O! Horror!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Ozark Ridge Rider]

In my case, I have at least one repeat, so I lose one whole branch of genetic input somewhere. Not quite sure how to to the math on that one, but there's a good chance that I'm my own second cousin, six times removed.

Regards,
Rex.

At some point, you always run into that. One pair of my great-great-grandparents were second cousins. And you don't have to go all that many generations, doubling as you go, to reach a number greater than all the humans who have ever lived.

And the maxim about contact can be used with the Scots and the Irish: "When two different people come in contact with each other, they may trade, they may fight, but they always breed." That's been true for a long time.

[SteveB]

BeloitPiper - I have some of those Hume ancestors in Down. We may be very distant cousins, or we may not.. Names and spelling do not have any semblance of standardization until around 1940. This is even worse when an English clerk wrote down a name spoken in Gaelic, Scots, or Scots Gaelic. I have spent years on these. After many painstaking research visits, I have come away with someone other than my family. What you find on Ancestry.com is only what has been submitted by people and is not verified. Always beware.

Paul-
You probably have the most reliable data there is from the certificates that you have collected. Ancestry has not been able to produce much from Scotland, as the owners of the information are not willing to give it away without some compensation. You will be better served at the National Library and the Register Office. My lineage through Ireland to Scotland is through the official records, none of which have made it to Ancestry.com.

It has taken over twenty-five years of research to trace my mother's side of the family. It is here that I have a lineage back to the MacNeils of Barra.

The possibility of my father's side being a Lamont is the next theory to either prove or cast to the dustbin.

[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.