much about what name is attached to the tartan, but what it means to you.
Hell, if you can't find a tartan to represent your roots, you could design one (after all, someone has to do it).
-
-
8th September 07, 03:05 PM
#13
I almost forgot. Hicks is an Anglo-Saxon diminutive of Richard. The terminal "s" makes it a patronymic.
Apparently the Anglo-Saxons had difficulty pronouncing the Norman alveolar (trilled) "r". Thus, we have Hick or Dick (Rick), Hob or Bob (Rob), Hodge (Roger). In Scotland, however, there has never been difficulty in rolling an "r", so these names are never indigenous to Scotland.
[B][COLOR="DarkGreen"]John Hart[/COLOR]
Owner/Kiltmaker - Keltoi
-
-
8th September 07, 03:13 PM
#14
Reavis is an Anglo-Saxon occupational surname derived from Gerefa, a lord's representative. This, incidentally is also the origin of the word Reeve.
Sutton (as in Sutton Hoo), is an Anglo-Saxon topographical name meaning South farmstead.
Yow: Who knows? Possibly an Anglo-Saxon etymology from yeo or yew?
[B][COLOR="DarkGreen"]John Hart[/COLOR]
Owner/Kiltmaker - Keltoi
-
-
8th September 07, 03:57 PM
#15
 Originally Posted by cajunscot
And I think you're reading too much into this gentleman's post.
I freely acknowledge that possiblity.
-
-
9th September 07, 09:51 AM
#16
Thanks to all who have posted here.
My purpose in asking this question was to perhaps learn a little more about my family ties to the "Old Country". I am impressed by the contributions that my ancestors made to this country. (I can qualify for membership in the Sons of the Revolution and Sons of the Confederacy through several ancestors. A great grandfather was in the 3rd NC, fought at Gettysburg, was wounded, captured, paroled and served the remainder of the war until Appomattox when Grant surrender to Lee. ) I am eyeing the Carolina tartan and am making a kilt now in Black Stewart. (To honor my step-grandmother who was a Stewart.)
Frankly, I like solids and tweeds. However, it seems that in my part of the world people don't readily recognize a kilt unless it is a tartan and accompanied by bagpipes.
-
-
9th September 07, 01:15 PM
#17
 Originally Posted by Packhound
Frankly, I like solids and tweeds. However, it seems that in my part of the world people don't readily recognize a kilt unless it is a tartan and accompanied by bagpipes. 
I'm with you on that. And the way I see it, that's all the more reason for me to wear a solid kilt, in order to educate the masses.
-
-
9th September 07, 03:16 PM
#18
Frankly, I've never really understood why some folks get so bent out of shape when folks associate their kilts with pipers & the pipes. I consider it to be a compliment to be mistaken for someone who has spent a great deal of time, blood, sweat and tears to play an instrument that has led men in to battle, and comforted the widow and orphan, not to mentioned outlawed as an "instrument of war". 
Regards,
Todd
-
-
9th September 07, 03:55 PM
#19
Actually, I am trying to learn to play the bagpipes. What I was meaning to say was that it would be nice to wear a kilt - just because.
-
-
9th September 07, 04:29 PM
#20
And what I meant was that far too many people know kilts as those plaid things that Groundskeeper Willie wears, and therefore they can have trouble recognizing a solid color kilt as being a kilt.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks