Names, how we cannot do without them.

[coombs]

If we did not all have first and surnames, genealogy would be impossible past living memory. Usually people tended to stick to their first name they were given as a baby and the surname they inherited from their father. OK people could have an alias, were known by pet names or used their middle name as a common name, or even a different forename altogether but it goes to show how first and surnames were invented many centuries ago so everyone could know who was who. Such as the surname Newman in England I read once mean a New Man, an immigrant, or Walsh which is an Irish surname for a Briton or Welshman as apparently many British and Welsh soldiers were sent to Ireland during the Norman conquest. Or John the Butcher to John Butcher.

That is the biggest key to tracing ancestors, the names. We may come across many brickwalls but at least even if a John Smith, it is a start.

[Billyblue]

Well, think of the problems those of us with indigenous ancestry have, where people had no surname.  Anyone trying to trace ancestors of indigenous origin in Australia, i.e. aborigines, has a devil of a problem.  And that's without obstructive bureaucracy thrown in!

Dawn M

[WhiskyMac]

I can sypmathise there Dawn M.

In my case the surname was quite a hurdle.

Thank goodness for official records.

A bit of nooky in a haystack a couple of centuries ago and in fact my ancestor and his descendants
carried down the name from the maternal side of his family. So we are not who we thought we were.

And then in more recent generations the death of a paternal Grandfather, a second marriage and
a change of name for all the existing children. This was totally unknown to me, so the tv programme
'Who do you think you are' takes on a whole new perspective.

[philipsearching]

Well, think of the problems those of us with indigenous ancestry have, where people had no surname.  Anyone trying to trace ancestors of indigenous origin in Australia, i.e. aborigines, has a devil of a problem.  And that's without obstructive bureaucracy thrown in!

Dawn M

The same goes for South America.

[jim1]

How strange would it be if we still retained the naming styles pre Conquest when peoples names were descriptive.
Would we now have Wayne the plumber, Darren the roofer or Karen who's always on her mobile.
What would you be called.

[coombs]

I also sympathise with those with indigenous ancestry. I never knew that lots of them did not have surnames until billyblue's reply. No experience of such ancestors, no knowledge of them.

I think it was around the 13th century that English surnames became fixed. Due to blacksmiths, white smiths and copper smiths etc the surname Smith then became the commonest surname around.

[Mike in Cumbria]

How strange would it be if we still retained the naming styles pre Conquest when peoples names were descriptive.
Would we now have Wayne the plumber, Darren the roofer or Karen who's always on her mobile.
What would you be called.

Michael Forester.

[andrewalston]

Michael Forester.

So how many family trees have you got?   

[Ruskie]

How strange would it be if we still retained the naming styles pre Conquest when peoples names were descriptive.
Would we now have Wayne the plumber, Darren the roofer or Karen who's always on her mobile.
What would you be called.

Michael Forester.

And for all these years I've been thinking your name is Michael I.N. Cumbria.