PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Royalty SNP Connections



MaoL193
09-20-2013, 07:09 PM
I'm interested in L21 SNPs that believe they have a connection to Scottish Royalty. Have your paternal lineages been proven through credible sources, like The Peerage, or others? What is your best argument for such claims? I'm just getting started in research that may prove a Scottish royalty connection with L193. M222 shares an almost identical Distant Ancestor geographical map with L193, and they too believe they have Scottish royalty connections. Where do you believe your Distant Ancestors entered the Scottish royalty? I'd be interested in looking at all studies that make Scottish royalty claims. I'd even be interested in learning techniques used, and results achieved to prove old Clan paternal connections, like the McDonalds: I've been to their website, and it is interesting material -- I'd like to read more details.

SNPs under 2000 years of age may prove the best candidates to prove/argue a Scottish royalty connection. All thoughts, studies, links, suggestions welcome.

Daryl
181420
L193

MacUalraig
09-20-2013, 08:00 PM
<snip>M222 shares an almost identical Distant Ancestor geographical map with L193, and they too believe they have Scottish royalty connections.
Daryl
181420
L193
This is news to me, please expand on this. Evidence/data?

thanks
MacUalraig

Magnus_Eunson
09-20-2013, 11:56 PM
I'm interested in L21 SNPs that believe they have a connection to Scottish Royalty. Have your paternal lineages been proven through credible sources, like The Peerage, or others? What is your best argument for such claims? I'm just getting started in research that may prove a Scottish royalty connection with L193. M222 shares an almost identical Distant Ancestor geographical map with L193, and they too believe they have Scottish royalty connections. Where do you believe your Distant Ancestors entered the Scottish royalty? I'd be interested in looking at all studies that make Scottish royalty claims. I'd even be interested in learning techniques used, and results achieved to prove old Clan paternal connections, like the McDonalds: I've been to their website, and it is interesting material -- I'd like to read more details.

SNPs under 2000 years of age may prove the best candidates to prove/argue a Scottish royalty connection. All thoughts, studies, links, suggestions welcome.

Daryl
181420
L193

I am intrigued.......this has been mentioned before but the Chiefs of both Clan MacLaren and Clan MacGregor are both Scots Modal L1065+ and I'm pretty sure they have claimed royal lines of descent. Alpin for the MacGregors and Loarn mac Eirc for the Clan MacLaren, I also find it interesting that they were rivals. As to the authenticity of the claims, I'm not sure. I am afraid I dont know much about L193, what are your findings?

Cheers

rms2
09-21-2013, 12:39 AM
The Royal House of Stewart is L21>DF13>DF41>L744>L745. Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Scott,_10th_Duke_of_Buccleuch), y-dna descendant of Charles II, tested L745+ (S463+) with ScotlandsDNA, and he matches the haplotype (no, I don't know on how many markers) of a descendant of Charles Stewart of Ardshiel who fought at Culloden.

691

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86egt8PDmos

Fire Haired
09-21-2013, 12:58 AM
I'm interested in L21 SNPs that believe they have a connection to Scottish Royalty. Have your paternal lineages been proven through credible sources, like The Peerage, or others? What is your best argument for such claims? I'm just getting started in research that may prove a Scottish royalty connection with L193. M222 shares an almost identical Distant Ancestor geographical map with L193, and they too believe they have Scottish royalty connections. Where do you believe your Distant Ancestors entered the Scottish royalty? I'd be interested in looking at all studies that make Scottish royalty claims. I'd even be interested in learning techniques used, and results achieved to prove old Clan paternal connections, like the McDonalds: I've been to their website, and it is interesting material -- I'd like to read more details.

SNPs under 2000 years of age may prove the best candidates to prove/argue a Scottish royalty connection. All thoughts, studies, links, suggestions welcome.

Daryl
181420
L193

The majority of highlander Scottish, Irish, and Welsh people have R1b1a2a1a2c L21 and about 80% have Celtic R1b1a2a1a2 S116 so would their royalty. Do u have anymore info on SNP's and ways to find relatives from people in the UK. Because my family is trying to figure out were our surname is from all we know is almost defintley Scotland or England and they came to America in the mid 1700's or 1600's. Maybe i can find a match in the UK. All i know is i am negative for Celtic(mainly British isles) R1b1a2a1a2c L21 and Germanic R1b1a2a1a1 S21. Which take up almost all R1b in the UK so that breaks me down pretty well. I have either proto Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11*, proto Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a2 S116*, Celtic(mainly Iberia and also popular in France) R1b1a2a1a2a Df27, and very very very very very very rare Germanic subclades of S116 which i dont know if they are ever found n the British isles Df19 and L238.

oneillabu
09-21-2013, 09:44 AM
The Celtic Kings of Scotland claimed descent from the line of Fergus Mor Mac Erc so you must look to the oldest recorded pedigrees in the MS1467 manuscipt for the oldest Clans. The Royal line was closely connected with the early Celtic Church with the true line of St Columba being the best example because the Abbots of Iona were all of this bloodline for hundreds of years.

Clan Chattan is the best example with the leaders of this conferderation of Clans claiming descent from Lorne Son of Fergus Mor through descent from Gille Chatten Mor, Clans include McIntosh, Davidson, McPherson, Gillis etc. The Islands of Scotland are an excellant source for ancient Royal DNA where the inhabitants have existed since earliest times, with such surnames as McLellan (Devotees of 6th century St Faolain), McInnes whose ancestors are actually buried on Iona, McDonald from the Celtic Lord of the Isles descent (the latter Clan Chiefs are of Norse Descent possibly due to NPE) McGregor and other clans claming descent from Kenneth Mac Alpine etc.

If you look through the 1467 MS (link below) you will see all the various Clans claiming ancient Royal Descent

http://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/01b%20introduction.html

Any credible Claiment for descent from one of these this ancient Royal lines must show DNA matches to a mixture of these earliest Clans with also a connection to an early Irish source which is the source of these ancient bloodlines. There will probably be a number of differant types of DNA amongst the earliest Dalriada settlers however the criteria remains the same for each.

Regards

George Chandler
09-21-2013, 04:05 PM
Hello Daryl,
Which male line do you believe you're descended from (you can send me a private message if you don't want to post it publicly)? Do you have a family tradition of this? This can be anything from historic family lore to actually having a title. Have you hired a professional genealogist? What is the most recent common ancestor you have been able to prove using DNA in terms of your family name?

George

MaoL193
09-22-2013, 10:31 AM
I realize the sensitivity of the subject, which is why I suggest that available clinical data be put forward to support particular SNP claims to Scottish royalty. While it may be a na´ve goal I believe that many can benefit from sharing their results here. To avoid dissension, objectivity will need to remain paramount. Given that, I freely admit ignorance of British Isle history. What seems to be unanimous is the general belief that ancient records cannot be relied on as factual. I recently came across Pinkerton's writings regarding the House of Lorn, Argyll, Dalriada, and the Alpin Kings of Scotland to whom I have a mere hunch are connected to L193. Here is the Pinkerton link: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004890131.0001.002/1:5.5?rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=Aod It seems apparent that language and culture must be separated from Y-DNA haplogroups within them. The Saxons may have overpowered the Angles, but the Angle language and culture appeared to remain (per Pinkerton). Pinkerton suggests the same happened with the Picts conquering Dalriada in mid 8th century -- they adopted the spoken and written language of the gaels (Scoti). The Picts did not have a written language at that time. Religion seems to be a crucial factor also, as revealed in names of Scottish Kings like Malcolm, which, when broken down, means 'servant of' (Maol) 'Columba' (colm). Columba was an important Christian evangelist figure who originated from Ireland. While the gaels may have been the advanced culture, it appears they were not stronger than the Picts whom Pinkerton claims ended Irish power in Dalriada: The descendants of these same Picts then became Kings of Scotland.

L193 has been aged in different ranges from about 100 AD to 900 AD, but the sweet spot appears to be around 400 to 800 AD. I lean to the older estimates. It has five surnames that dominate the haplogroup: McLain, Vance, Glendonwyn, Elliott, and Little. The Vance group has traced their paternal genealogy back to the 14th century. Another surname, Kennedy, comprises about 11% of that surname's Project, their largest single group. Their ancient name, Cinaed, lends strong support to their connection to the Alpin kings of Scotland, starting with Kenneth (Cinaed) McAlpin. One L193 member believes he may descend from ancient Kennedys, including the first Lord Kennedy. The McLains have not yet proven their Clan chiefs are L193, but I suspect they are since L193 McLains comprise the largest single group within that surname project. The oldest known paternal ancestor of the McLains is apparently 'Old' Dugald of Scone who was born about mid 11th century.

As previously stated, I'm just getting started in the quest of proving L193 ties to early Scottish royalty, but the circumstantial evidence seems to point to them. When I recently read Pinkerton's writings that suggested that Duncha Beg, 'the little', was a strong suspected ancestor of Kenneth McAlpin, first King of Scotland, I began to suspect a L193 connection to early Scottish royalty. An M222 friend has suggested that M222 may be connected to Scottish royalty through the Donnachaid, or Duncans. This seems to be a plausible theory as L193 doesn't have many Duncans: They suspect the M222 connection may be through Crinan of Dunkeld, who married into royalty and was the paternal ancestor of the Duncan Scottish royalty. (Pinkerton suggests this Crinan was an Abbot) I'd long suspected a connection between L193 and M222. The following link reveals a geographical ancestor map of M222, which is an almost exact duplicate of L193 ancestors: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ This suggests to me that these two cousins probably walked the same ground at the same time through their connection to the Scottish royalty.

L193 is the largest haplogroup within L513, a son of DF13, a son of L21. Analysis of 111 markers suggests that pre-L193 ancestors may have originated in Wales, through the L513 subgroup B2 who can be identified through the L705/L706 SNPs (L706, father SNP of L705, is about the same age as L193, but much smaller in number).

