Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Planters surnames?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    That’s just all common surnames.

    As for the French names of the Normans - they are relatively well know. All the Fitzs for instance.

    Except for Fitzpatrick, which is actually a case of taking on a 'fancy foreign air' so as to keep land, actually two distinct surnames adapted it as anglo version of their name:
    Mac GIOLLA PHÁDRAIG—IV—M'Gillephadrick, M'Gillapatrick, M'Kilpatrick, MacGilpatrick, MacIlpatrick, MacIlfatrick, MacElfatrick, MacIlfederick, MacElfedrick, Gilpatrick, Kilpatrick, Kirkpatrick, Fitzpatrick; 'son of Giolla Phádraig' (servant of St. Patrick). The principal family of this name are the MacGillapatricks, or Fitzpatricks, of Ossory, who took their name from Giolla Phádraig, son of Donnchadh, lord of Ossory, in the 10th century. In early times they ruled over the entire of Co. Kilkenny and part of the present Leix, but after the Anglo-Norman invasion they were greatly encroached upon by the Butlers and other English settlers in Kilkenny, and their patrimony was limited to the barony of Upper Ossory. Branches of the family settled in Clare, Cavan, Leitrim, and other parts of Ireland. In 1541, Brian Mac Giolla Patrick was created Baron of Upper Ossory. There appears to have been also a Scottish family of this name.
    --
    Ó MAOLPHÁDRAIG—I—O Mulfadricke, O Mulpatrick, (?) Fitzpatrick; 'descendant of Maolphádraig' (servant of St. Patrick); once a common surname, especially in Cavan and Cork. In the year 1602, Conor O Molpatrick, 'chief of his name,' was included in a list of pardons for Co. Cavan. Though the name has disappeared, the family was too numerous to have died out, and the probability is that, like the Mac Gillapatricks of Ossory, they have anglicised it to Fitzpatrick.

    There was also once the name of Fitzdermot which was a native Leinster name (related to the Byrnes and O'Toole's) but has since died out.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭21Savage


    I watched the Story of Ireland and to contradict what an earlier poster said about 'most Irish being a mixture of Gael and Gall' the show reported that like 85 per cent of Irish people are descendant from the original native Irish(or the pre Christian Irish anyway) I reckon anybody along the Eastern and southern coast has some foreign(and by that I mean Norman, French, English, Welsh, direct Viking) blood.

    I have two pretty English(Norman?) surnames, Tongue and Rawle. I've seen Rawle written with an Irish translation but assuming that's just enforcing gaelic on an anglo name.


    On the topic of surnames, why are a lot of Norman names not found in France? Why no Fils de gerald? What happens to certain names that they got lost in time? Why is there not more crossover between France and Ireland with regards surnames?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    21Savage wrote: »
    I watched the Story of Ireland and to contradict what an earlier poster said about 'most Irish being a mixture of Gael and Gall' the show reported that like 85 per cent of Irish people are descendant from the original native Irish(or the pre Christian Irish anyway) I reckon anybody along the Eastern and southern coast has some foreign(and by that I mean Norman, French, English, Welsh, direct Viking) blood.
    85% are descended from the native Irish, but not exclusively so. The Normans, remember, became "more Irish than the Irish themselves", and intermarried quite freely.
    21Savage wrote: »
    On the topic of surnames, why are a lot of Norman names not found in France? Why no Fils de gerald? What happens to certain names that they got lost in time? Why is there not more crossover between France and Ireland with regards surnames?

    Two things. First, remember that the Normans were foreign invaders in France. They were Norsemen. They were never a particularly large community.

