Surname: Scott in Ireland

ClanScott2016

Hello,

We are trying to narrow down the possibilities of our true ancient heritage. We know by word of mouth and the USA New York records that our ancestor William Scott and his spouse Margaret Kelly came from Ireland in the 1880s. We know for a fact that they were both Roman Catholic.

The majority of the history regarding the Scott Clan points to the famous Scottish riding clan in the borders region of Scotland. Furthermore, the majority of the history points to the migration of this clan to Northern Ireland due to the plantation of Ulster between the 1600s and 1700s. These Scott's were primarily Protestant/Presbyterian.

However, an earlier migration history of so called "Gallowglasses" (Highlander mercenaries used to fight by the Irish Ulster kingdom in the 1400s) is also apparent. We have come to know that these Gallowglasses were strictly Roman Catholic and that they were referred to by the Irish as "Albanach" and that this name was translated to the surname Scott in Ireland.

Could we presume that a Catholic Scott in Ireland be of gallowglass heritage? Because lets be honest, what protestant/Presbyterian would convert to Catholicism in the 1600s-1800s?

spurious

One that married a Catholic? It was common enough.

pedroeibar1

Welcome to the group. Many of the posters here are very knowledgeable, extremely helpful and friendly, but we do not ‘do’ presumptions because they invariably are incorrect. Nor are claims based on presumptions well received by anyone with any knowledge of Ireland’s history.

For starters the gallowglass certainly were not ‘strictly Roman Catholic’ as you assert because they predate the Reformation and Martin Luther (born 1487). If they had a religion, they might have been Christian or pagans who had a Norse deity, but Roman Catholic they were not.

The Mr. Scot you mention could have been a descendant of any number of Scott families who arrived over the years or he could have been a migratory peddler recently arrived in Ireland from London. You need to do the work, or pay someone reputable to do it for you. It’s great fun to do it yourself and we will help you on this forum if you get stuck.

In researching your genealogy you should forget the hype and fairy-tales that sometimes surround a family’s history and start with the basic truths – i.e. the births, marriages and deaths of your parents, their parents, etc., and work all the way back to the Scott - Kelly marriage. You are lucky that they went to the US as the records for the period you need to research are very good. Start with the ‘sticky’ at the top of this forum page - Introduction to Genealogy in the United States of America.
Good luck with the research.:)

pinkypinky

Welcome!

As Pedro put it more expansively, it's better not to make any assumptions at all. People were illiterate, people didn't know exactly how old they were, spelling was very far from fixed, immigrants adopted religions because the only church in the locality was different to the one they were raised in.

It shouldn't take you very long to go back through the US records to the Irish marriage and then we can really step in to help you. Hopefully you will get some Irish locations on the US civil records. As well as the sticky written by our resident US expert, Coolanabacky1873, he runs a great blog: Townland of origin and has written a book on New York records.

dubhthach

Gallowglasses and later Redshanks were generally speakers of "Early Modern Irish" it would be unlikely that they would carry a surname such as "Scott". Instead they carried typical style surnames from Gaeldom eg.
Mac Domhnaill (McDonnell eg. McDonald)
Clann Suibhne (Sweeney)
Mac Ruaidhrí
Mac Caba

etc.

There is a Scott Y-DNA surname project on FamilytreeDNA. A Y-DNA test for a male Scott family member (or yourself if you are male) would probably allow you to see how you match with other men bearing the surname who've done Y-DNA testing.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ScottDNAproject?iframe=yresults

Ipso

Did any Catholics come from Scotland during the plantation?

Waitsian

May I also be so bold as to give you some advice, though please do take or leave it as you so wish. Don't get so caught up in your patriarchal lineage. I used to do that but then found myself watching a Youtube vid of Stephen Fry on stage in Sydney. He noted the fact that it's absurd that we concentrate on one family name when without so many other links in a chain we wouldn't exist.

I used to obsess about my surname. I do no longer. Every surname in my tree is as important as every other.

pedroeibar1

Ipso wrote: »

Did any Catholics come from Scotland during the plantation?

James I wanted to ‘civilise’ the Irish, (Ulster was a hotbed of dissent/trouble for decades) so a requirement was that the new settlers be British, Protestant, and English speakers. However it has been shown that some/very few (mainly the Scottish Undertakers) were Gaelic speakers and some English were RC. It’s really more a History topic.....

pinkypinky

Let's keep this on topic with the original post please.

Ipso

Sorry, the reason I asked was I have something similar to the OP with my surname. A Gaelic surname but at Family Tree DNA my matches are a Scottish surname with a similar gaelic version and the haplogroup I belong to pops up a lot in people with a planter background.
The obvious answer in conversion/going native but there are potential reasons that may not support that.

Nekarsulm

Where I live, in Co. Cavan, there are a good few Scott families. All are Church of Ireland, (Anglican). As your ancestors only emigrated in the 1880's it's fairly recent and they should be easy enough to trace through baptismal certs, death certs, marriage certs etc. Any idea what county they left from?

feargale

Ipso wrote: »

Did any Catholics come from Scotland during the plantation?

Yes. I believe a miniscule number did. There is a prominent Catholic planter family somewhere in County Antrim. I forget the name.
Re. Scott it was common enough for Gaelic surnames to be Anglicised, often by way of a mistaken translation.

dubhthach

feargale wrote: »

Yes. I believe a miniscule number did. There is a prominent Catholic planter family somewhere in County Antrim. I forget the name.
Re. Scott it was common enough for Gaelic surnames to be Anglicised, often by way of a mistaken translation.

Antrim and Down were private plantations though, and not part of the state sanctioned "Plantation of Ulster".

With regards to Ipso's surname it's also quite possible that you are talking about Redshank (16th century) migration (which was often seasonal) or any level of migration between western Isles and Ireland in period after 1259 when Aedh mac Felim Ó Conchobair received them as part of dowry for marrying daughter or Dubhghall mac Ruaidhrí (King of Argyll & Isles) -- it's probable that the sudden increase in Gallowglasses over next 50 years was due to incorporation of the "Kingdom of Isles" into the Kingdom of Scotland after the Treaty of Perth in 1266 between Scotland and Norway.

Nekarsulm

Or even more likely that Protestant William Scott fell in love with a R. Catholic Margeret Kelly and finding themselves ostracised by both communities, in Ireland decided to emigrate.

Lex Luthor

Peregrinus

Ipso wrote: »

Did any Catholics come from Scotland during the plantation?

Not many, but lots of Catholics came from Scotland before the Plantation.

There has been more or less constant population interchange between North-East Ulster and South-West Scotland, which are very close together. The Scottish Reformation basically unfolded during the 1560s; prior to that almost everyone migrating from Scotland was Catholic. And, while pedroeibar1 is right to point out that the Catholic/Protestant dichotomy didn't exist before the Protestant reformation, the concept of "Catholic" certainly did; Catholics were distinguished not from Protestants but from schismatics, or from Orthodox Christians. In this sense, Scotland was Catholic for centuries before the Reformation.

Prior to the plantation, though, Ulster was almost completely Gaelic-speaking, and the population interchange was mostly with Gaelic-speaking Scots. So, nobody at that time would have used the surname "Scott". Somebody might have been referred to as Albanach, and this might have been translated into English (if translation into English was necesary, which at the time it wouldn't have been) as "the Scot" (as in, say, Donal the Scot, so called to distinguish him from Donal from Sligo, or Donal with the big nose, or Donal with the orange skin, improbable hair and questionable political opinions).

But this probably wouldn't have transmuted over time into a surname, if only because both the Gaelic Irish and the Gaelic Scots already had surnames; Gaelic culture was an early adopter of the surname, much earlier than Anglo culture. So Scots people migrating to NI in the period before the Reformation would have arrived already furnished with surnames, and furthermore with surnames constructed on a model already familiar in Gaelic Ireland. It's unlikely, in this context, that a nickname like Albanach would transmute over time into a surname.

pedroeibar1

General comment - Although I disagree with MacLysaght on a number of issues, I agree with him on ‘clans’. On more than a few occasions he repeated that he disliked and avoided the term ‘clan’ in an Irish context, because it incorrectly suggested that a clan system (akin to Scotland’s) existed in Ireland. Instead he invariably used ‘sept’.

Specific comment – I agree that any person named ‘Scott’ arrived in Ireland with that surname. However. I disagree with the assertion that “Gaelic culture was an early adopter of the surname, much earlier than Anglo culture” because that is much too general. By the 1100’s occupational surnames were becoming quite common in England, e.g. John Smith, Ralph Tailor, Will Potter, etc., whereas most Irish used patronymics, which changed every generation and use of surnames (sept names) per se was a later arrival. Even the newly-arrived/ early Irish Normans used patronymics.

By the Reformation the use of O’ and Mac surnames for septs was becoming more widespread particularly by the ‘nobles’ e.g. ‘The McCarthy Mor” or “The Fox” or “The O’Donoghue”. Even as late as c1600, Spenser wrote quite virulently that he wished the use of O’ and Mc by the heads of the septs be banned (because he saw it as a means of them retaining/developing power). Mc Lysaght also states that use of surnames was not universal in Ireland by 1600, particularly by the ‘lower orders’.

Use of surnames in Ireland was so uncommon that a statute was brought in at Dublin in the mid 1400’s (Edward IV) requiring the Irish living in the Pale to take a surname.

The assertion on the ‘antiquity’ of Irish surnames usually arises from an incorrect claim that Brian Boru issued an edict that they should be used. (The claim that O’ and Mc were banned by the English is equally false.)

dubhthach

The antiquity of Irish surnames, is quite simply down to fact that the oldest strata of them date to the 10th century. The oldest attested probably been "Cleary" which predates the birth of Brian Boru by about 30 years. McLysaght objection to term "Clann"is more to do with the Highland mania of the 19th century than anything else. The word is perfectly valid term to describe a patrilenal descent group (as used by anthropologists to describe such structures worldwide), after all there are plenty of examples of the word been used to describe Irish kindred groups (The word after all means "Children" in Irish), eg. Clann Tomaltaigh (the children of Tomaltach). one only has to read K.W. Nicholls account in "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages" when he talks about the "Corporate Clan" structure of medieval Irish society.

As for sept it's a anglisced calque of irish word Slíocht which by later medieval stage had replaced the word Fine in an irish context to basically described a patrilineal descent group. (In Scotland word Fine persisted in use for what in english are termed "Clans")

Nicholls explains situation of ordinary folk as such:

In the case of Ireland, the greater part of the humbler classes certainly did not belong to any recognised clans or descent-groups other than their immediate family groups (Fathers and sons, or a group of brothers). In the case of persons like these, devoid of political influence or property, the clan would have had no functions which could serve to hold it together. Conall Mageogehegan, writing in 1627, refers contemptuously to persons of this sort as 'mere churls and labouring men, [not] one of who knows his own great grandfather'. The phrase is significant in a lineage-based society the keeping of genealogies is of primary importance.

(the bit about great-grandfather is telling, after all a Derbfine descent group required common ancestry back to at least a great-grandfather -- 4 generation descent structure)

Names such as McCarthy, O'Donoghue and Fox all date to the late 11th/early 12th century. In case of McCarthy the eponymous Carthach died in 1045, it was his grandsons who adapted "Mac Carthaigh" as a permanent surname (their father used it as a patronymic), in case of Fox it's interesting as surname is actually Ó Catharnaigh, the eponymous Catharnach was grandfather of Tadhg an Sinnach (Tadhg the Fox) King of Tethba who died in 1086. Tadhg's descedants not only carrying the surname forward but also the nickname of "The Fox" thence anglisced surname of Fox today. (akin to situation with surname Kavanagh also coming from a "nickname")

I wouldn't bother much with Spenser, though I do think it would be nice if I as an Irishman could turn into a Wolf once a year

pedroeibar1

dubhthach wrote: »

The antiquity of Irish surnames, .............etc ....I wouldn't bother much with Spenser, though I do think it would be nice if I as an Irishman could turn into a Wolf once a year

Forget about the therianthropy , this forum would hate to see you with a price on your head!:eek:

Poor old Spenser – in his story the words he placed in the mouth of Irenius were from Geraldus Cambrensis, not his own assertion. That wolf also was an allusive link to the Scythians, in an effort to link the Irish to Scythian barbarity. Little did he think when writing Eudoxus he would have to flee from Hugh O’Neill, would die in penury in London and that his great grandson would be dispossessed by the Cromwellians.