My last name is Martin, and my oldest paternal ancestor was Duncan Martin b.c. 1765, possibly Minard, Argyll. I suspect we are actually Mcleans, as they are our closest matches in large numbers. My Martins are the only Martin family in L193, which has many single family surnames. My unmet Scot cousin (3rd, once removed), Angus, still lives in Campbeltown where our shared oldest ancestor, Duncan, was a shoemaker. Since my haplotype is very close to the modal for our haplogroup, I tend to get many more matches than the average: At 67 I have about 200, and at 111, about 45. The L193 haplogroup consists of about 450 known haplotypes, and more are discovered continuously. The GD range of diversity from the L193 modal is about 16. The Vances (of Barnbaroch) and Littles have the most STR mutations, so their haplotypes are easily recognizable.

I should also mention that surnames not found in a specific SNP can also add to circumstantial evidence. Interestingly, our L193 haplogroup does not include any McGuires, though they are found within our L513 haplogroup (about 3000 years old): Of course, there are other examples.

Best,

Daryl

MacUalraig
09-22-2013, 11:32 AM
May I suggest, if you want to develop your theories, that you read some more up to date Scottish history? The New Edinburgh History of Scotland series is the latest word on the subject so I would grab the early volumes of the series. Then if necessary you can follow up the sources they cite.

http://www.euppublishing.com/series/NEHS

It baffles me why you keep quoting Pinkerton!

MaoL193
09-22-2013, 11:17 PM
Mac:

Thanks for the link. Pinkerton was just somebody I recently stumbled upon while googling: I don't know anything about him. His theory about Pictish insertion into Dalriada seems sound upon first glance, and he goes to great length in his arguments. I'd gladly accept some more input from you on the subject. Per google, his theory has not been discounted. Is it your assertion that the Alpin Kings must have had Irish(Scoti) Y-DNA, and/or couldn't be Pictish? Thanks.

Daryl

MacUalraig
09-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Daryl,

Firstly to go back to your earlier point, the historical distribution maps for M222 and L193 are not that similar. It is true that we in M222 have more scientific data for various reasons whereas L193 is probably more reliant on user submitted data with biased sampling, but even so I don't see the similarity. M222 can be extracted from some of the older scientific studies like Sykes and Capelli as well as the Moore/McEvoy paper. I'm still not clear which maps you are talking about but no map of M222 has ever made it look like the distribution of L193 that I am aware of - I do follow the L193 forum too although I don't post on it. The distribution is always heavier on the Irish side of the sea than the Scottish for example and extends quite far south right down to the Munster border and sometimes beyond. No L193 down there that I am aware of?

The link between the Ui Neill and Dalriada has been discussed quite a few times on the M222 list. The late John McLaughlin was the great expert on these matters and was if I recall very sceptical - you would have to search the archives for his thoughts on it (search for posts under his old email Lochlan@aol.com).

If your interest is Crinan abbot of Dunkeld I would recommend you read 'The problem of Crinan' in 'The fall of the House of Alpin' by Alex Woolf in his NEHS2 volume I mentioned earlier, pp249-52. You can't (at least in Scotland!) read all those pages online in Google books. Alex Woolf represents the very latest scholarship on the subject.

Crinan has also been discussed again on the M222 list and elsewhere online in relation to the Robertsons, including some research by a normally very thorough historian which I don't agree with. It remains unproven in my view; that isn't to say it is wrong though. But the burden of proof lies with those making the claims.


Again Woolf in the same book has a lot on 'Cinaed son of Alpin or Ciniod son of Elphin?' including some discussion of the question 'is it possible that Cinaed was a Pict?'.

I know you say you have googled but the difficulty with starting out like that is knowing what are good secondary sources and what aren't. I am doing Scottish history at Glasgow University so perhaps I may offer some suggestions as to what the good sources are. I haven't met Woolf but I have been to talks by Professor Dauvit Broun and am just reading the paperback edition of his book 'Scottish independence and the idea of Britain: from the Picts to Alexander III' which was written at the same time as the Woolf book. Here is a little quote to whet your appetite:

http://www.euppublishing.com/book/9780748685196

"The extreme weakness of the evidential basis for Cinaed's 'Scottish' takeover of Pictland is today widely recognised by scholars, and as a result there has been a significant shift of emphasis in recent scholarship. Cinaed's pivotal role has been qualified and even challenged, either by positing an earlier dynasty of Gaelic kings who rules both Picts and Dal Riata, and whose legacy Cinaed therefore continued to develop, or (more commonly) by concentrating attention on the change from Pictish to Alba-based terminology visible by 900".


I believe the Kennedy L193 percentage is being distorted by immigration into the new world. It is quite hard to spot in Scotland so far. But maybe those lines withered out here so who knows. ;)

MacUalraig

Mikewww
09-23-2013, 10:22 PM
... I do follow the L193 forum too although I don't post on it. The distribution is always heavier on the Irish side of the sea than the Scottish for example and extends quite far south right down to the Munster border and sometimes beyond. No L193 down there that I am aware of? ...
You might be confusing L513 with L193. I'm the project admin for L513, where L193 sits. I label the variety "513-A1". It seems to be a great (reliable) STR signature.

513-A1 (L193) folks by country:

England - 30 (mostly northerly)
Scotland 169 - (mostly Borders region)
Ireland - (heavy Ulster orientation)
Germany - 1
Hungary - 1

Many of the folks in Ulster think they migrated there in more recent times from Scotland.

I'm pretty sure this has something to with the Borders region and possibly even the the Border Reivers folks as three of the largest sunames in these people are Little/Lytle, Glendenninng/Clendenon/Glendonwyn and Elliott/Elwood. Adam B has written a report you should read. There seems to be some tie back to a "Douglas" character. They do not necessarily relate to him on the Y side, but appear to have some kind of alliance.

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/1113Combo/files/Cluster_Analysis_A-1_Clade_Report.pdf

If you take out the Little's, the group is fairly young, like about 1000 years old. The Little's have two odd mutations, that may both me multi-step. That's my guess so I really do think this is a young subclade that was prolific.

Two other large surnames in this are a Highland McClain/MacLean group and a Vance/Van/Vaux(of Barnbarroch) group. Some in the latter think they may be from France. I have no idea.

Adam Bradford reports,
"The Elliott, Glendonwyn, and Little branches all have traditions of descent not just to the borders region, but to the same small area of the borders around Eskdale, Ewesdale, and Liddisdale.
....
An (McClain) origin near Inverness would be supported by McClain tradition, since a significant branch was established there in the year 1398
...
The A1 Vaus group contains the lineal heir of Barnbarroch, who has a reliable pedigree based on
documentary evidence to Robert Vaus of Barnbarroch (fl.1450s)..... Before Dirleton, it is generally accepted that the Scottish Vaux were from the same family as the Vaux of Gillisland in Cumberland, England."

Mikewww
09-23-2013, 10:34 PM
...
L193 is the largest haplogroup within L513, a son of DF13, a son of L21. Analysis of 111 markers suggests that pre-L193 ancestors may have originated in Wales, through the L513 subgroup B2 who can be identified through the L705/L706 SNPs (L706, father SNP of L705, is about the same age as L193, but much smaller in number)...
The genetic distances between A1 (L193) and B2 (L706.2) are quite large so even though both may be about a 1000 years old how they got to their launching spots may be quite different. The B2 people really do have a Welsh orientation, though, with a Frenchman and Swede to throw a little doubt on that. I don't see anything that really looks like pre-L193, but I don't think they are from Wales.

MacUalraig
09-24-2013, 06:11 AM
No Mike, you chopped off the previous sentence in your quote thus reversing the meaning of what I was saying. 'The distribution...' follows a sentence the subject of which is M222 distribution. But I admit I could have written more clearly.

cheers
MacUalraig

Jon
09-24-2013, 09:45 AM
Hi All,

This is all very interesting. I've been following the L193 development for some time (as I'm one myself!).

Although I take the point that the M222 and L193 distribution is not entirely the same, there surely seems to be a clear Scottish/Northern Irish bias. The earlier comment that the Dalriadans would have had different DNA types is spot on: there can be no such thing as one single 'Dalriada' DNA type. Dalriada is interesting, and I note that some of the tribes of northern Ireland (e.g. Ulaid or Cruithne) were actually pushed out of the region, by the Airgialla and Ui Neill, and almost certainly started colonising western Scotland, maybe even before Dalriada was established. Woolf also mentions this in his book.

I have long suspected a connection with the Cenel Na Gabrain, a leading Dalriada group, and thought to be the ancestors of many Scottish royal lines, including Siol Alpin. Aiden Na Gabrain was crowned with St. Columba in attendance, the first recorded 'consecration' of a monarch. At some stage, whatever happened, the Pictish and Gaelic lines merged, and the House of Alpin was born. The map distribution of L193, and indeed many of the surnames (Kennedy, MacKenzie, MacGregor etc.) would support it. The problem is that the Picts traced their royal lineage down the female line rather than the male line, so the normal Y-DNA path is distorted when it comes to genealogy. The Lords of Galloway, including a Kennedy link, were said to be related to the old Alpin line also (the first recorded was Suibne Mac Cinaeda). So the Picts, whoever they were, would seem to forge the L193 link between Galloway, Perthshire, in the old Pictland, and Argyll. And even the Cruithne of Northern Ireland were described as Picts.

A new piece of breaking history is the discovery of the so-called 'Galloway Picts'. This is an ongoing archaeological project investigating mysterious Pictish engravings found in Galloway. Until now it was considered odd that such markings were found so far south, but now they think they might have found the key to an ancient (possibly royal) Pictish kingdom in the south. Here are some links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2152693/Lost-Kingdom-Scotland--remains-burnt-Dark-Ages-fort-hint-ancient-ALLIANCE-Picts-Britons.html

http://www.gallowaypicts.com/

Whatever the answer is, I think that the focus of L193 in Scotland and its relative youth would strongly suggest one single related line. A royal/noble line would make sense, as they would have naturally had more opportunity and political motivation for reproduction. My own feeling is that it is certainly 'celtic', either Briton or Pictish, with or without a direct connection to Dalriada and the Cenel Na Gabrain.

As always, any thoughts or additions are greatly welcome!

Dubhthach
09-24-2013, 10:20 AM
From what I can see L193 in an Irish context appears to be post 1609 and that's going by surnames.

