Scots Irish. the Synthetic Scots question

fontanalis

owenc wrote: »

There are no native scots the ones in the lowlands came from england after coming up from france. Sorry this is just what i am getting from joining up imformation from other history websites. Though i don't know if thats true as i've found ones from my family in scotland in 991 when they were ment to be in france at that time, is this the period most families came to the british isles?

You're only talking about a 1,000 year or so time frame, according to the romans a tribe they called the picts (I think it was basically their name for tribes beyond their border) were already there.
You seem to be talking about the Normandy invasion/movement, I don't think this was necessarily a mass movement but more of a male elite (and I think they were more into surnames) which could explain the spread of a surname passed along male lines.
It wouldn't be accurate to say thats' when families started moving to the british isles as you had already populations there but it's probably around the time when border lines started to be drawn.
Also before the Normans you had the Saxons, Angles and Jutes who made up a sizeable portion of East and Southern England. Then there's the vikings.
Basically there was alot going on but I do think granting of land to English noblemen (alot of deals were done to forge alliances with the Normans and tryig to keep various kings happy) could explain an English connection to East Scotland.
I'd say it could be a case of native scots getting rolled into a couple different labels/groups.
Hopefully someone with more knowledge comes along and also explains it to me.

brianthebard

owenc wrote: »

There are no native scots the ones in the lowlands came from england after coming up from france. Sorry this is just what i am getting from joining up imformation from other history websites. Though i don't know if thats true as i've found ones from my family in scotland in 991 when they were ment to be in france at that time, is this the period most families came to the british isles?

They could be of norse rather than norman descent and someone made a mistake in the interim. Also I would say that settlers from the Scandinavian countries have been omitted from your list so far, I think they would have had a noticeable impact on the gene pool.

owenc

brianthebard wrote: »

They could be of norse rather than norman descent and someone made a mistake in the interim. Also I would say that settlers from the Scandinavian countries have been omitted from your list so far, I think they would have had a noticeable impact on the gene pool.

Yes we will have to just guess as you can't go back that far! Look at this, this is the furthest one of my family in scotland, but i don't know if i'm related and heres the definiton it says they were in france at this time but not going by that, surely that definition is wrong, but all of the sites say that about my surname.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/cumming

On familysearch there is this boy john comyn born in 991.

grenache

deise go deo wrote: »

If you are saying that Ulster scots is decended from these lowland tribes then why would they have a gaelic dialect which would come from the highlands?

The Ulster Scots dont have a gaelic dialect, since they are directly descended from Anglo-Picts. Their own language is a unique dialect of English.

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

OMG for the 90th time ulster scots people are not native irish, we are descended from settlers who came from the lowlands which extend down to england and then to aberdeen in the north east, were they are mainly picts from england, but then in the west which is the islands like the mull of kintyre and the highlands,they speak galeic, most of these people are descended from ireland, that is were the confusion comes from! So stop saying we are native irish, that does my bloody head in!

Is you on holiday?

Le King

owenc wrote: »

OMG for the 90th time ulster scots people are not native irish, we are descended from settlers who came from the lowlands which extend down to england and then to aberdeen in the north east, were they are mainly picts from england, but then in the west which is the islands like the mull of kintyre and the highlands,they speak galeic, most of these people are descended from ireland, that is were the confusion comes from! So stop saying we are native irish, that does my bloody head in!

Nobody cares where you descend from.

owenc

grenache wrote: »

The Ulster Scots dont have a gaelic dialect, since they are directly descended from Anglo-Picts. Their own language is a unique dialect of English.

BRAVO! At last someone explains it.

owenc

Osu wrote: »

Nobody cares where you descend from.

Your obviously jealous if you commented, if you didn't care you wouldn't say that.

gleep

owenc wrote: »

There are no native scots the ones in the lowlands came from england after coming up from france. Sorry this is just what i am getting from joining up imformation from other history websites. Though i don't know if thats true as i've found ones from my family in scotland in 991 when they were ment to be in france at that time, is this the period most families came to the british isles?