Cleireach was born in 820, and while McLysaght contends it was an early surname he also states it was two centuries before hereditary surnames began to be used. Were Brian Boru to have had a surname it could have been Kennedy – a Dalcassian, he was a son of Cennedig, and it was Brian’s nephew who ‘founded’ the O’Kennedy’s (although some of them are of Scottish descent). The 1100’s is the era I’d suggest when hereditary surnames began to become more frequent in many European countries including Ireland. I’m not sure that the Cleary surname is a great basis for arguing the general antiquity of all Irish surnames also as we have no idea how many O’Cleary’s are descended from Cleireach, just as we do not know how many of them anglicized the name to Clark/Clerk/Clarke. Or how many others later (under Edward) ‘took’ the surname Clark. Or, FWIW, how many Norman ‘de Clare’s’ changed to Clery and Cleare?

McLysaght and others disliked use of ‘Clan’ – not really because of the Scottish mania (he was writing long after the Ossian/Victoria/Balmoral/tartan nonsense had been recognized) but because it was misleading. O’Donovan preferred the use of ‘tribe’ although Eoghan Mac Neill disliked that because he maintained it too was misleading. It’s years since I read it, but if my memory is correct Nicholls adopted/instigated the ‘corporate clan’ concept in that book as a means of differentiating the ‘family unit’ within a greater body as he wanted to use the concept particularly with regard to explaining Brehon legal and ‘chiefly’ control of an extended unit within a specific territory (and it included dwellers in the territory, not just the derbfine). Also, in some cases the tribe-name became the surname, but not always.

IMO ‘clan’ is too inaccurate a concept to use for a specific / isolated name family in Ireland. The meaning of Clann in Irish genealogy is quite different to its use in Scottish ancestry – it is too general, not specific – e.g. the Clann Daly would also include the O’Donnells, and to use your own reference to Brian Boru, his line was from the Dalcassian clan (I use ‘clan’ because it is all-encompassing, not specific) Ui Toirdealbhaigh and from him there are (from about 1050) the various O’Brien families throughout Munster, the O’Kennedy’s and also some of the McMahons who descend from Murtagh Mor O’Brien, so ‘sept’ would be better than ‘clan’ to segregate the various families / lines of descent.

The main thrust of my posts was/is an effort to limit the ‘diddley idlely’ and usually historically false aspect that commercialism (now sometimes state-aided) is introducing to Irish genealogy, with ‘Clan rallys’, ‘family crests’, so –called ‘descent parchments’ and the increasingly common ‘Irish Clan Tartan’.

Nekarsulm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The main thrust of my posts was/is an effort to limit the ‘diddley idlely’ and usually historically false aspect that commercialism (now sometimes state-aided) is introducing to Irish genealogy, with ‘Clan rallys’, ‘family crests’, so –called ‘descent parchments’ and the increasingly common ‘Irish Clan Tartan’.

I blame the "Highlander" and "Braveheart" films.

And the crowd who always appeared up on the balcony at the Spring Show in the RDS selling plaques.

ClanScott2016

Hello everyone,

I really appreciate all the comments and feedback! I am currently working on gathering as much information as possible and will try to get back to the forum with any important finds.

As for the discussion, although it is not an impossibility,

Not only do I find it hard to believe that a MAN of the 1800s would convert to his wife's religion, but that he would be converting from protestant to catholic.

Thank you for all your help.

ClanScott2016

Also, with regards to a Gaelic origin. Everything seems to point to the fact that Scotus or a Scot in ancient times meant a Gael, and more specifically a Gael from Ireland. In fact many ancient Irish priests who left Ireland would take on the surname Scott or Scotus to specifically refer to their Irish origin (.ie Clement Scotus, native of ireland, teacher of charlamagne, Marianus Scotus (1028–1082) Irish monk, as well as the famous irish philosopher John Scotus Eriugena.

Furthermore, the people of the Irish kingdom of Dal Riata were referred to by outsiders as the "Scotti".

Commercial history of the surname Scott ALWAYS states this first "Uchtredus filius Scotus (1100s) is the first recorded member with the surname"...but that is total bull**** and anglican propaganda (They always seem to praise his unquestionable anglican name Uchtred) because clearly the Irish priests/immigrants i mentioned took on the name Scotus even a hundred years before! And if my Latin serves me correct "filius Scotus" would mean that this person was clearly the son of a Gael!

The problem that people with the surname Scott have is that it seems impossible to trace it to its true Gael form. As in "Smith" was the anglican form of MacGowan. "Albanach" seems as close as we can get but we know that cant be right.

I believe the history is misleading due to the fact that the most modern Scott clan of the Scottish Borders took on this name and contributed mostly to its current use and this history has clouded the gaelic origin.