-Paul
(DF41+)

dgmcint
03-21-2014, 11:18 PM
Ive read all this thread and find it fascinating. I am a McIntosh who's paper genealogy takes me to northern Perthshire with family lore that says my ancestor's father William was a close male relative of one of the Chiefs of Mackintosh. I haven't been able to find evidence on either side of argument to prove or disprove this theory. My snp tested positive for L193. So I'm a little confused on how my McIntosh's are supposed to be highland scots and I have this Scottish border connection? We have yet to get the current Mackintosh Chief tested. Now the McIntosh Chiefs have claimed descent from the Macduff house. Would this seem to prove this connection?

dgmcint
03-21-2014, 11:29 PM
The Chiefs of the Mackintosh have always claimed descent through the son of the Earl of Macduff. The Macduffs claim royal descent, this may or may not be accurate. Skene thought the Mackintosh's to be male kin to the Macphersons, but this doesn't seem to be the case, now that ydna seems to be showing a difference between the Mackintoshes and the Macphersons. The chief of the Macphersons got his ydna tested, we are waiting for the Mackintosh Chief or the Clan Chattan Chief to do the same.

7scotlandkings
11-29-2014, 05:58 PM
Hello, through ancestry.com i discovered i am descendant of 7 scottish kings as followed

Donald II
Malcolm I
Kenneth II
Malcolm II
Duncan I
Malcolm III
Alexander I

I am looking for a possible Gedmatch.com kit number to compare dna with is there any known dna found from any of these kings?

Jon
12-01-2014, 11:14 AM
Ive read all this thread and find it fascinating. I am a McIntosh who's paper genealogy takes me to northern Perthshire with family lore that says my ancestor's father William was a close male relative of one of the Chiefs of Mackintosh. I haven't been able to find evidence on either side of argument to prove or disprove this theory. My snp tested positive for L193. So I'm a little confused on how my McIntosh's are supposed to be highland scots and I have this Scottish border connection? We have yet to get the current Mackintosh Chief tested. Now the McIntosh Chiefs have claimed descent from the Macduff house. Would this seem to prove this connection?

From what I can see on the FTDNA map, L193 is also quite well represented in Argyll, and further north into Inverness and even further; as well as in central Scotland around Perthshire. The big focus with most of those tested seems to be in the south-west (Ayrshire/Galloway), but there definately seems to be a link to other areas. So your Highland McIntosh roots are probably correct! The question is how they link up. A7, the big junction previous to L193, also includes many big Highland families (e.g. the MacKenzies), and branches off to include Irish names also (e.g. O'Rourke, MacConnell etc.). So it's a question I think of working out how we all fit together historically. Lots of great work is being done even as I write...perhaps someone more up-to-date on the research results could comment?

count arundell
09-22-2015, 05:44 PM
My dna test:
James I (1566-1625) => R1b-L21 (Y-DNA):------------137 + MATCHES.***
Charles I (1600-1649) => T2 (mtDNA) ; R1b-L21 (Y-DNA)----10 + MATCHES.***
Charles II (1630-1685) => H (mtDNA) ; R1b-L21 (Y-DNA)---50 + MATCHES.***
James II (1633-1701) => H (mtDNA) ; R1b-L21 (Y-DNA)
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh => H (mtDNA) ; R1b (Y-DNA)
Charles, Prince of Wales => R1b (Y-DNA)
William, Prince of Wales => R1b (Y-DNA)

count arundell
09-22-2015, 05:47 PM
312 haplotype pre-l-21.I have many matches.

Dubhthach
09-24-2015, 09:44 AM
It's fairly certain that James I, Charles I, Charles II and James II were L744+/L745+/L746+ -- the Duke of Buccleuch (descended from illegitimate son of Charles II -- James Scott 1st Duke of Monmouth, 1st Duke of Buccleuch) was tested by Scotlands' DNA, who was a match of one of Stewarts of Appin lineage (which descend from Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland d. 1283) who was likewise L744+/L745+/L746+

So unless you have a test for any of Stewart cluster SNP's under DF41 than you won't have a recent match:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=85&star=false

Tomas455
03-01-2016, 06:51 AM
Hi! I'm new here, but in tracing my lines, the royalty of England, Scotland, Wales, France Spain and Portugal all married for status, or gain, and there are different nationality royalty throughout. My lines make my head spin, with all the twists and turns.

Could someone help me I am not a linear decendant in any line except one that deadend in 1600's in Maine, but tracing back I have found relation to the planetagens, French and Spanish kings, and just recently Scottish early kings, the Kenneth alpin line. And also welsh kings. Now my question is that all looks nice on paper, but without a linear DNA line, how can I prove genetically that I am related to the kings of Scotland? On one DNA area I meet the modal for King William the conqueror to the 6th, which means I'm related to him, thanks Tomas, my college genetics class was years ago!

castle3
03-01-2016, 07:47 AM
I'd urge people not to place too much reliance on origin-legends, mythology & hearsay. Several current historians & authors are casting extreme doubt on some of the basic tenets of Scotland's history. Sorry to bang on about this, but the Antrim-Argyll Dalriada legend is one such case, with some modern authors claiming movement and influence was actually from Argyll to Antrim. Clarkson's 'The Makers of Scotland' page 61 mentions that Fergus is first mentioned in 950 AD, and his exploits added retrospectively to earlier chronicles. In the same book, pages 86-7, Clarkson suggests that Ness was possibly Domangarts's father, but that a fictional Fergus was later given that honour. Pictish and Scottish king lists are notoriously difficult to unravel. Also, some 7th C docs were added to, hundreds of years later, to validate the claims of various rulers. One has to wonder at the motives of these later scribes.

Individuals, such as Duncan and Crinan, have histories that are particularly difficult to fathom. However, that doesn't prevent numerous people claiming links to them. Somerled is another whose true roots require some unravelling!

Over the years I've been contacted by a number of people claiming a link back to the 15th C. When I ask for their tree, I usually find that they've made a giant leap of faith in the early 1700s, and that their line can't be traced back with any degree of certainty. A number of British monarchs had homosexual tendencies and one has to wonder if they fathered any of their reputed offspring, or was a willing and discreet courtier's services utilised? One example: James I reputedly had a thing for the Duke of Buckingham.

On a different tack, take William the Conqueror: Sweden, Norway & Denmark have all laid claim to him. Until his PROVEN dna is analysed, we may never know his true origins.

Sorry to be cynical, but I think we all seek the truth. I believe it's essential to try & encourage greater accuracy & less reliance on mythology & erroneous Googled nonsense. Read what various experts have to say, but bear in mind they don't always know everything. Fortunately we can add DNA to the mix!

Tomas455
03-01-2016, 06:01 PM
Accidental double post!

Tomas455
03-01-2016, 06:08 PM
Yes I agree with you, a lot is taken on heresay, I am trying to confirm through DNA, that the lines that is proven, with a great amount of documentation, is in fact true. Also agree, one king was killed by his wife and her lover with a hot poker up the keister!, make you wonder if he was also chuckholded with someone else child? What I am looking for is hard science DNA confirmation. As I said the lines are very well documented through historical documents, that's the difference when it gets to the nobility, there are records of them, where records of commoners are scares until mainly the church start keeping records, which seem to be around the 1600-1700. I have only one place where I feel there is clarifying proof needed. I am just trying to figure how I can prove with DNA when it is not a unbroken direct yDNA line? Any help? Tomas

I was really shocked when I started unraveling my multiple lines, and found that once you get to the nobility, there were many marriages that had special dispensation before marriage due to the closeness, of relatives, have seen some annulled for the same reason. A great many, I would almost say towards a hundred percent of marriage of nobility was across nations, and families for strictly political and financial gains. So my lines have with historical documentation, crossed several countries., and all land in the very upper echelon of nobility. I am a sceptic naturally, so I want hard scientific proof, rather than just written proof.

Tomas455
03-01-2016, 06:29 PM
Oh , and I am not arguing with you, but there are also revisionist writers out there who for one reason or another want to change history, or some parts. Now just because it is written by someone, even with impeccable credentials, does not make it factual and true. A person has to use their intellect, and see the hard facts, backing up the assumption, not just blindly believing the assumptions, now matter how well they fit.

rms2
03-01-2016, 06:58 PM
As Dubhthach mentioned a few posts back, the y-dna line of the Royal House of Stewart has been firmly established, and it is P312>L21>DF13>Z39589>DF41>S775>L746.

Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch, a y-dna line descendant of Charles II, tested positive for those SNPs with ScotlandsDNA. He also matches a descendant of Charles Stewart of Ardshiel, who fought at the Battle of Culloden. At this point quite a few other members of the royal Stewart line have been shown to carry the same set of SNPs.

castle3
03-01-2016, 07:28 PM
Yes I agree with you, a lot is taken on heresay, I am trying to confirm through DNA, that the lines that is proven, with a great amount of documentation, is in fact true. Also agree, one king was killed by his wife and her lover with a hot poker up the keister!, make you wonder if he was also chuckholded with someone else child? What I am looking for is hard science DNA confirmation. As I said the lines are very well documented through historical documents, that's the difference when it gets to the nobility, there are records of them, where records of commoners are scares until mainly the church start keeping records, which seem to be around the 1600-1700. I have only one place where I feel there is clarifying proof needed. I am just trying to figure how I can prove with DNA when it is not a unbroken direct yDNA line? Any help? Tomas

I was really shocked when I started unraveling my multiple lines, and found that once you get to the nobility, there were many marriages that had special dispensation before marriage due to the closeness, of relatives, have seen some annulled for the same reason. A great many, I would almost say towards a hundred percent of marriage of nobility was across nations, and families for strictly political and financial gains. So my lines have with historical documentation, crossed several countries., and all land in the very upper echelon of nobility. I am a sceptic naturally, so I want hard scientific proof, rather than just written proof.

Your attempts to match DNA to an accurate paper trail does you credit, Tomas. Good luck with your search.

