Concentrating on the male line

[Liberty]

When my father first started researching our ancestors, he concentrated almost exclusively on the family surname, ie the male line.

This is another deviation from the subject but is this a Guy Thing, concentrating on the one name?

Within my family, my uncle is very interested in researching our ancestors with his name, but when I offered to share what I had found out about his mother's ancestry, he politely declined.

I have quite often come across similar attitudes from others I have met in the family history world, that of doggedly tracking the male line, and I have an impression it is almost always men who have these attitudes. What does anyone else think?

*Alexander* - NO offence intended towards One Name Studies, which are a rather different thing*

 

[Bob Spiers]

This is another deviation from the subject but is this a Guy Thing, concentrating on the one name?

Within my family, my uncle is very interested in researching our ancestors with his name, but when I offered to share what I had found out about his mother's ancestry, he politely declined.

I have quite often come across similar attitudes from others I have met in the family history world, that of doggedly tracking the male line, and I have an impression it is almost always men who have these attitudes. What does anyone else think?

I think I may have the exception that 'un-proves' the rule. My wife! Before I explain further just let me say I am so far removed from the stereotype you paint (oh they exist all right) as to be an 180 degree opposite. I have no interest in one name studies but have been helped quite a few times by those who pursue this line of study and agree this is a different thing.

But with conventional 'Family' research my wife tends to think it should concentrate on the root name and has been known to query why 'I spend so much time pursuing my mother's line beyond Grandparents' and cannot seem to grasp that I view both paternal and maternal with equal intensity. (As for tracking down Gt Gt & Gt Aunts & Uncles -on both sides - that is totally beyond her comprehension).

I notice for instance that with her own Tree (originated and researched entirely by me) when I delve beyond her (maternal) Grandparents -one of whom she knew - she loses interest. This is not so apparent with her father's line. It may well be tied into the fact her mother's family was quite large (her Grandmother married twice) and she was brought up knowing much about that side of the family. But very little of her father, who was born out of wedlock and given his mother's surname. His mother eventually married the father and my wife's father's surname was changed by deed pool. Her father never spoke about his parents or his siblings (born within the marriage) and so I think this is everything to do with her wanting to find out more about him.

I have noticed similar when watching WDYTYA when the celebrity wants to concentrate on just one side of the family (usually but not always the father's side) and the programme then pays little more than lip service to the other side.

Perhaps the answer -as the catchphrase used in the old 'Round the Horn' radio comedy programme - lies in the soil?

 

[Liberty]

.

His mother eventually married the father and my wife's father's surname was changed by deed pool.
..........

I have noticed similar when watching WDYTYA when the celebrity wants to concentrate on just one side of the family (usually but not always the father's side) and the programme then pays little more than lip service to the other side.

Ah another Spiers-ism - that would be deed poll, not pool (that may be genes)

And I wouldn't be too certain who/what the celebrity on WDYTYA wants to concentrate on. As we've discussed before, the show is highly 'choreographed' and I have no doubt that the line they end up following is the most suited to TV entertainment, regardless of male/female connection (oh dear, that sounds like we're going back into 'Round The Horn'

 

[Bob Spiers]

Ah another Spiers-ism - that would be deed poll, not pool (that may be genes)

And I wouldn't be too certain who/what the celebrity on WDYTYA wants to concentrate on. As we've discussed before, the show is highly 'choreographed' and I have no doubt that the line they end up following is the most suited to TV entertainment, regardless of male/female connection (oh dear, that sounds like we're going back into 'Round The Horn'

Well done with the Poll, not pool, a reward and a bonus for the 'genes' comment.

I agree that is a good point on WDYTYA about being highly choreographed and most likely explains why perhaps the celebrity gets no choice.

Note I've decided to keep my answer short before I type something 'Naff'' (of Jules & Sandy 'Polari' fame).

 

[Alexander Bisset]

*Alexander* - NO offence intended towards One Name Studies, which are a rather different thing*

Indeed none taken. When I started researching my family tree it was when I was about 13/14 I was intrigued by the different names especially finding my great grandfather was also an Alexander. I spent more time on my mum's family as her cousin (my 1st cousin once removed) was very interested and so I got a lot of names (note not many dates or places) from her. It was also about the time my grandfather died. I remember getting a LOT of names (again no dates/places) from people at the wake.

