Thoughts on Bloodlines versus Families versus Surnames

[Andrew Lancaster4]

I thought I'd post a thought which comes from working on the DNA project. People who have looked around the internet and at the work of various Livingstone or MacLea genealogists around the world will notice that a very simple equation has often been made... 1. A clan 2. A family 3. A surname, or groups of surnames in our case 4. A male bloodline The development of affordable Y-DNA testing, and the great work of the late Rob Livingston in getting our project to the forefront of such work has forced us all to realize that we are an amazingly diverse clan with regards to male bloodlines. The development of on-line resources for genealogists has forced people to see that, for example, the lowland Livingstons might not be related by blood with the highland Livingstones, and not everyone in the clan is a direct male descendant of a clan chief. Now while many of you are very familiar with such statements and will not find them surprising at all, many hard-working genealogists are disappointed by this type of information, having been brought up to see all Livingstons as kin descended from the same man somewhere way back. The next step is then to move to new over-simplifications: OK, am I a highlander or lowlander etc? I want to make some remarks against both disappointment and simplification. You can keep the family without the simplification... 1. Having the same Y DNA as another family is only one way of being related. For example you do not have the same Y DNA as your mother's family. So if it turns out that Dr Livingstone is not in the same Y line as Niall, this will not invalidate the very believable claim that they are close kin. 2. Chiefly lines passed on titles and rights, but not always the Y DNA. Female heirs, nephews, cousins etc often have to be called in, in which case they often take up the new name. This is how any aristocracy MUST work. It might even be the reason that the clan started to use the Livingstone name? For this reason, VERY OLD chiefly or aristocratic family such as the BOTH the chiefs of the clan MacLea, and also the aristocratic family which once had claim to the Livingston name, almost certainly have descendants with SEVERAL Y DNA lines. (So we should be very careful about saying "oh well, it seems I am not really in that family"!) 3. To say it again: we simply do not know what the link is between the highland clan, and the Livingston surname. The may well have been a blood relation, for example a marriage. We do not need to choose. They considered themselves kin, and we have no information with which we can better them. They may have been right. 4. I have become increasingly of the opinion that most Livingston families are descended from highlanders. There was certainly a dynasty of titled lowlanders, but this was NOT a clan. There is no lowland clan. Were there other lowlanders who used the same name as the name for their own family? It is possible that there were not, or that this was in any case unusual. Best Regards Andrew

[Kyle2 MacLea]

As an example of someone of Highland or Island heritage, but who can claim no Y-DNA relationship with our present Chief, I must highlight Andrew's insightful comment: We do not need to choose. They considered themselves kin. Truer words have not been spoken. Clan and family are diverse, and perhaps Scottish Clans especially.

[Young Bachuil]

Hear! Hear! The geographical distribution of names is very telling. There are NO LOWLAND LIVINGSTONS in any significant numbers at all. In fact I think that the distribution itself is sufficient evidence to have Lyon remove the "Highland" restriction. Regards Niall

[Bachuil]

Hear! Hear! The geographical distribution of names is very telling. There are NO LOWLAND LIVINGSTONS in any significant numbers at all. In fact I think that the distribution itself is sufficient evidence to have Lyon remove the "Highland" restriction. Regards Niall

[Kyle2 MacLea]

I do think that's an interesting point. I have been thinking for some time about whether Lyon should recognize the Chief as head of all McLeas as well.

[Bachuil]

I have been playing around with the data from the surname project and I believe that the conclusion is clear.

