English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am 100% (as far as I have been able to tell) Irish.
My mom and dad are ok..I know about them.
Grandparents, on the other hand..Paternal Gramma had a bf with a name that is in NO telephone book (Wallman), and my dad and uncle dont look anthing like the other kids.
The falimy tribe in South Caroilina is so mixed and confused that its all uinreliable. Wasnt anyone faithful to their spouses at all in those days? Im dealing with the McSwains, Hammricks, Gilberts, McGeehans, Stevensons, and they all were just alley cats. I have a fairly good line of Geneology from ancestrry.com and other sites but none of them can be believed. It looks like everyone got drunk and did whoever they could find.
Not really a question here ..just venting. Has anyone else had this problem?

2007-03-11 12:40:53 · 5 answers · asked by eddie9551 5 in Arts & Humanities Genealogy

5 answers

hey, Eddie...
Probably more people than you can imagine, run into the same questions you have. Life today is (tactfully) NOT as peaches and cream as we want to think.. and it really never was. There are many records in early VA for folks running around making babies without benefit of ministers or even living together.
As for what is online.. every one wants it easy. What people don't get, is that easy does not mean quality or reliable. You don't want to hear my vent on that one.
I agree with Skip.. your conclusion about being Irish is shaky, unless both parents, grandparents, etc were ALL born in Ireland, including you.
So here is Wendy's disclaimer for the evening: I don't want the easy stuff that can be punched up on the computer, and point to the knights and damsels. BORING. If someone already did all my research, there ain't no fun left for me, no satisfaction in finding a record that no one else knew about.
I am sending you to www.cyndislist.com.... and look for one of the beginner tutorials, so you can find some of the steps. Browse around. Hey, there even is one list called Blacksheep ancestors. You don't get to join unless you have someone really slimy to claim.
So, if you really want to learn who YOU are (without judgement, and being proud of you), check it out. And you can reach me via my profile, if I can help more.

2007-03-11 15:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by wendy c 7 · 0 0

Hey Eddie,

You are the first to really exacerbate this issue that I have seen on answers. No question it is painful. There are branches in my family that I cannot go up because of mistreatment of the kids, so they ran away from home and never had any records. Not as much problem as you have.

I did find that Wallman is English or Swedish according to Swyrich.com by James P. Wolf:
Spelling variations of this family name include: Wall, Walls, Wale, Walles and others.

First found in Gloucestershire where they were seated from very ancient times and appeared as holders of lands in the Domesday Book compiled in 1086 by King William of England.

Some of the first settlers of this family name or some of its variants were: John Walls, a servant, who settled in Argentia, Newfoundland in 1773; Phillip Walls was a fisherman of Petty Harbour, Newfoundland in 1745; William Walls settled in Anapolis Maryland in 1758.
--------------------------------------------
You can go to the web site below to see what it says for Swedish.

Family Search has entries that agree with English, Swedish, and Russian.

I do not for one minute believe you are 100% Irish. Without even looking, the names you gave are so diverse. Stevenson is English and Scottish, and that is not Irish. I don't know how long your ancestors have been here, but if it is over 150 years, you are a mix like the rest of us in this melting pot.

2007-03-11 20:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by BuyTheSeaProperty 7 · 1 0

My sympathies....I feel your pain.

My g-g-grandmother (and none of her 4 sisters) were married, but had a bunch of kids. They were each "kept" by prominent men in their county and were faithful to these men, but never married them. Basically they provided a second set of offspring for these married men.

Added to that is no record of these "ladies" prior to the 1840 Census. One can only guess as to their parents - and there are at least 2 likely candidates in the county in the 1830 Census so that no one can be sure which is the right fork to follow.

2007-03-11 19:54:46 · answer #3 · answered by idiot detector 6 · 0 0

Well this is a excellent venting speech. I understand what you are saying. I know of several families that have various kids from different fathers or mothers kind of screws it all up. It makes me wonder if that is how cousins got married they didn't know they were related. The "alley cats" pretty much sums it up! lol

2007-03-11 23:06:33 · answer #4 · answered by foxfire 5 · 1 0

Most people have similar problem's while researching their genealogy. That's half the fun!

I saw a bumper sticker once that sums it up.

"Aren't you glad you name isn't Smith?"

2007-03-12 19:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by chieromancer 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers