Seek british SPENCERs today! Any SPENCER cousins out there???

[smudwhisk]

jaywit's comments about illegitimacy and "shot-gun" weddings (whether intentional just down to lack of money or an issue getting the groom to the alter) are very relevant.  I've ancestors who didn't marry until after the first or sixth child, but all were baptised as if the parents were a married couple.  Often those marriages were in different parishes so as not to draw the vicar's attention.  It did happen.

I do think you need to seriously consider the possibility that your original Spencer ancestor may have been born illegitimately and his mother married a Spencer shortly after his birth OR she married a man named Spencer before his birth whom she believed to be the father (or possibly not but found a nice man who would marry her whether he know she was pregnant or not) before his birth.  Its not as unusual as it may seem and this can be seen in the parish registers as jaywit says.

As chempat says, we're not trying to bully you but feel that if you opened up your thoughts to other possibilities, whether your relatives are prepared to or not, you may find you have more success with the paper trail.  Although as jaywit says, most of us have brickwalls in the 1700s that we cannot breakdown because of lack of records or simply not knowing where the family originated.

As for DNA testing, yes it can be of help but even if you find someone that shares your original family surname, they may not be able to take you back as far as you would like and find that original elusive ancestor.  Some surnames are more common than others and it may just be a coincidence that they have that name.  It could of course also be down to a more recent illegitimate ancestor on their line.  Unfortunately I think DNA testing is often seen by some as the only sure way of absolutely proving everything, when in reality it is still limited and dependent on a lot of "footwork" in the Archives.

[jaywit]

I have wondered as well in the case say of a farmer who has only one son who survived into adulthood. He would probably have been pressurised into marrying and producing an heir.

He could have been infertile, he could have tried to get local girls pregnant, without success, he could have possibly guessed he was infertile if more than one of the girls easily became pregnant with other partners.

His father was still pressuring him and he reached a point where he married a girl who was pregnant by someone else but he pretended he was the father of the child. That child would have carried his surname but was not his.

You also find in records the further you go back that you have John A alias John B this appeared to be more common than it is now. How do you start to find out why 400 years ago this man used 2 different surnames?

[Ruskie]

Bedfordshire Boy, Chempat and Jaywit have just expressed exactly what I was thinking in response  to the ponts you raised. I'm afraid that I think you have it wrong on so many levels.

I don't know where you get your information from but I think you have been misled.

I will pick up on a coupe of points which I find incredulous:
there are no numbers for the rates of illegitimacy several hundred years ago, and just because someone was named as father on a birth certificate or baptism register, or just because the parents were married, it does not necessarily follow that the child belongs to that man/ husband. If you think illegitimacies were rare, you are kidding yourself.

What punishments/ penalties did girls who 'strayed' have to endure that made illegitimacies so rare?

Why on earth would a Spencer group administrator be unwilling to admit that some Spencers in the dim and distant past did not hold the surname Spencer? That sounds completely illogical. I simply do not get this. Why on earth would it matter let alone be something to be secretive about? I believe there are specific requirements to being DNA project administrators and I think this particular one may need to be reported.

I think if you are searching for the truth and seriously trying to trace English Spencers, then you might need to do a bit of serious reading about history, origins of surnames and genealogy in general. For a start I can recommend Ancestral Trails by Mark Herber and Early Modern Genealogy by Paul Chambers, and I'm sure there are many many more.

I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, but it is just meant as a bit of advice which you can take, or not, as you wish.

You will note that everyone who has replied to your threads is slightly critical of some of your claims, so I think some alarm bells should be ringing. Many of these people are respected and experienced researchers, so it may be worth considering their advice and comments.

 

[smudwhisk]

What I'm a little confused about is the claim that the original surname wasn't Spencer and this has been confirmed by DNA testing.  If that is the case then the people who tested the same as your Spencer family but have a different surname must have a paper trail going back some centuries to confirm that the original surname wasn't Spencer?  In which case, if they have a paper trail, why have you not been able to confirm where your original Spencer ancestor fitted in and the circumstances of his birth and change of surname?

Or is it that you Y-DNA test has thrown up people who have a different surname but who you are extremely closely related to but that they too are unable to trace a paper trail sufficiently far back to confirm exactly what the original surname was?  Its quite possible the problem may be with their side and perhaps not yours.

Has this actually been considered?

Similarly, I am not surprised that even in America there are different Spencer families with no genetic connection.  There will not have been just one family who adopted that surname.  I know there are claims that the Spencer-Churchills are descendants of the earlier Le Despencer family, notorious at the time of Edward II, but that family died out in the male line in the 1400s and it is now known through documented evidence that the Althorp family are not descended from them even if the College Heralds allowed them in previous centuries to adopt the same coat of arms.  The proof required in the past for this was much less stringent that it would be today.  Similarly, and this is something that many even in the UK do not appreciate, there is no right to bare heraldic arms simply because you carry the same surname.  Those that have the right to bare such arms are very limited and specifically proscribed.  Unfortunately this often gets overlooked by researchers in their desire to connect themselves to a famous family and probably also leads to the misuse by some of the term clans in England, where they have never existed, to justify this.

[Ruskie]

Smudwhisk is correct in what she says.

May I also add that genealogy has always held an interest and especially the Victorians, a bit like Americans today, loved to try to trace their family back to royalty. There are numerous published examples of such trees which can mistakenly be accepted as fact by researchers today. It is advised that you do your own research to prove, or disprove, what others have found.

I am not sure if all of the Spencer researchers are working together on their common family, or if you have all just accepted one person's research? It would not be wise to do so.

Perhaps this may also explain the differences in DNA test results - maybe someone took a wrong turn in their research? Maybe your branch are not 'Spencers' after all?

[Vienna Spencer]

Sadly, I've had a family emergency, so won't be able to be back online for quite awhile, but thanks everyone for all the suggestions, and help. I wish you all great good fortune in your ancestral searches. Take Care,
Vienna

[Rosinish]

I am not trying to be in any way shape or form "elitist".

Hi Vienna,

To be honest, I don't think I have EVER been bored reading genealogy requests but this sure stretches the mark of searching for links to a family tree & has me bored to tears 

Specifics of a kind do not equate to a page of names, occupations, areas.

SPECIFICS would be a trail from a name upwards or downwards giving couples names, dates, areas so people can relate to those SPECIFICS!!!

What you have is a request for ANYONE with the name SPENCER which is not going to draw any SPECIFIC relations as no-one would be able to work out if they are or not related???

I have a SPENCER incomer in my tree (not my blood)...................do you think this is your relation???

Probably not, simply because I haven't given you any info. on that particular person..................just as you haven't in your request 

Happy Hunting,

Annie 

[Rosinish]

Looks as though things haven't moved since your post 2 years ago 

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=630496.msg4783481#msg4783481