    Secondly, the Normans didn't have surnames at all until quite late in the piece. It was well after the Norman conquest of England (1066) and invasion of Ireland (1170) that they started to adopt surnames. Thus what we identify as "Norman names" did not originate in Normandy, but in Britain or Ireland. Normans who stayed in Normandy would at some point also have developed/adopted surnames, but entirely different surnames. But in fact they remained a very small community in France, with a high propensity to emigrate, and eventually the remnant was absorbed into the general French community. You could say that they became more Frankish than the Franks themselves.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭21Savage


    Interesting insight. Guess that explains why there is no 1000 year old Fitzgeralds in England either. Never really thought of that. Surnames weren't really a thing until much later. Beaumont could be a contender of one such name that prevails throughout England, France and Ireland. However, I don't know how common the name is. Probably not at all in Ireland except for the hospital. I notice there are a lot of Petits in Ireland relatively. Not sure how much in England though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    One of the most popular surnames is Walsh which derives from the Welsh contingent that came over with the Normans. Given it's frequency today there were probably many reasons it was adopted; prestige, non parental events etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,183 ✭✭✭✭Nekarsulm


    Where would Horsburgh originate from?
    I came across it probably 20 years ago when I bought some sheep from a venerable old lady somewhere near Naas!
    Never encountered it since.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭21Savage


    Looks to be English. Sounds like it could be Danish or German.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Ipso wrote: »
    One of the most popular surnames is Walsh which derives from the Welsh contingent that came over with the Normans. Given it's frequency today there were probably many reasons it was adopted; prestige, non parental events etc
    I'm guessing that it was not so much adopted as conferred. Walsh was known as "Walsh" not because he chose to be, but because his neighbours called him that, because he was from Wales, or his father or grandfather was.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    21Savage wrote: »
    Interesting insight. Guess that explains why there is no 1000 year old Fitzgeralds in England either. Never really thought of that. Surnames weren't really a thing until much later. Beaumont could be a contender of one such name that prevails throughout England, France and Ireland. However, I don't know how common the name is. Probably not at all in Ireland except for the hospital. I notice there are a lot of Petits in Ireland relatively. Not sure how much in England though.
    Beaumont Hospital is not called after anyone named Beaumont, but after Beaumont House, the property which stood where the hospital now stands. And Beaumont House was so called because it stood in, and was the principal house in, the townland of Beaumont. The name was apparently given to the place by Arthur Guinness, who lived there, because it was an area of higher ground with (at the time) fine views of Dublin Bay - so, a beautiful hill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Surnames in Ireland arguably date to post Battle of Clontarf and were not universal until a couple of centuries later (see my earlier post ). In France, there were surnames – or more correctly patrilineal names – in use in the Roman era. However, hereditary surnames there obtained a ‘fix’ when King Louis XI in 1474 by edict forbade changing a surname without royal permission. The change had to be accompanied by letters patent granted by the authorities who subsequently published the change in the Journal Officiel. Obviously when dealing with the aristos and peasantry the rules differed!

    A law of King Francis 1st in 1539 required that births, marriages and deaths be registered by the local curé. (In Ireland it was the 1860’s!). Further changes were also introduced at the time of the Revolution and also by Napoleon. (Livret de famille, etc.) I've done some French genealogical work going back to the mid 1700's for a family of cobblers and had little difficulty , which is unheard of in Ireland.

    Most French family names (noms de famille) are locative i.e. after a place, either where they lived (Jean Delaroche, Pierre Delaporte, Paul Moulin) or were born (Mattieu Paris) or from a trade [ Michel Ferrante (Smith) or Paul Masson (Mason) ] and generally are not patrilineal, although there are some (surnames Paul, Martin, etc.) Some are from ‘appearance’ - Jean Leroux, (the red) Phillippe Legrand (the great).

    Surnom’ means ‘nickname’ (Charlemagne was son of Charles, and the 'magne' was from the great deeds he achieved. So in short they differ from the Irish in not having an equivalent of Fitz-, O’ – or Mc but get by quite adequately without them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Surnom’ means ‘nickname’ (Charlemagne was son of Charles, and the 'magne' was from the great deeds he achieved. So in short they differ from the Irish in not having an equivalent of Fitz-, O’ – or Mc but get by quite adequately without them.
    Nitpick: Charlemagne was not the "son of Charles"; his was the son of Pepin the Short. He was called Charles le Magne or Carolus Magnus to distinguish him from other Charleses, and particularly from his grandfather Charles Martel ("Charles the Hammer"), but this practice only arise after his death; nobody called him that during his life.

    He had several sons, one of whom was also called Charles; that son was known as Charles the Younger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    . In France, there were surnames – or more correctly patrilineal names – in use in the Roman era.

    Well fixed surnames might indeed only come into use in Ireland from 10th century onwards (with bulk of major ones in existance by 1100), however there did exist what one could call 'kindred names' which are glossed in latin as 'gens' eg. equivalent to Roman concept of gens.

    In case of the bould Brian Boru he belonged to the Uí Thairdelbaig of the Dál gCais.

    In the Annals of Ulster the we see the Cenél Eogain and the Cenél Conaill been referenced as such:
    U727.2

    Bellum Droma Fornocht inter Genus Conaill & Eugain ubi Flann m. Aurtuile & Snedgus Dergg nepos Mrachidi iugulati sunt.
    U727.2

    The battle of Druim Fornocht between Cenél Conall and Cenél Eógain, in which Flann son of Aurthuile and Snédgus Derg, descendant of Mrachide, were killed.

    Of course what's even more fun there, is both the Cenél Conall and Cenél Eógain regarded themselves as Uí Néill and ultimately as been members of the Dál Cuinn / Connachta

    If we look at a character such as Muiredach Muillethan who was King of Connacht until his death in 702 we can break down his name/genealogy as follows:

    praenomen: Muiredach
    agnomen: Muillethan (broad-crowned)
    gens: Uí Briúin of Dál Cuinn/Connachta

    of course his descendants (O'Connor's, McManus, McDermot, McDonagh, Geraghty, O'Teige, Concannon etc.) than basically had the cognomen of Síl Muireadaig to denote descent directly form him within the wider Uí Briúin Aí lineage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Well fixed surnames might indeed only come into use in Ireland from 10th century onwards (with bulk of major ones in existance by 1100), however there did exist what one could call 'kindred names' which are glossed in latin as 'gens' eg. equivalent to Roman concept of gens.

    In case of the bould Brian Boru he belonged to the Uí Thairdelbaig of the Dál gCais.

    In the Annals of Ulster the we see the Cenél Eogain and the Cenél Conaill been referenced as such:
    Of course what's even more fun there, is both the Cenél Conall and Cenél Eógain regarded themselves as Uí Néill and ultimately as been members of the Dál Cuinn / Connachta

    If we look at a character such as Muiredach Muillethan who was King of Connacht until his death in 702 we can break down his name/genealogy as follows:

    praenomen: Muiredach
    agnomen: Muillethan (broad-crowned)
    gens: Uí Briúin of Dál Cuinn/Connachta

    of course his descendants (O'Connor's, McManus, McDermot, McDonagh, Geraghty, O'Teige, Concannon etc.) than basically had the cognomen of Síl Muireadaig to denote descent directly form him within the wider Uí Briúin Aí lineage.

    Well that sort of proves my point really (although I think we have disagreed on this before):). The bould Brian was known as Brian Boru and not as Brian Ua Thairdelbaig, nor even as Brian mac Cennétig, his father, who was styledCennétig mac Lorcain, His descendants eventually were known as Ua Brian, or as McMahon, depending on their line of descent. (Is there any genetic evidence that the Kennedys are connected?)

    In the Annals the long names are more for precision rather than in use as a surname, as the ollamhs wanted to ensure that the reader understood that it was a particular Conal. Also the Snédgus Derg, descendant of Mrachide” who was killed” was Red Snédgus and not Snédgus ua Mrachide. The Eogain and Conaill of the two groups surely is more of a cognomen rather than a surname, in the manner of the old Romans?

    I agree with gens/ genus / ‘kindred’ as it denotes familial relationship, more accurate than tribus/tribe which has suggestions of social and political grouping.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭tabbey


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Well fixed surnames might indeed only come into use in Ireland from 10th century onwards (with bulk of major ones in existance by 1100),

    The bulk of major surnames may well have been in existence by 1100 AD, but I suspect the majority of the population did not have them until later, and many of those became known by the surnames of their feudal masters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    We didn't really do "feudal masters" in Ireland. The Normans and various later English kings did try to introduce feudal tenure/feudal relationships, and from time to time various Irish leaders would be induced to do homage, swear fealty, etc, but the concept never really percolated downwards, and the majority of the population had no feudal relationships to anyone. If peasants adopted the same surnames as local leaders it wasn't because of any feudal relationship but because the peasants were, or believed themselves to be, kindred of the leaders.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭Fake News


    I visited the Aran Islands during the Red Bull Cliff Diving Competition in 2015 and discovered that most of the islands inhabitants are descended from an English garrison who inhabited the island during Cromwell's era.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    How did you figure that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭Fake News


    It's written on tourist information boards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    I'm not sure how accurate that is. I had a look at the 1901 census for the DED of Inishmore (which includes the whole Aran Islands) I see:

    Population: 2,922
    Catholic: 2,784 (95.27%)

    Interesting the Church of England number (42) was double the Church of Ireland figure (21), though Presbyterian (17) was higher than Church of Scotland (4).

    Anyways here are some of major surnames:
    Conneely: 402
    Flaherty: 422 (Flaherty: 362, O'Flaherty 30, OFlaherty 30)
    Dirrane/Derrane: 277 (Dirrane: 233, Derrane: 44)
    Faherty: 170
    McDonagh: 111 (McDonagh: 94, MacDonagh: 3, McDonough 14)
    Mullin: 128
    Millane: 24
    O'Donnell: 70
    Costello: 38 (Norman)
    Concannon: 28
    O'Brien: 28
    Dillane: 29
    Donohue: 18
    Burke: 23
    Walsh: 17
    Joyce: 96

    Obviously that list includes Cambro-Norman surnames such as Burke, Walsh and Costello, Joyce but an initial run through on just above makes up 63.4% of surnames found in 1901 Aran census, all of those are pre-Cromwellian and are associated with Conamara as well (particulary Joyce, Walsh and Costello). Again the list above is only from a cursory glance and about 15minutes of eyeballing the returns (and using search function to spit out the raw numbers). What should also be remember is that the sub-dialects of Irish spoken on Aran veer towards Munster Irish and extinct sub-dialects of North Clare in some ways, which is reflective of connections to Burren etc.

    What perhaps would be better term is that most Aran Islanders have post Cromwellian period ancestry eg. they have ancestry from Connemara or North Clare. The interconnection between Aran and Connemara in particular is well known throughout the 20th century with people moving between the two.

    The high levels of Conneely and Flaherty in particular reinforces the link to the 'Iar Connacht' lordship of the O'Flaherty's during the late middle ages.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Ipso wrote: »
    How did you figure that?

    Emmmmm......did you not look at the poster's name and the other stuff posted by him/her/it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Emmmmm......did you not look at the poster's name and the other stuff posted by him/her/it?

    In fairness there used to be a quite serious poster who was called Mr GeeBag.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I've read before that the population of the Aran islands is significantly genetically distinct from the general population of the western seaboard counties, and that this is attributed to an admixture of genes contributed by English soldiers garrisoned on the islands in the seventeenth century, who were substantial in number relative to the native population. This article from 1983 suggests that, yes, this is correct, and furthermore that this conclusion was also reached by earlier studies from the 1950s. I don't know whether there has been more recent research either to confirm or to refute the hypothesis.

    The fact that an English inheritance isn't reflected in surnames, religion, language, etc, despite coming from a presumably overwhelmingly male garrison might suggest that much of it is attributable to relationships on the wrong side of the blanket, so to speak.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    1983 is antediluvian when it comes to genetics, recall the first full human genome wasn't published fully until 2003.

    Stuff like blood type distribution could just simply reflect 'genetic drift' of an island population (along with stuff like founder effect). If we look at the intial work out of Ancestry unsurprisingly Aran appears to fall within their 'Connemara' genetic community.

    From what little I've seen of men with heritage in Aran (eg. their Most distant known ancestor came form Aran islands) and bearing surnames such as Flaherty or Faherty they fall within fairly standard west of Ireland y-DNA lineages which is reflective of their surname origin.

    In a small island community with limits on gene-flow, it's not unusual for 'rare' genetic traits (on a mainland) to become more common, this is called 'Genetic Drift' and is often due to random chance when it comes to what traits are passed on per reproductive event.

    Wikipedia has a useful analogy for this:
    The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population.[7] Consider this jar of marbles as the starting population. Half of the marbles in the jar are red and half blue, and both colours correspond to two different alleles of one gene in the population. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select a marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same colour as its "offspring" into a new jar. (The selected marble remains in the original jar.) Repeat this process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar then contains a second generation of "offspring," consisting of 20 marbles of various colours. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red marbles and 10 blue marbles, a random shift occurred in the allele frequencies.

    Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation fluctuates; sometimes more red and sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is analogous to genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.

    It is even possible that in any one generation no marbles of a particular colour are chosen, meaning they have no offspring. In this example, if no red marbles are selected, the jar representing the new generation contains only blue offspring. If this happens, the red allele has been lost permanently in the population, while the remaining blue allele has become fixed: all future generations are entirely blue. In small populations, fixation can occur in just a few generations.

    640px-Random_sampling_genetic_drift.svg.png

    If for example we substitute the marbles for blood types (Blue = Bloodtype A, Red= Bluetype B) we can see that it's possible in a 5 generation window (circa 120-150 years) for a population (with minimum to no input form outside) to go from 50/50 ratio of bloodtypes to been completely dominated by one.

    It's this same mechanism that has led to Traveller populations 'drifting' from settled Irish population, as there's been a period of minimum gene-flow between the two, the smaller population (Travellers in this case) have undergone significant 'genetic drift' when it comes to specific genetic variations within the population.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    I can't seem to find an online copy of the 1957 study of blood types in Aran, though I did find it referenced in others. What I should point out about blood types is the following:

    Parents: O + O = child O
    Parents: A + A = child A
    Parents: B + B = child B
    Parents: O + A = child A (O is recessive, A is expressed)
    Parents: O + B = child B (O is recessive, B is expressed)
    Parents: A + B = child AB

    (above is ignoring stuff like Rhesus negative etc.)

    So as an example I'm Bloodtype O(+), if I had married someone who was Bloodtype A, than any children would be Bloodtype A, from a genetic point of view as we carry two alleles (one inherit form each parent) this works out as:

    OO + AA = AO

    Of course if said putative offspring later married someone who was Bloodtype O there's a 50/50 chance the offspring would be either Bloodtype A or Bloodtype O
    eg:
    AO + OO = AO or AO + OO = OO

    In a small island population a particular trait (lets say Bloodtype A) could rise to higher level than the mainland population due to random chance when it comes to reproductive events, particulary if there was minimum inflow from mainland. It also doesn't help that Bloodtype A is a 'dominant trait' so even where a person genetically is AO (eg. has both A and O gene) they will always express Bloodtype A.

    These early studies of course didn't even know the specific genetic variation causing the different bloodtypes, so they just use the end result (eg. bloodtype expressed) to determine population structure, however as a result they would miss anyone who was AO (or BO). There's also problem that we don't have any valid baselines for distribution of blood lines in ancient populations, ideally you would need a decent sampling of ancient remains say form early Christian/medieval period to form a baseline 'pre-admixture' population which could be used to model admixture later on.

    Now a days we can do full genomes (read all 3billion base pairs), as a result it's considerably easier to model admixture.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    pedroeibar wrote:

    Autosomal DNA would show a big mix/dilution Pinky, but Y-DNA would remain the same, and that is the critical one, as the surname follows the male line. McLysaght wrote that there were about 250 Irish surnames mistranslated into English, so Y-DNA would be the most appropriate route shouold there be a question over origin...


    Does anyone know off hand which type of DNA is tested in the Ancestry Genetic tests currently being offered?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Ancestry does autosomal only. See this thread


Advertisement