MacUalraig
03-01-2016, 08:01 PM
Yes I agree with you, a lot is taken on heresay, I am trying to confirm through DNA, that the lines that is proven, with a great amount of documentation, is in fact true. Also agree, one king was killed by his wife and her lover with a hot poker up the keister!, make you wonder if he was also chuckholded with someone else child? What I am looking for is hard science DNA confirmation. As I said the lines are very well documented through historical documents, that's the difference when it gets to the nobility, there are records of them, where records of commoners are scares until mainly the church start keeping records, which seem to be around the 1600-1700. I have only one place where I feel there is clarifying proof needed. I am just trying to figure how I can prove with DNA when it is not a unbroken direct yDNA line? Any help? Tomas



In England it was Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell who decreed that parishes needed to record baptisms in 1538 and a fair number go back that far. In Scotland they start a little later (1553) and hardly any go back pre-1600. The oldest surviving Kennedy baptism here is from Dunfermline in 1563.

castle3
03-01-2016, 08:22 PM
It would be helpful to know the surname of the line you are researching, or at least the county he was mostly connected with, Tomas. Many of the landed gentry keep/kept their own extensive records. The Howards are one example. Be a little wary of some of the entries in Burke's Peerage etc.

Tomas455
03-02-2016, 01:58 AM
Yes I've heard burkes is not to be trusted. I would put an attachment with the two lines I am interested in, but when I finally figured how to add that here, the file were 400, and 500KB, where its site allows only up to 100KB, so now I have to figure how to make the att. Smaller in size!

Peter MacDonald
03-02-2016, 02:22 AM
In England it was Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell who decreed that parishes needed to record baptisms in 1538 and a fair number go back that far. In Scotland they start a little later (1553) and hardly any go back pre-1600. The oldest surviving Kennedy baptism here is from Dunfermline in 1563.

This said, the same does not hold true for the Catholic Church Records in Scotland unfortunately.

Tomas455
03-02-2016, 03:13 AM
As Dubhthach mentioned a few posts back, the y-dna line of the Royal House of Stewart has been firmly established, and it is P312>L21>DF13>Z39589>DF41>S775>L746.

Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch, a y-dna line descendant of Charles II, tested positive for those SNPs with ScotlandsDNA. He also matches a descendant of Charles Stewart of Ardshiel, who fought at the Battle of Culloden. At this point quite a few other members of the royal Stewart line have been shown to carry the same set of SNPs.

The Stewart line doesn't help me, mine is the Plantagenet, and also shooting back to Malcolm III of Scotland, and then there is another line with Welch kings!

Peter MacDonald
03-03-2016, 02:20 AM
I am pretty confident that I have a number of Scottish farmer connections, unfortunately I don't have a paper trail to prove my hunch at this time. This is further complicated that nobody else appears to claim such ancestry. Any suggestions how I should proceed with my research?

Tomas455
03-03-2016, 05:51 AM
It's not so much claiming ancestors, it just that there was probably no record kept prior to 1600, and also remember, most people were illiterate, so I think all of us would love good paper trails on everything, but it just doesn't happen, I have many family lines that just disappear into the mist of times in the 1600's.

Romilius
03-03-2016, 06:19 AM
The Stewart line doesn't help me, mine is the Plantagenet, and also shooting back to Malcolm III of Scotland, and then there is another line with Welch kings!

Plantagenets? There was a paper on descendants of Gaunt line and Richard III. The Lancaster descendant line is U152*.

I'm curious... have you got all the documents needed to state that you are a true descendant of Plantagenets?

castle3
03-03-2016, 07:15 AM
It's not so much claiming ancestors, it just that there was probably no record kept prior to 1600, and also remember, most people were illiterate, so I think all of us would love good paper trails on everything, but it just doesn't happen, I have many family lines that just disappear into the mist of times in the 1600's.

Tomas, I posted something similar to this re another who was claiming various links to royal houses:

I stated that it was essential to fully reference all leads, not just rely on internet nonsense, such as often appears on Ancestry etc. By fully referenced, I mean as follows:
If I state that in the 14th C that a John de Harcla died in 1322 & he had a widow called Ermiarda, I would add the following reference: See the book 'Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Society edited by W.G. Collingwood, published by Titus Wilson of Highgate in 1922, page 67'. This would enable other interested parties to locate the book & check that my information was accurate.

If you wish to publicise your link to the Plantagenets, then it would be useful to know if DNA proved you had a close match. Also, it would be sensible to supply a strong paper trail that would stand up to close scrutiny. You mention lines that 'disappear into the mist of times in the 1600s', which suggest you can't get back to the timescale you claim links to: bear in mind that Malcolm III, who you also mentioned, reigned in the 11th Century. His ancestry is the subject of much debate. I'm at a loss to see how you could claim royal links without a paper trail or DNA. Could you at least tell us what your haplogroup is, plus something regarding your proven family tree?

Your claims are intriguing, and I don't wish to cause offence, but would like to know if you DO have any evidence which the genealogical community would consider worth examining.

castle3
03-03-2016, 11:42 AM
I am pretty confident that I have a number of Scottish farmer connections, unfortunately I don't have a paper trail to prove my hunch at this time. This is further complicated that nobody else appears to claim such ancestry. Any suggestions how I should proceed with my research?

Do you have any idea of what level were they farming, Peter? Were they agricultural labourers or gentleman farmers? If you know the county they worked in it may give a clue as to who held the land. For example, the Duke of Buccleuch held vast swathes of land in certain parts of Scotland. As an example, if you thought an ancestor worked for Buccleuch in Dumfriesshire, you could write to the Buccleuch Estates office and ask for help in finding out more about your ancestor.

Local Archives and records offices in various counties may also be useful, but will usually charge a fee for their services.

Tomas455
03-03-2016, 10:22 PM
That is one of the reasons, I am trying to see how DNA works for non linear family connections. Currently I am just fleshing out my lines from various inputs, and then will go back and document with historical records, but as we know even well known ones such as Burkes peerage are up for questioning. Everything I have found has also been supported by more accurate peerage. Right now I am just curious about the DNA aspect. And again once someone get to the peerage level there is much more documentation, and all the kings and queens and counts and ladies only married to each other, so when I see some of these sidelines it makes my head spin. I am not trying to claim anything, just having fun, like my DNA showed 10% Southern European, which I couldn't figure out, but know know that Ferdinand III's daughter married a English King that is in my chain, so that opens up Spain, and Southern Europe! But I don't like to believe without scientific and historical proof. Again I am just doing this for fun, and maybe to see which tartan kilt I should wear If anyone want to contact me I have trees and different reports, but when I tried to upload the PDF's to this site, it would not let me due to the size 400, and 500KB, everything has to be under 100KB for this site. If anyone would like, I can send them what I have. But this is also why I have not uploaded a gedcom anywhere, I have over 1300 people on it and I have not vetted them all, I am at a starting point. Thank you above for the help, and I will check the U152 SNP. Also someone on a ftdna site has come up with a modal for William the bastard, or Conquerer, which I am also familial match to. My DNA is Z15, which is down stream from U106, I have also upgraded to the 111 test earlier this week, it is done and in pending status at FTDNA. Thanks everyone for your help.

Tomas455
03-03-2016, 10:47 PM
In reply to castle3, I am not offended in the least. I don't plan to profit in any way or publically publish for gain. I was very suprised when these line started to unfold. See my reply above. Also when I state that lines are lost to the mist of times, I meant that as an example you start with one set of parents, but by the time you are only back to 5th grandparent you have 64 separate line available, so just try to imagine how many possible lines the is a possibility of when you go back 4-5 hundred years, I would do the math, but I haven't used my statistic math class since 2000. So as I said a lot of lines become lost in the mist of times. Again if you would like a copy of some of the lines I am researching, let me know, but these are copy written and may not be used for any personal gain. They may be used for all other non commercial purposes with my blessing. I have several relative who have stolen history, in the form of documents and pictures, and feel good, that they have gotten over on me because they have these and I don't. I don't play that way, but I also don't want my fun time work to show up on some site that charges subscriptions or fees, so a company can make money off of me. That is also another reason I have not put a gedcom out on sites I belong to. I beleive in the free exchange of knowledge.
Thomas w. Standley

Moderator: Hi Thomas: I've removed your email address. We don't encourage individuals to publish their email addresses on Anthrogenica. Using the Private Message system is preferred for offline contact between members.

Tomas455
03-03-2016, 11:07 PM
No I seem to be negative for U152, but there are also suggestion that John le Gaunt was not the kings son, but even if he wasn't his mother is linked to some of my lines back further. This is where I am in a quandary, how does the DNA show up, if not in a straight linear male line, would I still have a positive for that SNP in my profile? That is what I am trying to figure out. My lines I am researching are definitely not straight linear, all kinds of maternal lines there.

Peter MacDonald
03-03-2016, 11:32 PM
Do you have any idea of what level were they farming, Peter? Were they agricultural labourers or gentleman farmers? If you know the county they worked in it may give a clue as to who held the land. For example, the Duke of Buccleuch held vast swathes of land in certain parts of Scotland. As an example, if you thought an ancestor worked for Buccleuch in Dumfriesshire, you could write to the Buccleuch Estates office and ask for help in finding out more about your ancestor.

Local Archives and records offices in various counties may also be useful, but will usually charge a fee for their services.

castle3,

I would be assuming if I were to state what level of farmer they were in Scotland. My direct paternal line came to Nova Scotia, Canada in 1785 and had the money to apply for individual land grants and could not write as his signature was an "X". All other lines arrived shortly after this date in Nova Scotia, Canada with the latest arriving in 1832 which means their Scottish records most likely do not exist unfortunately.

Romilius
03-04-2016, 10:18 AM
No I seem to be negative for U152, but there are also suggestion that John le Gaunt was not the kings son, but even if he wasn't his mother is linked to some of my lines back further. This is where I am in a quandary, how does the DNA show up, if not in a straight linear male line, would I still have a positive for that SNP in my profile? That is what I am trying to figure out. My lines I am researching are definitely not straight linear, all kinds of maternal lines there.

There are also suggestions that Richard iii wasn't the real descendant...if we pay too much attention upon those folk legends...

The real deal is how do you link yourself to kings with documents... I'm a genealogist, and I know the difficulties of the documental research, so, I'm skeptical when I heard of people linking themselves to kings or gods.

Romilius
03-04-2016, 10:19 AM
I repeat: only a documental+genetical research can give answers: people can't rely only upon genetics.