Fast forward almost 25 years to my grandmother's death and on visiting the grave noting that it had the names of both my grandparents, my great-grandparents and my 2g grandparents from deaths in 1903 onwards. To have 3 generations with names, ages and birth dates on the one stone re-ignited my interest in family history. I never did find the tree I prepared when I was a teenager but started out researching anyway. Due to the absolutely fantastic Scotland's people site where you can download a certificate there and then for £1 (now £1.20) and more importantly the Scottish tradition of a wife not being the property of her husband and thus recording her maiden name on almost all documents. I was able within 3 weeks to have all 32 of my 3g grandparents. I've since massively expanded that of course back to my 8g grandparents on one branch and to at least 4g grandparents on all other branches

At one point in my research I was chatting with someone at work who mentioned his wife had been researching his tree and discovered that his great grandmother was a Bisset. I was intrigued and looked into it, recording the bits of Bisset info from his line I could find looking for a link. In the course of my research I'd naturally as we all do come across certificate/census entries that weren't my lot so I thought I'd add them in too and so was born a one name study. I now have over 2000 Bisset's in my tree, although I'm aware of over 3500 births recorded on Scotland's people from the OPRs to date, not all in North East Scotland though which is where the focus of the surname lies. I strongly suspect most of it is tied into the Norman Bisset (or Bizet) family who were granted lands in Huntly in 1100's and who held the title there until the late 1900s, one of the oldest families in Scotland.

So it's a sideline from my main research as I do actively pursue other branches not least because it's Scottish ancestry so tracing female lines is just as easy as tracing male ones, until you get back to the mid 1700s that is, then you are in the lap of the parish clerk gods as to whether your parish clerk was a busy body and meticulously recorded lots of detail or was lazy and recorded the barest minimum. The dreaded "William Bisset had a son bapt. John" and no other info as opposed to the lovely detailed "William Bisset farmer of Drumdurno and his wife Mary Young had a son bapt John William in front of witnesses John Young, baker, and James Bisset, shoemaker."

 

[Tim]

"William Bisset farmer of Drumdurno and his wife Mary Young had a son bapt John William in front of witnesses John Young, baker, and James Bisset, shoemaker."

Don't you just wish that all records were recorded in this manner? I've been quite Lucky with the Lancashire OPC which records a lot of details.

 

[trebor]

I was researching some Sunderland kin at the Newcastle Archives when I found a transcript of a letter sent by the vicar to the relevant authorities complaining about the lack of space in the book and asking for columns so that he could record all of the other family details.
I wish there were more like him as a lot of the extra detail provided body to the facts as well as links to other generations.

 

[PatC]

My first family history lecturer at a local evening class was Elizabeth Simpson, and it was only some years later that I discovered she was somewhat famous in genealogical circles. She was also a feminist, and I have always remembered her saying she had no time for men who were only interested in their own surname and male line, so loved it "when they come to a shuddering halt with a bastard!"

 

[alanmack]

 

[Bryman]

She was also a feminist, and I have always remembered her saying she had no time for men who were only interested in their own surname and male line . . .

That's rather harsh and probably deserves a reverse comment that nobody should have any time for her or anyone else with a similar attitude.
For most researchers, genealogy is a hobby and one should be able to take part in whatever way the mood takes you.

Anyone who starts researching their family tree will naturally start with their own surname which, by convention, means following the male line. Even widening the search to include the female line can get stuck in a similar rut, just because the surname is known, most of the time, and hence makes it easier to know who to look for. In contrast, looking back at the purely female line involves a change of surname with each generation. That is one distinction that does not occur when tracing horse pedigrees. (My wife has Arabian horses!)

However, there is one immediate advantage in looking for female ancestors. They were probably married from home or very close to it and hence the area of search can be much reduced. With male searches, one might know who to look for but not necessarily where.

Hence, I feel that most people still concentrating on their male line only are probably less experienced and in need of a little encouragement to see the wider picture, whether they be male or female themselves.

One Name Studies are an exception where the researcher has recognised that there is just not enough time available to look into the finer detail of all lines. My own preference would probably be to conduct a Multi Name Study, where I choose who to include and who to exclude on a completely arbitrary basis.

 

[Liberty]

Anyone who starts researching their family tree will naturally start with their own surname which, by convention, means following the male line. .

Hmm. I started this thread, and I think this comment might fit in with my vague feeling about a Guy Thing.

A man will be pretty certain what is his 'own surname' but a woman who has 'taken her husband's name' (as those of us who married decades ago tended to do) may be less sure. I have had my current surname nearly 40 years, nearly twice as long as the name I was born with. My mother is now 90, and was married when she was 22, so the proportion of father's name/husband's name is even more uneven. I think perhaps women might be more aware (Bob's wife notwithstanding) that people of great many names contributed to our ancestry.

I have had most success with researching (1) my mother's maiden name, and then (2) my paternal grandmother's maiden name and (3) HER mother's (my GGM) maiden name. This is largely, but not entirely, because they are all fairly distinctive names, unlike my paternal grandfather's line, where my GGPs were a Mr Campbell and a Miss Smith. I should perhaps throw into this the fact that my mother's maternal GPs were both called Cooper (although unrelated) and i have had a lot of success with both of their lines. Although I do sometimes get a bit confused which lot I am looking at....