Nekarsulm

ClanScott2016 wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I really appreciate all the comments and feedback! I am currently working on gathering as much information as possible and will try to get back to the forum with any important finds.

As for the discussion, although it is not an impossibility,

Not only do I find it hard to believe that a MAN of the 1800s would convert to his wife's religion, but that he would be converting from protestant to catholic.

Thank you for all your help.

Have a Google of the "Ne termere". Not unusual for it to be applied long before 1908.

pinkypinky

I agree, assume nothing.

pedroeibar1

The word Scotus / Scoti is not Gaelic, it is Latin (and its etymology is undecided, with several hypotheses being put forward). It was not a name ‘taken’ by mendicant preachers. It was a name given to the Irish in the era of Roman Britain.

When the Scotii moved across the water their name was given to the land they inhabited, just as the Belgae gave their name to Belgium and the Helvetii to Helvetia (Switzerland).

After the deaths of those early Irish saints ‘Scotus’ began to be used as a suffix by later commentators, to indicate a person’s Irish origin. Similarly the historian Gerald (of Wales) did not AFAIK go around calling himself ‘Geraldus Cambrensis”, that simply was how people later referred to him.

Protestants marrying Catholics and switching ‘sides’ was a very frequent occurrence and even was a problem in Cromwell’s day. My family was staunchly Protestant yet by the early 1800’s most of them were RC, the earliest convert being born in the early 1700’s. As Pinky said, assume nothing. Start in this era and work back, otherwise ‘genealogically-speaking’ your results will not be productive.

ClanScott2016

Thanks mate!

ClanScott2016

So I just had a break through...

Found the 1930 U.S Census and saw Michael P. Scott (William Scott's son) and his family listed there (all of which was correct).

The breakthrough connection to Ireland was that Michael (who was born in 1880 in New Jersey) was asked to write down where both his parents were born...

He wrote "Irish Free State" for both mother and father (The census specifically asked to differentiate NI with Irish Free State)

Conclusion: I can now cross Northern Ireland off the list. William Scott must have been born sometime between 1840 - 1860. We know his wife's name was Margaret Kelly.

Sadly the Irish Census has a massive gap between 1851 - 1901!!!

KildareFan

"Not only do I find it hard to believe that a MAN of the 1800s would convert to his wife's religion, but that he would be converting from protestant to catholic."

My great great uncle was baptised protestant, was then baptised as an adult in the Catholic church and married his catholic wife in 1864. His brother, my great grandfather, married a catholic in 1871, their first three children were baptised Church of Ireland, then re baptised in the catholic church. I've no record of his conversion to catholicism.

tabbey

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Have a Google of the "Ne termere". Not unusual for it to be applied long before 1908.

The ne temere decree of 1908 was merely a restatement of existing RC policy.

tabbey

KildareFan wrote: »

"Not only do I find it hard to believe that a MAN of the 1800s would convert to his wife's religion, but that he would be converting from protestant to catholic."

My great great uncle was baptised protestant, was then baptised as an adult in the Catholic church and married his catholic wife in 1864. His brother, my great grandfather, married a catholic in 1871, their first three children were baptised Church of Ireland, then re baptised in the catholic church. I've no record of his conversion to catholicism.

This phenomenon was very common.

Look at all the people with English/ Scottish surnames in Ireland. The great majority are RC and were by 1901 census. These names came from protestant paternal ancestors, the religious denomination came from the mother's family.

In the nineteenth century and earlier, there were many mixed marriages, especially in Dublin. Some couples baptised the children according to the denomination of the father for the boys, and the mother for the girls. Others followed the ne temere rule. I believe some even had children baptised in both churches, to keep each side happy.

Slowly, but inexorably, the numerical balance became more and more RC, at the expense of C of I, Presbyterian etc.

Peregrinus

It's generally the case that intermarriage between a majority community and a minority community tends to assimilate the minority community.

Censuses over the years have shown the Methodist community in the Republic of Ireland declining sharply. The reason is not Methodists marrying Catholics; it's Methodists marrying Anglicans. There's no Ne Temere decree at work there, but the newly-formed family, looking for a church to attend, a school to send their children to, etc, etc, is going to find a lot more convenient Anglican churches and schools than Methodist churches and schools. So the next generation are going to trend strongly Anglican.