MacUalraig
03-04-2016, 10:35 AM
No I seem to be negative for U152, but there are also suggestion that John le Gaunt was not the kings son, but even if he wasn't his mother is linked to some of my lines back further. This is where I am in a quandary, how does the DNA show up, if not in a straight linear male line, would I still have a positive for that SNP in my profile? That is what I am trying to figure out. My lines I am researching are definitely not straight linear, all kinds of maternal lines there.

There are only two lines in your entire tree where DNA can probe the deep past (ie more than say 5 generations), Y which is the all paternal line ONLY and mtDNA which is the all maternal line and not very discerning either.

After that comes autosomal where the paternal and maternal DNA recombines randomly and it is really only useful to about 4th/5th cousin level even if there is still a genetic signal left.

Since mtDNA is poor all around your best indeed only bet is to trace the paternal descent of the non-paternal lines in your tree to the present and test that individual for Y SNPs.

MacUalraig
03-04-2016, 10:39 AM
Have you trawled through Donald White's series of books on Scottish emigrants to Canada before Confederation?

castle3
03-04-2016, 10:39 AM
Tomas, I think for privacy reasons you should delete your e-mail asap. You mention someone has uploaded William the Conqueror's DNA. I'd treat that with a healthy dose of scepticism. I think you should continue with your research until you have far more solid information to go on.

Baltimore1937
03-04-2016, 11:28 AM
Deep genealogy has an element of myth, but it's fun! I bumped in to a Florent II, Compte-de-Hollande in my tree, 1085-1121. His wife Gertrude Petronille de Lorraine later married Lambert Montaigu and had a daughter that led to me. One could speculate about that Hollande name and connections.

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 04:13 PM
I repeat: only a documental+genetical research can give answers: people can't rely only upon genetics.
Completely agree, oh and as your Italian, you should see the Italian line that is unfolding for me back to King Berengar I of Italy and Margrave Bosco of Tuscany

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 04:25 PM
There are also suggestions that Richard iii wasn't the real descendant...if we pay too much attention upon those folk legends...

The real deal is how do you link yourself to kings with documents... I'm a genealogist, and I know the difficulties of the documental research, so, I'm skeptical when I heard of people linking themselves to kings or gods.

If you remember your early anthropology courses, first there was oral history passed down from generation to generation, then these became legends, and lore. You have to look at these, and carefully tease what might be a piece of fact out, and then get other verification else ware to cooberate. Oh and as far as linking to kings or gods, you know better than that if you are a real geneticist, do the math and figure out how many multi time great grandchildren are out there over the span of 1000 years!

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 04:33 PM
There are only two lines in your entire tree where DNA can probe the deep past (ie more than say 5 generations), Y which is the all paternal line ONLY and mtDNA which is the all maternal line and not very discerning either.

After that comes autosomal where the paternal and maternal DNA recombines randomly and it is really only useful to about 4th/5th cousin level even if there is still a genetic signal left.

Since mtDNA is poor all around your best indeed only bet is to trace the paternal descent of the non-paternal lines in your tree to the present and test that individual for Y SNPs.

Thank you, thank you, that is what I thought that I was stuck with autosomal! I was just hoping there was a better way! Oh and you are saying try to follow the father of the mother to the father of the mother and so on? I am slightly confused. Tomas

castle3
03-04-2016, 04:48 PM
Hello, through ancestry.com i discovered i am descendant of 7 scottish kings as followed

Donald II
Malcolm I
Kenneth II
Malcolm II
Duncan I
Malcolm III
Alexander I

I am looking for a possible Gedmatch.com kit number to compare dna with is there any known dna found from any of these kings?

Some of Ancestry's postings are far from accurate, so be careful!

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 04:58 PM
Some of Ancestry's postings are far from accurate, so be careful!
Completely agree, and also be careful of the Mormon site, lot of good solid info from church registers and such, but a lot of trees and people who are just added by relatives, or supposed relatives. Be sure of the back documentation!

Romilius
03-04-2016, 05:58 PM
If you remember your early anthropology courses, first there was oral history passed down from generation to generation, then these became legends, and lore. You have to look at these, and carefully tease what might be a piece of fact out, and then get other verification else ware to cooberate. Oh and as far as linking to kings or gods, you know better than that if you are a real geneticist, do the math and figure out how many multi time great grandchildren are out there over the span of 1000 years!

Sorry, but no: oral history isn't reliable. We have falsified historic records and oral ones also in the XII century and in the XVI and XVII centuries.

I reconstructed a line of a friend of mine who is R-Z36 from 2000 to 1230... ALL on documents. I reconstructed with notarial acts (over 10 GB of photos of real notarial acts from State Archive of his province) his line from the end of parish records (1580) to 1230. His family hasn't got any oral legend or pretension to any title, but, in the 1230 one of his ancestor had a coat of arms and was the noble podestÓ of a castrum in the North of Italy. He was a noble but he didn't know... how's strange the world: we have people that think to be the descendants of holy kings and people who don't... but the latter are, the former... perhaps...

It seems that you don't know well the world of documental research. For example: the Massimo family in Rome states that they are the descendants of Quintus Fabius Maximus... on documents we verified that the first to be called Massimo was a merchant of the XV century. Legends aren't true in 99% of cases.

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 06:10 PM
You also need to understand the Scottish King linage, it was not linear, until malcomIII. Look it up if needed I am just a neophyte here. But I can show two areas in my line where it goes from Malcom II thru Betoc, his daughter to Duncan I, his grandson, but there are two unrelated kings in between these two kings. And previous the kingship was passed around! Also for info, Betoc was married to Crinan of Dunkeld

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 06:18 PM
Wrong place!

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 06:21 PM
Sorry, but no: oral history isn't reliable. We have falsified historic records and oral ones also in the XII century and in the XVI and XVII centuries.

I reconstructed a line of a friend of mine who is R-Z36 from 2000 to 1230... ALL on documents. I reconstructed with notarial acts (over 10 GB of photos of real notarial acts from State Archive of his province) his line from the end of parish records (1580) to 1230. His family hasn't got any oral legend or pretension to any title, but, in the 1230 one of his ancestor had a coat of arms and was the noble podestÓ of a castrum in the North of Italy. He was a noble but he didn't know... how's strange the world: we have people that think to be the descendants of holy kings and people who don't... but the latter are, the former... perhaps...

It seems that you don't know well the world of documental research. For example: the Massimo family in Rome states that they are the descendants of Quintus Fabius Maximus... on documents we verified that the first to be called Massimo was a merchant of the XV century. Legends aren't true in 99% of cases.

You have obviously not taken an anthropology course, everyone now that history started as oral passing from generation to generation, before written documentation. Now don't get me wrong documentation is very important, but it is not all! Also remember to not believe all documentation unless there is separate verification of the event. People wrote what they thought was true, or in some case intentionally changed what was written for their own uses. Also read what I said, I was very suprised when my line started unfolding. And I noticed you didn't answer my question about how many grandchildren ther would be in a thousand years. No one is being pretentious, except you, you seem to like to put down people who are just doing this for fun, don't take yourself so seriously!�� Oh and look at my nationality, it doesn't say noble, it says mutt! I am online for enjoyment, I do not like to put people down or be put down, me think thou might have a chip on thee shoulder because of genetics, upsets old times geneologist!

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 06:40 PM
Some of Ancestry's postings are far from accurate, so be careful!

You also need to understand the Scottish King linage, it was not linear, until malcomIII. Look it up if needed I am just a neophyte here. But I can show two areas in my line where it goes from Malcom II thru Betoc, his daughter to Duncan I, his grandson, but there are two unrelated kings in between these two kings. And previous the kingship was passed around! Also for info, Betoc was married to Crinan of Dunkeld

castle3
03-04-2016, 07:01 PM
You also need to understand the Scottish King linage, it was not linear, until malcomIII. Look it up if needed I am just a neophyte here. But I can show two areas in my line where it goes from Malcom II thru Betoc, his daughter to Duncan I, his grandson, but there are two unrelated kings in between these two kings. And previous the kingship was passed around! Also for info, Betoc was married to Crinan of Dunkeld

I can't think why in post # 60 you've quoted my reply to '7Scotlandkings' (post #54), Tomas. I was alerting him to the poor quality of some of Ancestry's material. My earlier ref to Crinan & Duncan (post #25) was to say that Crinan, in particular, and Duncan, to a far lesser extent, had histories that were difficult to fathom. Woolf's 2007 work, 'From Pictland to Alba' p249 discusses the problem of ascertaining Crinan's true origins. Other scholars have done so, too.There is a paucity of reliable documentation regarding Crinan. Historians are agreed that the Pictish king lists are a nightmare with endless debate taking place as to which of the rulers were from what tribe. These are the sort of problems that beset anyone trying to trace Duncan's ancestors' true tribal origins with any certainty. Please refrain from quoting me out of context. I am aware of the regnal list for Scotland!

Tomas455
03-04-2016, 08:12 PM
Uh I said be careful of the Mormon church site also, and the posted again that since he posted his was a list of Scottish King, I was just saying that there is a difference if you are going DNA lineage, and the kingship lineage of Scotland, did not mean to upset, nor did I misquote you, as I say to my wife sometimes lighten up don't get so pissy!

castle3
03-04-2016, 08:17 PM
You need to place the quote of the person you are referring to, not that of an uninvolved third party, namely me. It's not 'getting pissy', merely asking that you attach the correct person's quote.

MacUalraig
03-04-2016, 08:29 PM
Thank you, thank you, that is what I thought that I was stuck with autosomal! I was just hoping there was a better way! Oh and you are saying try to follow the father of the mother to the father of the mother and so on? I am slightly confused. Tomas

What I was saying is trace the Y chromosome of a women's father forward in time father to son. That is all you can do for deep (>5 gens) female ancestors.

Romilius
03-04-2016, 09:03 PM
You have obviously not taken an anthropology course, everyone now that history started as oral passing from generation to generation, before written documentation. Now don't get me wrong documentation is very important, but it is not all! Also remember to not believe all documentation unless there is separate verification of the event. People wrote what they thought was true, or in some case intentionally changed what was written for their own uses. Also read what I said, I was very suprised when my line started unfolding. And I noticed you didn't answer my question about how many grandchildren ther would be in a thousand years. No one is being pretentious, except you, you seem to like to put down people who are just doing this for fun, don't take yourself so seriously!�� Oh and look at my nationality, it doesn't say noble, it says mutt! I am online for enjoyment, I do not like to put people down or be put down, me think thou might have a chip on thee shoulder because of genetics, upsets old times geneologist!