[Andrew Lancaster4]

Hi Niall I continue to think this is very promising. I guess the strongest doubt I can think of is concerning the fact that by the 1800s a lot of migration had already happened, but in order for this to be important we'd have to assert that the migration was in a pattern which caused these surnames to like like they come Argyll. The opposite would seem more likely. Does the surname project also have 1811 data? Best Regards Andrew

[Kyle2 MacLea]

As a side note, I looked up how many McOnLeas there were: Births in OPR 1 11/06/1680 MCONLEA ARCHIBALD ARCHIBALD MCONLEA/MARRIE NCLAWRINE FR101 M Inveraray and Glenaray /ARGYLL 513/ 0010 0097 2 27/11/1681 MCONLEA DUNCAN ARCHIBALD MCONLEA/MARIE NCLAWREEN FR107 M Inveraray and Glenaray /ARGYLL 513/ 0010 0101 3 02/12/1694 MCONLEA JANET ARCHIBALD MC ONLEA F Rothesay /BUTE 558/ 0010 0013 4 22/05/1698 MCONLEA JOHN JOHN MC ONLEA ANNABELL NCGILCHERRAN M Rothesay /BUTE 558/ 0010 0025 5 10/11/1695 MCONLEA NEIL ARCHIBALD MC ONLEA M Rothesay /BUTE 558/ 0010 0016 Note that I observed three of these in Bute records already, the two in Inveraray and Glenaray were in ARGYLL. Marriages in OPR: 1 11/01/1694 MCONLEA ARCHIBALD ISABEL CAMPBELL/ M Rothesay /BUTE 558/ 0010 0280 2 08/01/1698 MCONLEA NEIL GRISAL NC ININSH M Rothesay /BUTE 558/ 0010 0285 Both marriages are in Bute, again the same records. Interesting!

[Kyle2 MacLea]

And these wills, also all in Argyll: 1 McOnlea Neill 23/09/1686 in Camisuogeall, parish of Kilchoan TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/3 (1 page) 2 McOnlea Donald 24/02/1687 in Lephinreoch, parish of Stralauchlan TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/3 (2 pages) 3 McOnlea Donald 24/02/1687 and Mary Boyd, his spouse, in Poitindrewsie, parish of Stralauchlan TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/3 (2 pages) 4 McOnlea Duncan 16/01/1686 in Kilchattan TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/2 (2 pages) 5 McOnlea Slain 13/10/1684 spouse to John McMartin in Minart, in Kilmichael Glassary TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/2 K=

[Kyle2 MacLea]

McLea wills 1 McLea David 19/05/1755 tennent in Keppulloch, parish of Drymen Testament Dative and Inventory Glasgow Commissary Court CC9/7/62 (3 pages) 2 McLea Duncan 23/11/1785 minister of Innerchillan TD Edinburgh Commissary Court CC8/8/126 (3 pages) 3 McLea Isobell 01/04/1737 spouse to John Dougall, merchant in Glasgow Testament Dative and Inventory Glasgow Commissary Court CC9/7/55 (4 pages) 4 McLea Robert 03/04/1816 cooper and merchant, Greenock Testament Dative and Inventory Glasgow Commissary Court CC9/7/82 (4 pages) 5 McLea William 08/02/1737 teacher of French of Glasgow Testament Dative and Inventory Glasgow Commissary Court CC9/7/55 (4 pages) 6 McLea David 08/01/1736 in Gargunnock, who died at the Miln of Cessintully, parish of Kilmadock TD Dunblane Commissary Court CC6/5/24 (1 pages) 7 McLea Archibald 21/04/1740 merchant in Rothesay TD Argyll Commissary Court CC2/3/11 (1 pages) 8 McLea William 31/12/1754 sometime in Blairgorts, thereafter feuar and indweller in Buchlyvie, parish of Kippen TD Dunblane Commissary Court CC6/5/26 With the exception of Dunblane, all of these are in West Scotland, or related to the Rothesay MacLeas. MacLea wills 1 MacLea Archibald 06/10/1824 Revd Dr; edict Duncan McLae and others against the Executors Edict only Rothesay Sheriff Court SC8/35/1 (3 pages) 2 MacLea Archibald 15/04/1825 Revd Dr, minister of the parish of Rothesay Rothesay Sheriff Court SC8/35/1 (19 pages)