The main emphasis of the Ne Temere decree was not to ensure that the children of Catholic/Protestant marriages would be raised as Catholics; it was to prevent such marriages from happening in the first place. And in that it was remarkably successful; until about forty years ago, Ireland had a strikingly low rate of Catholic/Protestant marriages.

The rate of mixed marriages was actually higher for much of the nineteenth century than it was for most of the twentieth and, yes, the descendants of mixed marriages were just as likely to be Catholic as Protestant - and trending more likely, as the nineteenth century progressed. At the start of the nineteenth century Catholicism was a tolerated but unemancipated faith, and there were legal, social and administrative advantages/privileges to make Anglicanism attractive. But as the century progressed the situation changed, and the relative advantages of Anglicanism were eroded. The descendants of mixed marriages started to trend Catholic more and more. As tabbey points out, lots of Irish people who have characteristically English/Protestant names are Catholics. My own name is characteristically Protestant, but my branch of the family have been Catholic for six generations; we trace this to a mixed marriage (Anglican husband:Catholic wife) in Waterford in the nineteenth century. And that would be a very common story.

It's ironic that, by reducing the number of mixed marriages, the Ne Temere policy actually tended to preserve the Protestant Community in the Republic from declining faster than it would otherwise have done.

Nekarsulm

As Peregrinus said.

The last Methodist ran Primary School in the Republic closed in (I think) 1988.

It was at Corlespratten Methodist Church, near Arva, Co. Cavan.

pedroeibar1

Nekarsulm wrote: »

As Peregrinus said.

The last Methodist ran Primary School in the Republic closed in (I think) 1988.

It was at Corlespratten Methodist Church, near Arva, Co. Cavan.

I don't want to start topic 'drift' but I suggest that secondary level is more important and that Wesley College (secondary level only) in D 16 holds it's head high among all secondary schools.

pinkypinky

I think this thread ran its course in discussion of the Scott name quite some time ago.

RGM

ClanScott2016 wrote: »

So I just had a break through...

Found the 1930 U.S Census and saw Michael P. Scott (William Scott's son) and his family listed there (all of which was correct).

The breakthrough connection to Ireland was that Michael (who was born in 1880 in New Jersey) was asked to write down where both his parents were born...

He wrote "Irish Free State" for both mother and father (The census specifically asked to differentiate NI with Irish Free State)

Conclusion: I can now cross Northern Ireland off the list. William Scott must have been born sometime between 1840 - 1860. We know his wife's name was Margaret Kelly.

Sadly the Irish Census has a massive gap between 1851 - 1901!!!

I wouldn't completely write off anything just based on that. I've often seen Northern Ireland and Irish Free State used incorrectly on US censuses. Aside from the general prevalence of inaccuracies, the division between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland didn't exist when your ancestors were born. There easily will have been some things lost in translation.

RGM

mod9maple wrote: »

May I also be so bold as to give you some advice, though please do take or leave it as you so wish. Don't get so caught up in your patriarchal lineage. I used to do that but then found myself watching a Youtube vid of Stephen Fry on stage in Sydney. He noted the fact that it's absurd that we concentrate on one family name when without so many other links in a chain we wouldn't exist.

I used to obsess about my surname. I do no longer. Every surname in my tree is as important as every other.

While I agree with you, the existence of Y-DNA testing now provides research possibilities that don't exist for other lines of your tree. There is also something to be said for having a heightened interest in the name you carry around all your life.

tabbey

RGM wrote: »

While I agree with you, the existence of Y-DNA testing now provides research possibilities that don't exist for other lines of your tree. There is also something to be said for having a heightened interest in the name you carry around all your life.

We are a product of all our ancestors

I would not be over protective of one's own surname. Probably 5, 10 or more per cent of our ancestral issue were non paternal events, just as likely in our paternal line as any other branch of our ancestry.

RGM

tabbey wrote: »

We are a product of all our ancestors

I would not be over protective of one's own surname. Probably 5, 10 or more per cent of our ancestral issue were non paternal events, just as likely in our paternal line as any other branch of our ancestry.

While I agree with you, the existence of Y-DNA testing now provides research possibilities that don't exist for other lines of your tree. There is also something to be said for having a heightened interest in the name you carry around all your life.

pinkypinky

Guys - we're veering massively off topic here. I think the Scott name part has run its course.