Gordon Honeycombe - and single ancestor

[Liberty]

I enjoyed the interview with Gordon Honeycombe (please thank him for me, Peter, next time you are in contact). It made me wonder, though, how common it is for everyone of one surname to be descended from a single ancestor, as are the Honeycombes. I belive the same was revealed for the Paxman name in WDYTYA (an ancestor who made the PR move of calling himself a 'man of peace'). Also, I recall reading an autobiography/memoir by Donald Sindon where he made the same claim for the Sindon name (an ancestor who rejoined secular life at the Dissolution of the Monasteries and chose the word for Jesus' shroud as his surname).
I have a couple of instances in my direct ancestry where I wonder if the name also came from just one person. Was there originally just one man who insisted he was a Herdman not a Shepherd? And for the direct ancestor called Strangleman, I'm not sure I want to know. Perhaps a mediaeval equivalent of Jack the Ripper???

 

[AnneC]

I have a couple of instances in my direct ancestry where I wonder if the name also came from just one person.

In our family Benjamin Fill was invalided out of the navy in the mid 1850's, but later wanted to join the coastguard so changed his name to Filewod. All the Filewods I have managed to trace are related to Benjamin Fill.

 

[AndyMick]

Sorry I'm late replying - I'm having severe computer issues which is keeping me from doing anything useful. I'm catching up with the forum on the new one while backing up the old one!

Single origin names were a speciality of Dr George Redmonds, who used geographical distribution to predict it. However DNA has shown some of his assumptions to be wrong. For example, Sykes undoubtedly originates in a small area of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Redmonds suggested single origin, and some very early DNA studies appeared to confirm this. But when you now look at the Sykes/Sikes DNA study on the web, it is obvious that there are several branches.

Similarly with my own name Micklethwaite. The name does appear to have a single place of origin, but there are at least 4 different branches shown by DNA testing.

A possible clue to some instances of this is given by the Poll Tax returns of 1379, just before surnames came into use in England, where a Micklethwaite is recorded with a servant - probably the servant took his master's surname.

Conversely, when Willoughby Micklethwaite emigrated to the USA in 1831, his surname was recorded as Mickelwait, and that is one form in use in the USA.

So, I'm very wary of claims for a single source - unless you have the evidence (as with Mickelwait and Filewod).

 

[Liberty]

Very interesting, AndyMick. I know slaves in the USA often took the surnames of their former owners (I've often wondered why, I must admit) but hadn't considered it for British servants. It makes sense - I know that for a lot of the Scottish clans, being called e.g Fraser didn't mean you were related to the clan chief of that name, so much as that you owed your allegiance there.

(b the w, I wouldn't dream of making a sweeping claim for any of my ancestors - I just wondered how common it was, having come across these 3 cases for celebrities. Mind you, I don't know that anyone thoroughly checked it out for any of them...)

 

[Alexander Bisset]

There is of course another more obvious reason for DNA supposedly disproving a single source. For people from the different branches ie: the "errant" branches that don't fit, the most obvious explanation is that despite carrying the NAME of the single source ancestor they are not biologically related. Remember that whilst paper records SAYS that a child was the son/daughter of father X, only the mother (and now with modern technology DNA) knows the truth of who the real father was.

So just because a paper record says someone had X as their father it may not be the case and the mother may well have had another liaison that resulted in the child for which she either didn't tell the paper record father or was accepted as the child of the paper record father by that father.

In my own tree myself and another male Bisset have a proven paper link to my 8g grandfather that we have meticulously checked yet the DNA proves there was a "hidden" illegitimacy along the way. Without testing more people we cannot tell where the illegitimacy lies. That said I also have a near perfect match with Joe Bissett another Lost Cousins forum member for which we have no paper match.

So beware of saying DNA "proves" there wasn't a single source. It doesn't necessarily prove any such thing.

 

[Liberty]

So beware of saying DNA "proves" there wasn't a single source. It doesn't necessarily prove any such thing.

Same thing (but different) for non-hidden illegitimacy. I cited the line of my ancestors called Strangleman. Well, they made something of a family tradition of illegitimacy. My GG GM was one of 3 children 'baseborn' to an unmarried mother named Strangleman, She seems to have legitimately born to man named Strangleman, but he himself was illegitimate, and one of his daughters repeated the pattern. I imagine this would play merry hell with DNA tests linked to the Strangleman name.

 

[AndyMick]

So beware of saying DNA "proves" there wasn't a single source. It doesn't necessarily prove any such thing.

Absolutely.

AFAIK, after 10 years of research and a One Name Study, I believe I am the only living male descendant of my 3xgg'father. I've still got a substantial brick wall obscuring his parentage. I did a DNA test and have persuaded 4 others to test to see if other branches have a similar haplogroup - none do, although 2 of the others are a close match. One is told to get at least 2 if not 3 tests within a branch to check for NPEs. How do I check my branch? Any ideas?