As I state, you don't even know what Genealogy is... Document is all for genealogical reconstruction. We are talking about family history. When I hear people stating that they are descendants of kings, I expect them to give the proof of their genealogical link. You can't cast the stone and hide the hand. My work is genealogy when I'm in Italy, so I'm not doing this for fun and don't expect other to do this for fun: we are talking about a science that helps civil and penal right...with genealogical research people can have citizenship in some countries....

Peter MacDonald
03-05-2016, 12:43 AM
Sorry, but no: oral history isn't reliable. We have falsified historic records and oral ones also in the XII century and in the XVI and XVII centuries.

I reconstructed a line of a friend of mine who is R-Z36 from 2000 to 1230... ALL on documents. I reconstructed with notarial acts (over 10 GB of photos of real notarial acts from State Archive of his province) his line from the end of parish records (1580) to 1230. His family hasn't got any oral legend or pretension to any title, but, in the 1230 one of his ancestor had a coat of arms and was the noble podestÓ of a castrum in the North of Italy. He was a noble but he didn't know... how's strange the world: we have people that think to be the descendants of holy kings and people who don't... but the latter are, the former... perhaps...

It seems that you don't know well the world of documental research. For example: the Massimo family in Rome states that they are the descendants of Quintus Fabius Maximus... on documents we verified that the first to be called Massimo was a merchant of the XV century. Legends aren't true in 99% of cases.

You have to remember that Gaelic culture is based on oral history and tradition, so you have to be careful in making generalized statements.

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 01:16 AM
You need to place the quote of the person you are referring to, not that of an uninvolved third party, namely me. It's not 'getting pissy', merely asking that you attach the correct person's quote.

Uh what I did was hit the right hand button that says reply with quotes, and then put in my two cents. The system automatically put the quoted message above. I did not attach any quotation marks in myself, still learning this site. Simply piggybacking on your ancestors .com comment saying to be carefull with Morman site also because people put their own unproven stuff, which end up with the proven church data. And then since he was studying the same King I was, I added the strange Scottish kingship prior to malcom III.
Thank you for your help recently, but don't be a heavy handed oldster on this site either! Thomas Standley

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 01:29 AM
12345

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 01:35 AM
Posted for #65' to Romilius, I think you are in denial as a ? Geneologist? I presume self trained. You need to realize that with the advent of the Internet, information is available that would never have been available before, it combined with the advancement in genetic, will change the lives of so called payed geneologist, I realized this will be detrimental to your finances, but live with it and get real, more and more document from govt, churches and individual is being added daily. All I have said is that lore, often times originates With true events that can be teased out because that was how history was passed before writing, and when did most people become literate? Ask any accredited anthropologist and they will confirm. You also keep taking swipes at me because I said I ended up in Royal lines, not my fault, but I won't hide it either. And you still haven't said how many separate lines a granchild would have after 1000 years. You my friend are living a delusion, and I chose not to have you crap on my fun. It would make no difference who I was related to, I am just have fun delving, and learning. So in summary, you might look for a line of work you are better suited for! I will be see if I can block your drivel. Tomas Standley

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 01:49 AM
Oh I see, go outside the line, and see if there are brothers to form a similar parallel y line, that is frequently done, I was trying to figure how to get better placement than using DNA segment, matching. Thank you for your help though. Wow, you guy are going to make my dig out my old genetic books and bone up aren't you��, thanks Tomas Standley

Romilius
03-05-2016, 05:33 AM
You have to remember that Gaelic culture is based on oral history and tradition, so you have to be careful in making generalized statements.

You are right, but I'm talking about Plantagenets, noto gaels.

Romilius
03-05-2016, 05:43 AM
Removed by moderator -- quotes deleted text

I'm sorry, but here is you who makes heavy statements about your ancestry. In Italy - I don't know if in the USA is the dame...it seems no - we follow the way that who makes heavy statements must also provide the proof of what che said. As for Genealogy: I studied it at university and specialized schools of the State Archive (7 years of study). And never heard that oral history has a heavy place in genealogical research...you don't have a clue about the research. But I think that it is better to believe in some not-very-argumented legends. I will do it myself: I descend from the line of Merovingians...but I won't give a proof of what I'm saying...only telling others that a certain legend exists.

I worked a lot with people that have legends in family...the result? It was discovered that in 25% were people with the same surname of another from other parts of Italy and not related, so people whose ancestor wanted to steal other's past. The other 75% were people that didn't know what they were talking about and invented legends at the great-grandfather level to justify a wealthier state.

Moderator
03-05-2016, 06:00 AM
All members are reminded that abusive language and personal attacks are not tolerated on Anthrogenica.

castle3
03-05-2016, 06:05 AM
Tomas, I think you'll find people are often sceptical when others make various claims regarding their ancestry. This is often borne out of experience. I've been contacted on numerous occasions, over nearly forty years, by people stating they had a proven lineage pre-1700, when in fact they hadn't. One chap in Alabama claimed to be via a well-known English family, but when I checked his pedigree he had mistaken Newcastle-upon-Tyne for Newcastle-under-Lyme & couldn't actually get beyond 1820.
A fellow from Texas said his family had wed into a branch of mine. He told me that someone in his line was a general in the army in England in the 1600s. When I checked, the chap he was referring to was an agricultural labourer, aged 14! Instead of admitting his mistake, he replied that 'Things moved pretty damn quick back then'. Astonishing!
Another chap had drawn up a tree & made a crucial error which was due to the change in dating when the Julian calendar changed to the Gregorian model. The result was that he had followed a total stranger's pedigree back from the 18th century. All these people were adamant their research was 100% accurate before these anomalies were pointed out.
Medieval docs are terribly difficult to decipher, and I've seen a variety of interesting translations of old Latin that are wholly inaccurate. I have a photograph of an original charter, dated 1223, which features the oldest known appearance of my surname. You have to really closely scrutinize the page to spot my surname due to the writing being extremely difficult to decipher. A novice would almost certainly have missed the entry.
The above are just some of the reasons why people won't automatically accept claims regarding pedigrees. If you do produce a pedigree without errors, and/or gaps, that goes back to Malcolm III then I'll be the first to applaud your efforts. I'm making no judgements regarding your pedigree, merely pointing out why there is some scepticism.
EDIT: If you have a local genealogical or historical society in Montana, perhaps you could let them see your research & offer an opinion?

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 07:05 AM
Deleted

Peter MacDonald
03-05-2016, 01:39 PM
Yeah, I personally detest people who set out to prove they descend from royal or noble descent without any pre-existing tradition or legend (to prove or disprove). Especially those who have just randomly mixed and matched names to get them the ancestral line they feel the deserve or are entitled to. However I really don't care if people want to do this exercise in self gratification, that is until they decide to post their fantasies of once greatness to a public forum…….why people feel the need to do this I don't think I will ever be able to fully understand. Oh well, the internet is a free place, to each their own.

Romilius
03-05-2016, 01:54 PM
Removed - quotes deleted text


Please, come in Italy or even here in Ethiopia with your system of research and you will be ridiculized. I only expect you to give proofs of your claims: it's so simple if you have documents. Give sources...but it seems you don't know what are they...

I'm a profesional genealogist appointed by the school of State Archive in Italy and I know what does the documental research mean. I only ask proofs...bit I see that you can't provvide any...you know only how to make offenses. But we are not talkingtalking about who have got the best girlfriend...se are talking about Genealogy. So, your offenses aren't welcome here.

The reality is that you can't provide proofs of your connection to Plantagenets and you take refuge in genetics. You also have the bad taste to say that Gaunt linea tested by scientists isn't legitimate because - let's hear gentlemen - it doesn't match tours!!! Please, drink a cup of humility...you really need it.

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 07:12 PM
Deleted

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 07:23 PM
Deleted

Peter MacDonald
03-05-2016, 08:59 PM
Well said Sir, well said.

Tomas455
03-05-2016, 09:22 PM
Thank you, I'm just trying to being reasonable. Another fun fact, on the "who do you think you are" TV show, Valerie Bertenelli was shown to be a 18th great grandchild of King Edward, I was online a few minutes ago, and pulled up her chart, and found a familiar name, when I looked it up it was the father Sir Robert Goushill, whose daughter Joan is a grandmother of mine in a side line, which I have not fleshed out yet. So know I have another line back to King, Edward I. Now I did not create these lines out of thin air, but you can see how lines especially in the nobility weave back and forth through intermarriage of the nobles., and now I have other lines to investigate. Now on the documentation front, since it was on "who do you think you are", and done by geneologist, do you think I can use that as suficient proof? Tomas

Romilius
03-06-2016, 07:55 AM
Thank you, I'm just trying to being reasonable. Another fun fact, on the "who do you think you are" TV show, Valerie Bertenelli was shown to be a 18th great grandchild of King Edward, I was online a few minutes ago, and pulled up her chart, and found a familiar name, when I looked it up it was the father Sir Robert Goushill, whose daughter Joan is a grandmother of mine in a side line, which I have not fleshed out yet. So know I have another line back to King, Edward I. Now I did not create these lines out of thin air, but you can see how lines especially in the nobility weave back and forth through intermarriage of the nobles., and now I have other lines to investigate. Now on the documentation front, since it was on "who do you think you are", and done by geneologist, do you think I can use that as suficient proof? Tomas

I repeat: I only would like to see your family tree with bibliographical links. Id est, I would see proofs of the whole work done to tie your line to that of Plantagenets. I'm just curious because in Italy - a country with the richest documental sources all over the territory - also the most ancient noble families have problems to tie their line to their presumptive first member. It's unbelievable that you, without any doubt, state that you are linked to a king's line.

