What's the furthest back someone of Scotch-Irish ancestry can likely trace his family?

Question

Can people who claim, say, 6th century origins back them up, or are they supposing their families' beginnings because the etymology of their names go back that far?

Answer 1

By definition, the Scots-Irish were Scots who starting in the reign of James I of England and VI of Scotland immigrated to Ireland and after living there for just a few generations, in turn, immigrated to the American Colonies, most of them around 1750 just prior to the American War for Independence. The port of entry for most of these Protestant Irish was Philadelphia, but many of them within the space of a generation moved to North Carolina and from there into Kentucky and Tennessee. Most Scots who left Lowland Scotland for Ireland were prosperous enough to move across the Irish Sea, and their ancestors, in turn, either had enough money to either pay for their passage to America and some capital to purchase a farm, or else they booked passage as indentured servants.

Using my family's history as an example, I have been able to trace back one line where an ancestor, John Caldwell, was born June 6, 1603, in Donegal, Ireland. James II (or VI of Scotland) ascended to the English throne on March 24, 1603. A generation earlier (indeed a few months earlier), John's parents were Lowland Scots. I've traced the Caldwells back to an Alexander Caldwell (born in 1558 [no place listed]; died in 1579, Solway Firth, Ayrshire, Scotland).

Of course, there are Ulster-Scots, Lowland Scots, and Highland Scots. For most Americans, Lowland Scots who immigrated directly to the American Colonies have the longest pedigree; for example, John Crawford, a younger son of the Earl of Crawford, was my first Scottish ancestor to arrive in the New World. The Crawfords, in turn, could trace their lineage back to the Stewarts and beyond. Some of my Highland Scot ancestors, the Hendersons, have the shortest pedigree since they arrived in the United States in 1796 most probably because of the Highland Clearances.

Answer 2

Well 6th century origins are hard to prove if the person has no Documents to prove it then its a long shot but people do have such things in there trees and they have the documentation. I'm also of Scot-Irish descent so far the farthest I can get with my fathers family is the late 1600's parish records are goodin scotland also the list of Covenanters in Scotland can be useful. many Scot-Irish were presbyterians and moved to ireland from the pressure from the Ministers and local land lords etc.. Only to be in the same position in Ireland as they were in Scotland and so many came to America here in America you track them through land grants and Probates and some military records like Militia service and also church records fro Baptisms. Tracing Scot-Irish hertiage is slow but its worth it just takes time,money, and patience.

Answer 3

The 10th century is reasonable, but takes a lot of understanding of the kinds of records that need to be searched and how to retrieve them. The hard part is that you need to research in very old records that will never be on the internet. Unless you can find a local researcher to help you, your alternative is a nice trip there to go through the records in person...or else you have to pay premium dollar for the archives to send you "everything" indiscriminately. You often end up paying 10-15 times more than you would if you went through the records yourself.

Answer 4

When you say 1) Scotch-Irish (and yes, that is how they said and wrote it), and 2) PROVE in the same sentence, then you have limited it to about 1700ish AD in nearly all cases.

This is because majority of the Scots in northern Ireland were Presbyterian, but the Brit crown vacillated between religions and what they supported and didn't, then declared itself its own church, the Church of England.

What happened is that Scots in northern Ireland could be taxed, but because of being neither catholic nor church of England did not and could not have births, marriages, and deaths registered in any Official Church. Little but useless scraps of tax records from that time exist.

BTW a common myth is that all presbys back then were Covenanters - and that is a myth. Covenanters were almost a sect within Presbytery but not inclusive.

Answer 5

With genetics I can trace my ancestry to various tribes that came from central asia. But as for known relatives I can trace them back a few generations only. I have a British friend who can trace a known ancestor from a thousand years ago using the domesday book.

Answer 6

After the flight of the O'Donnell and O'Neil earls, Scots were planted in Ulster during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth I.

When their descendants immigrated to the United States, they called themselve Scotch-Irish to indicate that racially they were Scottish, but their geographical origin was Ireland. Scotch-Irish is not a term that means a person is half Scottish and half Irish.

The Scotch-Irish that came to our shores during colonial days came with as abiding hatred of Mother England as the Catholic Irish did. They were referred to as Rabid Radicals Ready for Revoution. Andrew Jackson was a notable Scotch-Irish president.

Answer 7

This is really a question that can never be answered satisfactorily. Reason? Official public records did not begin in Great Britain until after they were begun in the U.S., the mid-19th century. Before that time, records were only kept by the Church (many births were never recorded because the people did not have their child baptized due to lack of MONEY!) and hence were not recorded by the Church) or by families themselves. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people did not have their histories recorded; only a few of the nobility. And many of their records were distroyed in wars, by floods, fires, rodents.
That leaves such a tiny percent that WAS recorded.
I have ancestors from Wales, England, Ireland, Scotland, etc., and, based upon the reliability of the records, mine is traced further back than that.
There are 2 considerations to place credibility upon such claims:
1. You need only swab your cheek and the DIRECT line on you maternal (your mother, her mother, her mother, etc.) and paternal (your father, his father, his father, etc.) can be determined.
2. At the time of Christ, there were a total of about 400,000,000 people WORLD WIDE. At about 1,000 B.C., there was a total of about 50,000,000 people world wide. Keep those numbers in mind and consider that 34 generations ago (about 800 A.D. in my family) it would have taken 8,589,934,592 persons just to produce YOU, unless, of course, intermarrying took place. Since there were no where that many people that far back, the only obvious conclusion is that people married relatives, including first cousins, uncles marrying nieces, etc. The Romans even went as far as marrying their sisters or mothers!
So, using reasoning and logic, your ancestors married your ancestors, and every body elses ancestors.
So, if ONE can trace their lineage, ALL have some of the same lineage!

Answer 8

It's 1186 as far as i know but i hope this of help to you