 

[DianeSG7]

Perhaps we have a tendency to first seek our father's line as that is usually the surname we were given at birth. However I always think that we can only really be a little more sure of where we descended from on our maternal line.

 

[peter]

Even if we start with our mother's family (as I did) we're then likely to follow the surname - which means we're following her paternal line. In a society where women usually take their husband's surname on marriage (my wife didn't, but then I didn't take her surname either), it's far easier to follow the male line.

Of course, the further you go back, the more likely it is that a non-paternity event intervenes - but that's where Y-DNA tests can help.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

If you go far back and have a "non paternity event" then a Y-DNA test is only of use if you can then trace an unbroken male line forward and then persuade someone from that unbroken male line to take a test. If you manage to overcome those two very significant hurdles, the first of which may not even be possible to overcome, then you have to sit back and wait and hope that someone else also of that line has also taken a test. Again another significant hurdle.

Sadly the further back you go the less and less likely it is that a Y-DNA test will help as there are typically just too many hurdles.

Note it's also a very English attitude to say it's easier to follow the male line. In Scotland there is a completely different tradition a women doesn't lose her identity on marriage she is still referred to by her maiden name on birth marriage and death certificates, and all such certificates have both father and mothers name. This means in Scotland tracing any one line is just as easy as any other it is only when tracing English records that the problem of women disappearing raises it's head hence the increased difficulty.

As an example I was with my 90 year old 1st cousin twice removed visiting his grand parents and my 2g grandparents grave today. His daughter and son in law, who are from England, were surprised when walking round the graveyard and I pointed out all the gravestones had the maiden names of the wives.

I'm not sure which tradition our colonial cousins followed. I fear is was the English model hence the usual supposition that tracing a female line is more difficult.

 

[SuzanneD]

I'm not sure which tradition our colonial cousins followed. I fear is was the English model hence the usual supposition that tracing a female line is more difficult.

In New Zealand, at least, the English model for use of maiden names prevailed - although we did at least adopt the far more informative Scottish model for BMD certificates, and it's also not uncommon to see the standard Scottish child naming pattern persist for the first generation born in New Zealand to Scottish parents.

I must admit it had never really occurred to me that following paternal or maternal lines is inherently more or less difficult - it seems a smaller factor to me compared to how common the surname is and how much people moved around.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

The issue with English certificates for marriages is that they only name the father not the mother, English death certificates name neither unless they are an informer. Only English birth certificates name the mother making them the most valuable of the three certificates.

In Scotland the mother's full name including maiden name appears on all three types of certificate so even when tracing common names you have both parents birth names which does help significantly in narrowing down if it's the right couple especially as you have the higher likelihood that the mothers maiden name isn't common. Ie: tracing a Smith line, there is a reasonable likelihood that the mother's name is less common and this helps identify the couple.

This makes it easier then to find a marriage for the parents from a birth marriage or death when you know the maiden name of the mother, thus you can push back both parents lines with equal ease. I can fully understand those reliant on English records having greater difficulty with female lines, it is of course possible just not nearly as easy as it is with English records. I suspect it is that that puts some off digging into female lines.

Knowing the mothers maiden name is also helpful working out which of several candidate people you are talking about. I use this a LOT in my one name study where when you have 284 William Bissets knowing it's the William Bisset son of William Bisset and Mary Watson that died identifies him far far more than knowing it's the William Bisset son of William Bisset who died, which is all I'd have got from English records.

I do also completely agree with Peter that you have to be careful about the terminology too. Researching your female line does not mean researching your mothers fathers male line, that's exactly the same searching the male line as searching your own surname.

It's strange but the more the surname changes the more I've witnessed the decline in interest of researchers to pursue that line. It's common to hear someone refer to a line like that as not one of their surnames, meaning not one of the four or eight surnames of their closest direct ancestors. When actually each one of those surnames equally contributed to your ancestry.

 

[Tim]

I just do everybody.

 

[Pauline]

I just do everybody.

So do I, and despite the limitations of English certificates, I've never had too much of a problem following female lines.

It tends to be much earlier, when parish registers have gone missing or marriages were not recorded, that it can be harder to follow up female lines. However, even then, there are sometimes other records - such as wills - which can supply the missing maiden name and family details or clues.

 

[peter]

I just do everybody.

So do I, but it's a lot easier when you know what surname you're looking for. I often do a surname reconstruction (a sort of mini-ONS) when I can't find a baptism or marriage, and sometimes I know who my ancestor's grandparents were but not who her parents were.

Alexander's point about the differences in Scotland is a good one, but we can't choose our ancestors.

 

[Tim]

You're both right, but I enjoy the hunt and tracking down that elusive ancestor. Alexander must have it so easy, all the details he needs on one bit of paper

Time for a bit of Inspector Clouseau work