And, of course, "Who do you think you are" is a TV show: in a country like Italy... but also Ethiopia it wouldn't be considered a proof of any kind, even if done by genealogists... it's just a show: we need documents to make heavy statements.

castle3
03-06-2016, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE=Magnus_Eunson;14166]I am intrigued.......this has been mentioned before but the Chiefs of both Clan MacLaren and Clan MacGregor are both Scots Modal L1065+ and I'm pretty sure they have claimed royal lines of descent. Alpin for the MacGregors and Loarn mac Eirc for the Clan MacLaren, I also find it interesting that they were rivals. As to the authenticity of the claims, I'm not sure. I am afraid I dont know much about L193, what are your findings?


Eunson, I think it would be very useful to see a list of the various Scottish clans and see what haplogroup the mainstream from each belongs to. Also, it would be interesting to see if their DNA matched their alleged history. By that, I mean an origin-legend might claim ancient indigenous British roots for a clan, yet their mainstream DNA might be primarily Norse, or vice-versa.

Leitir Fura
06-23-2016, 06:11 AM
I thought the account of Scottish clans being descended from Dal Riata mythical founders of Fergus Loarin and Angus was exactly that...myth, or simply legend. I am a MacInnes with a direct line back to Morvern in 1500 and I am L21>S192>S299. MacGregor clan I thought had now been proven to not have come from the Celtic Irish Scoti line, (and I suspect many others), and highly likely our lot. Whilst we are buried on Iona this may have started long before Columba, and as a tribal people of Creones (Roman terminology I think) we may have gifted the isle to him. Macgregors, MacInnes, MacGillvray and many others maybe descended from early Scottish lines (Note -not Scoti lines) of those later called the 'Picts' and if they were from Ireland it was a long time back, and a lot earlier than the 6th century as purported by later Irish monks who created their own fictitious genealogies based on a common ancestor. This was no doubt also as a political vehicle for both chiefs and kings to line themselves up with the three Collas etc. Your thoughts anybody as I am trying to get my head round all this as those monk scribes certainly stirred up a mess including writing the Picts out of history by not writing about them at all... ha ha...Onwards and ever upwards ... We tend to forget the centuries when dealing in this DNA stuff and that clan names also did not come into existence properly, (as I understand it?) until the late 11th century.

Leitir Fura
06-23-2016, 10:24 AM
I thought Dalriada was run by Pict over Kings from the mid 700's (from Oengus I) and that while MacAlpin may have been Irish Scoti in the male line (when his turn came) he was Pictish on his mother's side that no doubt appealed to them with their matrilineal descent.... Just the ramblings from and old fart as conjecture...

castle3
07-11-2016, 02:36 PM
Several modern authors now doubt the Dal Riata origin myths & legends regarding royalty & the invasion of Scotland by Antrim folk, etc. Sadly, it seems many of the old scribes just sought to justify their own king's right to govern. I tend to agree with Tim Clarkson re a lot of this. The Fergus links are especially dubious! There were obviously links between Antrim & Scotland, but not necessarily as the medieval scholars suggested

George Chandler
07-12-2016, 12:42 AM
Those several authors are likely wrong...the best evidence so far for the Dal Riata tree is located under R-S1051. Nothing is 100% until you analyze specific remains from a historical person from that line. If this group doesn't descend from Erc they appear to be fairly close within that historical tree. Show me another genetic group that contains variants of the Alpin surname, a McLean or MacLean variant who should descend from Lorne, a Henry surname that "should" descend from Nechtain..and others. Something that has to be emphasized is that this list of SNP's has all had the the problematic SNP's removed making it seem as though the MRCA is much more recent than it actually is. Is it possible this is a broken line that happened a century or two after ERC?..sure. Does it mean that this group was the true Ulaid as they claimed?..no. What is interesting about this FGC17906 subgroup is that they also have an Iberian group that does branch off from this main group a few hundred years later (likely ~3200-3500 years ago). People are very passionate about this group and I've seen all sorts of claims regarding the Dal Riata ancestry and I'm open to all different opinions when they plot out the genetic results side by side.

If someone disagrees make your case and plot out the SNP results. Here is the spreadsheet link (not including the Iberian branch spreadsheet)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaNKMFUePcVc17HR0vycf8k0M-GXMI5h2G_EjOgBIcA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

George

Mikewww
07-12-2016, 02:42 AM
Those several authors are likely wrong...the best evidence so far for the Dal Riata tree is located under R-S1051. Nothing is 100% until you analyze specific remains from a historical person from that line. If this group doesn't descend from Erc they appear to be fairly close within that historical tree. Show me another genetic group that contains variants of the Alpin surname, a McLean or MacLean variant who should descend from Lorne, a Henry surname that "should" descend from Nechtain..and others. Something that has to be emphasized is that this list of SNP's has all had the the problematic SNP's removed making it seem as though the MRCA is much more recent than it actually is. Is it possible this is a broken line that happened a century or two after ERC?..sure. Does it mean that this group was the true Ulaid as they claimed?..no. What is interesting about this FGC17906 subgroup is that they also have an Iberian group that does branch off from this main group a few hundred years later (likely ~3200-3500 years ago). People are very passionate about this group and I've seen all sorts of claims regarding the Dal Riata ancestry and I'm open to all different opinions when they plot out the genetic results side by side.

If someone disagrees make your case and plot out the SNP results. Here is the spreadsheet link (not including the Iberian branch spreadsheet)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaNKMFUePcVc17HR0vycf8k0M-GXMI5h2G_EjOgBIcA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

George
Good points. We just had a knock down drag out discussion on the the Dal Riata and DF41 and the Stewarts to boot on the L21 yahoo group. We could have used your perspective as well.

So far I've stayed out the ancient pedigree and ancient royalty connections. I find them interesting but I have nothing intelligent to say. What's new? LOL. I've got my own ancient clan found pedigrees. The problem is I have five or six options which are quite different paths and only one, at most, can be right.

castle3
07-12-2016, 05:09 AM
Those several authors are likely wrong...the best evidence so far for the Dal Riata tree is located under R-S1051. Nothing is 100% until you analyze specific remains from a historical person from that line. If this group doesn't descend from Erc they appear to be fairly close within that historical tree. Show me another genetic group that contains variants of the Alpin surname, a McLean or MacLean variant who should descend from Lorne, a Henry surname that "should" descend from Nechtain..and others. Something that has to be emphasized is that this list of SNP's has all had the the problematic SNP's removed making it seem as though the MRCA is much more recent than it actually is. Is it possible this is a broken line that happened a century or two after ERC?..sure. Does it mean that this group was the true Ulaid as they claimed?..no. What is interesting about this FGC17906 subgroup is that they also have an Iberian group that does branch off from this main group a few hundred years later (likely ~3200-3500 years ago). People are very passionate about this group and I've seen all sorts of claims regarding the Dal Riata ancestry and I'm open to all different opinions when they plot out the genetic results side by side.

If someone disagrees make your case and plot out the SNP results. Here is the spreadsheet link (not including the Iberian branch spreadsheet)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaNKMFUePcVc17HR0vycf8k0M-GXMI5h2G_EjOgBIcA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

George
Thanks, George. Good work. I'm not disagreeing with you re those surnames & their probable links, but merely the Antrim to Scotland theory.The authors Tim Clarkson and Stuart McHardy don't deny links, but do suggest that any influences went from Scotland to Antrim, and not vice versa. They say that the Druim Alban mountain chain was a barrier that led to the Iron Age/ Pictish tribes being susceptible to different influences. They suggest that Gaelic was the language of the western Atlantic trade route, so that language prospered in Argyll etc, while their Iron Age/Pictish cousins north-east of the mountain range were isolated & retained the original P-Celtic tongue.

Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History of England' is often quoted to support movement of people from Antrim to Scotland, but Bede was writing some 230 years after the circa 500 AD event! I've read it & thought the tale of the Picts from Scythia arriving in Ireland, then being pointed in the direction of Scotland, to be remarkably na´ve and simplistic. Some believe that Scythia was located near the Black Sea, while others believe it was part of Scandinavia, so even that question is the subject of much debate. Also, hagiographers are also responsible for a lot of biased information regarding various achievements of saints & rulers. That's why I believe a measure of caution should be taken when reading any ancient works by hagiographers, historians and chroniclers, such as Bede, Gildas & Cassius Dio etc.

Re Fergus: Clarkson & others suggest that Fergus was claimed by Irish annalists retrospectively, a cause for some concern! Clarkson's 'The Makers of Scotland' pages 59-64 & page 86 is worth reading regarding this.

Two of Aberdeen Univs' leading lights were involved in analysis of ancient DNA, some samples of which were from Pictland. I was hoping their results would be available by now, but it appears they may not see the light of day until later in the year. Those results will be fascinating to see. I e-mailed a contact recently asking for an update, but haven't heard back yet.

Thanks for the spreadsheet - very interesting. Can you supply one for the Iberians? I'm interested in the potential Atlantic trade route into Scotland, so DNA links from such a source are of interest. Vere Gordon Childe (1892-1957) suggested that Neolithic colonists in Scotland had Iberian roots. Henry Hubert ((1872-1927) suggested that ancient tribes entered Scotland via the north-east, then used the Great Glen Way to arrive in Argyll. Both theories may be true. Ancient DNA will hopefully provide some answers. Also, can you tell me if your Duncan testee is representative of the mainstream for his surname?

George Chandler
07-13-2016, 11:53 PM
I had to leave the L21 Yahoo group as I've been too busy but I'm sure the discussion was "animated".

I usually stay out of the debate as well because people are very passionate about it. The only way to be completely certain is to test the remains. I never want to be the spoiler of someone else's history and still like to keep an open mind.

George

George Chandler
07-14-2016, 12:15 AM
Thanks, George. Good work. I'm not disagreeing with you re those surnames & their probable links, but merely the Antrim to Scotland theory.The authors Tim Clarkson and Stuart McHardy don't deny links, but do suggest that any influences went from Scotland to Antrim, and not vice versa. They say that the Druim Alban mountain chain was a barrier that led to the Iron Age/ Pictish tribes being susceptible to different influences. They suggest that Gaelic was the language of the western Atlantic trade route, so that language prospered in Argyll etc, while their Iron Age/Pictish cousins north-east of the mountain range were isolated & retained the original P-Celtic tongue.

Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History of England' is often quoted to support movement of people from Antrim to Scotland, but Bede was writing some 230 years after the circa 500 AD event! I've read it & thought the tale of the Picts from Scythia arriving in Ireland, then being pointed in the direction of Scotland, to be remarkably na´ve and simplistic. Some believe that Scythia was located near the Black Sea, while others believe it was part of Scandinavia, so even that question is the subject of much debate. Also, hagiographers are also responsible for a lot of biased information regarding various achievements of saints & rulers. That's why I believe a measure of caution should be taken when reading any ancient works by hagiographers, historians and chroniclers, such as Bede, Gildas & Cassius Dio etc.

Re Fergus: Clarkson & others suggest that Fergus was claimed by Irish annalists retrospectively, a cause for some concern! Clarkson's 'The Makers of Scotland' pages 59-64 & page 86 is worth reading regarding this.

Two of Aberdeen Univs' leading lights were involved in analysis of ancient DNA, some samples of which were from Pictland. I was hoping their results would be available by now, but it appears they may not see the light of day until later in the year. Those results will be fascinating to see. I e-mailed a contact recently asking for an update, but haven't heard back yet.

Thanks for the spreadsheet - very interesting. Can you supply one for the Iberians? I'm interested in the potential Atlantic trade route into Scotland, so DNA links from such a source are of interest. Vere Gordon Childe (1892-1957) suggested that Neolithic colonists in Scotland had Iberian roots. Henry Hubert ((1872-1927) suggested that ancient tribes entered Scotland via the north-east, then used the Great Glen Way to arrive in Argyll. Both theories may be true. Ancient DNA will hopefully provide some answers. Also, can you tell me if your Duncan testee is representative of the mainstream for his surname?

It's a very complicated history. Right now I'm still gathering data from the testing of S1051 members. I'm still calling the one subclade of S1051 (FGC17906) Iberian Gaels but what's really interesting when you look at the group as a whole there are 14 different main subgroups branching off around ~3,500 years ago and most of the expansion appears to be post Roman Britain. The genetic group seems to show a large population loss..and so far my "opinion" has been that this group were possibly part of the Caledonian tribes. The 6DRIF-18 results showing the strongest autosomal population group being from Wales which I find really interesting. When you look at the geographic profile from more recent times the largest group is turning out to be England. The largest showing for Wales appears to be the FGC17938 subgroup but again that appears to be post Roman Britain.

Here is the link to the Iberian spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YsOmg_EaoSh3QVKn9u_216ZtN3nI8LO5-NRA5Oscg4s/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

I personally haven't found any possible Scythian connection but "may have" found an older branch from Spain in the 1000 Genomes project. The sample was negative for one of the five main S1051 SNP's but I haven't been able to confirm it yet.

If I recall there are a couple of other Duncan's but the connection is likely within the last 1,000 years.

The next couple of years of test results should provide more answers.

Will reply to you PM as soon as able.

Thanks

George

Denis
01-07-2017, 11:46 PM
Ive read all this thread and find it fascinating. I am a McIntosh who's paper genealogy takes me to northern Perthshire with family lore that says my ancestor's father William was a close male relative of one of the Chiefs of Mackintosh. I haven't been able to find evidence on either side of argument to prove or disprove this theory. My snp tested positive for L193. So I'm a little confused on how my McIntosh's are supposed to be highland scots and I have this Scottish border connection? We have yet to get the current Mackintosh Chief tested. Now the McIntosh Chiefs have claimed descent from the Macduff house. Would this seem to prove this connection?

I also descend from the McIntosh's from Perthshire & I am a genealogist /historian for the website called THE CLAN OF THE CAT based in the USA, here is the link to the site.Clan of the Cat, Clans Mackintosh and Chattan Inverness Scotland
a2fister2000.tripod.com/
Family history site detailing the Clans Mackintosh, McIntosh and Chattan coming from Inverness and Moy Scotland.

We have documented a lot of the family lines of the McIntoshe's of Perthshire & the surrounding areas, if you check the index on our site it will show the Dalmonzies, the McComies the Farquarson's the 3 main lines of McIntoshs in Athol, Perthshire & Angus & their sub branches & T/names.
( When you describe Perthshire/ Athol as what's termed as BORDER area is not right) Athol & Perthshire are know as the mouth of the highland. And all of the Septs of McIntosh that I listed above all migrated from Badenoch in the north via crossing the hills in to Atholl.

for instance the Dalmozie McIntoshes descend from Angus Og Mackintosh the brother of Chief William Mackintosh the 7th chief of the clan. this Angus moved to Glren Tilt in Atholl in the 1300s/1400

& the McComie Mackinosh's descend from Thomas Mackintosh the grandson of Adam Mackintosh who was the son of William Mackintosh the 7th chief. This Thomas Mackintosh followed his uncle Angus mentioned above & Thomas moved to Glenshee in Athol

& the Farquarson Mackintosh descend The chiefs of the Clan Farquharson trace their ancestry back to Farquhar, fourth son of Alexander "Ciar" Shaw of Rothiemurchus.[3] Alexander Shaw was the fifth chief of the Clan Shaw.[4] His descendants took the name Farquharson.[4] Another of Alexander's sons was Donald, who married Isobel Stewart, the heiress of Invercauld. The Farquarson line would of been the first line to migrate to Athol area.

Although their ancestors The Earlf of Fife & the Royal line of Dunkeld who they the Earls of Fife & the McDuffs & Mackintoshes originally come from originate in Dunkeld Perthshire.

Also there is a lot of cross fertilization & marriage between the Mackintosh of Moy & Badenoch & their close relatives in Athol/ Braemar over many generations. So its a misunderstanding to think that they had no connection.
I descend from the MComies McIntoshes & also the Farquarson I can trace their lines all the way back to Duncan Macduff the Earl of Fife & beyond .
You can contact me re your ancestor William & give me details as I might already have him documented on my very large scale family tree of each of these lines in Perthshire.

dgmcint
05-21-2017, 10:55 AM
Hi Denis

In reference to your reply. I'm aware of most of what you said and know that those areas are no where near the border lands of Scotland. What your confused about is the part of my post that is refering to the Ydna L193 that is also associate with other Scottish surnames that are associated with the L193 snp. So that's my question basically. If McIntoshs are from the highlands, how are they associated with border families. Or at least my McIntoshs that are L193 as there are McIntoshs with other ydna signatures. Thank you for your added info. It's always great to read about this stuff.

Jon
05-22-2017, 11:26 AM
L193 used be called 'Scottish Borders' due to the discovery of 5 main surname groups with ancestry there. But now it's much wider, although still very focused in Scotland. There are many names from the north and west now (e.g. MacLean, Mackenzie, Drummond etc.) who are very much Highland in ancestry. I received some statistics from the old SDNA which showed that the highest frequency of L193 in modern Scots was found in Perthshire and the Hebrides. This would suggest originally Pictish and/or Gaelic Scottish ancestry to me.

MacUalraig
05-22-2017, 12:26 PM
L193 used be called 'Scottish Borders' due to the discovery of 5 main surname groups with ancestry there. But now it's much wider, although still very focused in Scotland. There are many names from the north and west now (e.g. MacLean, Mackenzie, Drummond etc.) who are very much Highland in ancestry. I received some statistics from the old SDNA which showed that the highest frequency of L193 in modern Scots was found in Perthshire and the Hebrides. This would suggest originally Pictish and/or Gaelic Scottish ancestry to me.

I would agree that Perthshire is a good place to find L193 although the data that interests me most is only borderline highland and I would say the same of the Drummonds. Not wanting to quibble or anything ;-)

wlharris1055@yahoo.com
05-22-2017, 01:43 PM
.. the story continues.

Jon
05-22-2017, 02:04 PM
L193 is a funny one alright - in fact L513 in general. Really hard to work out what it might represent...Joe Flood made the point in his recent paper that it seems to have rather different patterns from the other bigger L21 clades. No idea what it could mean though :) After 10 years of research it hasn't really helped me find my ancient male line yet. But time may tell!

dgmcint
03-10-2018, 10:04 AM
delete

redeyednewt
05-14-2018, 04:05 PM
I'm interested in L21 SNPs that believe they have a connection to Scottish Royalty. Have your paternal lineages been proven through credible sources, like The Peerage, or others? What is your best argument for such claims? I'm just getting started in research that may prove a Scottish royalty connection with L193. M222 shares an almost identical Distant Ancestor geographical map with L193, and they too believe they have Scottish royalty connections. Where do you believe your Distant Ancestors entered the Scottish royalty? I'd be interested in looking at all studies that make Scottish royalty claims. I'd even be interested in learning techniques used, and results achieved to prove old Clan paternal connections, like the McDonalds: I've been to their website, and it is interesting material -- I'd like to read more details.

SNPs under 2000 years of age may prove the best candidates to prove/argue a Scottish royalty connection. All thoughts, studies, links, suggestions welcome.

Daryl
181420
L193
Keep in mind that pretty much everyone who is Caucasian and European, descends from the Plantagenet families, and Charlemagne.

redeyednewt
05-14-2018, 04:36 PM
I repeat: I only would like to see your family tree with bibliographical links. Id est, I would see proofs of the whole work done to tie your line to that of Plantagenets. I'm just curious because in Italy - a country with the richest documental sources all over the territory - also the most ancient noble families have problems to tie their line to their presumptive first member. It's unbelievable that you, without any doubt, state that you are linked to a king's line.

And, of course, "Who do you think you are" is a TV show: in a country like Italy... but also Ethiopia it wouldn't be considered a proof of any kind, even if done by genealogists... it's just a show: we need documents to make heavy statements.

Italy has great genealogical records. I have been able to easily find a lot of information about all of my ancestors and relatives there, even going back to before Italy was a unified country.

redeyednewt
05-15-2018, 07:57 PM
Italy has great genealogical records. I have been able to easily find a lot of information about all of my ancestors and relatives there, even going back to before Italy was a unified country.

Which, honestly I did not even expect to find at all. I went from knowing very little if anything about my Italian relatives/ancestors, such as just a name and the large city where my relative left with his brother who we knew the name of to emigrate to the United States, to knowing a lot and being able to find living descendants/relatives.