LMAO! You're having a laugh, right?

Pathetic.:rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

BRAVO! At last someone explains it.

Yup - explained perfectly right here:
http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2007/10/ulster-scots-scam.html

owenc

gleep wrote: »

LMAO! You're having a laugh, right?

Pathetic.:rolleyes:

There aren't they're all from mainland europe!

owenc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yup - explained perfectly right here:
http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2007/10/ulster-scots-scam.html

yes i know its a made up pile of crap!:rolleyes: But ulster scots people aren't!

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

yes i know its a made up pile of crap!:rolleyes: But ulster scots people aren't!

I agree with you, being of part Scotch-Irish Presbyterian descent myself. The problem comes when you seek to define that tradition and culture as something separate to Ireland. Clearly it isn't. It's a hybrid identity born in Ireland and extant only in Ireland (with influence spanning other cultures from Britain to New Zealand.)

brianthebard

gleep, don't post in this thread again if you can't be civilized. Mod.

gleep

owenc wrote: »

There aren't they're all from mainland europe!

So then, there is no such thing as native Irish, English, Welsh either

SHOJ.


BTW, saying " Don't hold back" as "Dinnae howl back" does not mean you have your own language and therefore culture.

The whole lie of the "Ulster Scots" tradition is fabricated by Orangemen in the six counties to differentiate themselves and try to legitimise their political stance.

If you belive that you belong to the Ulster Scots tradition, fair play. But I think you know yourself that it's all bollocks, don't you?

Cavehill Red

Gleep, the United Irishmen of 1798 fame, who were founded in Belfast, didn't seek independence for Ireland in the name of 'Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter' for nothing.
There was always a number of traditions on the island. The one being promoted as Ulster-Scots today was in more religious times known as dissenter.
It's disingenuous to suggest they don't exist or were invented yesterday. Having been divorced from the wider Irish context of their culture and encouraged to sign up to a bastardisation of Englishness for generations, they are again feeling their way back to their own identity, which is of dissenter tradition, located in the North-East of Ireland.
They want to call that Ulster-Scots, fine by me, even if it does rather aggrandise the Scottish element of their past. All I object to is the funding of the spoof language, which is clearly nonsensical. The identity and tradition is real, even if it was somewhat ignored for generations in favour of drums, marching and posing in bowler hats as good little Englishmen.

owenc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Gleep, the United Irishmen of 1798 fame, who were founded in Belfast, didn't seek independence for Ireland in the name of 'Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter' for nothing.
There was always a number of traditions on the island. The one being promoted as Ulster-Scots today was in more religious times known as dissenter.
It's disingenuous to suggest they don't exist or were invented yesterday. Having been divorced from the wider Irish context of their culture and encouraged to sign up to a bastardisation of Englishness for generations, they are again feeling their way back to their own identity, which is of dissenter tradition, located in the North-East of Ireland.
They want to call that Ulster-Scots, fine by me, even if it does rather aggrandise the Scottish element of their past. All I object to is the funding of the spoof language, which is clearly nonsensical. The identity and tradition is real, even if it was somewhat ignored for generations in favour of drums, marching and posing in bowler hats as good little Englishmen.

Does dissenter not mean presbyterian? As if it means ulster scots descendant then they don't include church of ireland etc.

owenc

gleep wrote: »

So then, there is no such thing as native Irish, English, Welsh either

SHOJ.


BTW, saying " Don't hold back" as "Dinnae howl back" does not mean you have your own language and therefore culture.

The whole lie of the "Ulster Scots" tradition is fabricated by Orangemen in the six counties to differentiate themselves and try to legitimise their political stance.

If you belive that you belong to the Ulster Scots tradition, fair play. But I think you know yourself that it's all bollocks, don't you?

OMG for god sake i just told you that i am an ulster scots descendant and that is all.:rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

Does dissenter not mean presbyterian? As if it means ulster scots descendant then they don't include church of ireland etc.

