1
Lancashire / Re: PARKINSON of Lancaster. Bleasdale and Chipping
« on: Tuesday 14 November 23 09:28 GMT (UK) »
The family seems widespread. Someone made a comment about how the wealthier families had better survival chances than poorer families and it seems to be true in some cases. Looking at male DNA it certainly seems that surnames have multiple male lineages under the same surname. Obviously very easy to understand in many cases, lots of Johns, Peters and Richards etc had sons when surnames came into common use. Similarly there were plenty of Smiths, Wrights, Masons and Turners (wood) and plenty of place name, geographical features etc. However even Clan names can have men with Celtic, Slavic and Scandinavian or Germanic lines because many men took on the Clan leaders surname, even if they just worked on the land etc, they were not extended families. Parkinson's do seem to have owned a lot of land though and land ownership is one of those tangible links to wealth and power when there is a record of a powerful person of that name being granted the land. I would love there to be name study for Parkinson men to see what lines they had. Ours is definitely Norman but I can't see any evidence that it is the same line as Featherstonhough and the first ones on their name study are a known Norman line haplogroup J. I also wonder why someone would ditch the powerfully connected family name. I wonder if young Perkin were not a powerful persons illegitimate son being raised in the Featherstonhough household. Without lots of males testing we won't know the answer.