And other creeds too, but yes, not Anglican which in those times was the belief of the anglicised upper classes.
In these days, with significantly more class interaction (and religious intermarriage) having gone under the bridge, it is likely fair to say that the Anglican community in the North is no longer (except in rare instances) that of the big-house landed gentry.
I'd still suggest that, since they're largely not of Scottish backgrounds but English, the Anglican community in the North is of slightly different heritage to the planter-descendant dissenter Ulster-Scots tradition.
We have a plurality of identity in the North. Simple distinctions such as Gaelic Irish Vs Ulster-Scots are insufficient to truly cover them all.

mathepac

owenc wrote: »

Does dissenter not mean presbyterian? ...

I've always, rightly or wrongly, associated the "Protestant" part of the United Irishmen with the Anglican or established church and "dissenter" as a catch-all for any set of beliefs or worship not Catholic or Anglican, e.g. atheist, Heugenot, Methodist, etc.

Cavehill Red

mathepac wrote: »

I've always, rightly or wrongly, associated the "Protestant" part of the United Irishmen with the Anglican or established church and "dissenter" as a catch-all for any set of beliefs or worship not Catholic or Anglican, e.g. atheist, Hugenot, Methodist, etc.

That would be pretty much spot on.

owenc

mathepac wrote: »

I've always, rightly or wrongly, associated the "Protestant" part of the United Irishmen with the Anglican or established church and "dissenter" as a catch-all for any set of beliefs or worship not Catholic or Anglican, e.g. atheist, Heugenot, Methodist, etc.

So you think they are protestant! When i was in one of their church services we had to read out this wee prayer thing, it said "we beleive in one holy catholic church" or something!:eek: I can't beleive that people thought that when presbyterians are the only true protestants.

owenc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And other creeds too, but yes, not Anglican which in those times was the belief of the anglicised upper classes.
In these days, with significantly more class interaction (and religious intermarriage) having gone under the bridge, it is likely fair to say that the Anglican community in the North is no longer (except in rare instances) that of the big-house landed gentry.
I'd still suggest that, since they're largely not of Scottish backgrounds but English, the Anglican community in the North is of slightly different heritage to the planter-descendant dissenter Ulster-Scots tradition.
We have a plurality of identity in the North. Simple distinctions such as Gaelic Irish Vs Ulster-Scots are insufficient to truly cover them all.

There are very few anglicans left, here, they are getting less and less. So presbyterians are dissenters? How come in the 1740 census my ancestors put down protestant instead of dissenter?

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

There are very few anglicans left, here, they are getting less and less. So presbyterians are dissenters? How come in the 1740 census my ancestors put down protestant instead of dissenter?

Dissenters in the sense that they dissented from the Catholic tradition that encompasses both Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism (or 'High Church' Catholicism).
Your ancestors put down Protestant because 'dissenter' isn't a religion. Though even that surprises me. I would expect people to state their actual creed, be it Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, whatever.

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

So you think they are protestant! When i was in one of their church services we had to read out this wee prayer thing, it said "we beleive in one holy catholic church" or something!:eek: I can't beleive that people thought that when presbyterians are the only true protestants.

Other Protestants would disagree with that, I suspect.
Common usage indicates that the vast majority of reformed Christian churches which separated from the Roman See in the late Middle Ages are fairly to be considered as Protestant (ie following the protests of Martin Luther against the then established church led by the Pope.)
Some later churches, the Free Presbyterians being a local example, would also consider themselves Protestant in that they adhere to similar precepts and traditions (rejecting Papal authority, the primacy of the Bible, etc).
Catholic in the sense used by Anglicans simply means universal. It means they consider their creed to be part of a greater universal Christian whole, a body of Christians united in belief in Christ.
It doesn't mean they consider themselves part of the Roman creed. While in some regards they are closer to Roman Catholicism than other Protestant churches, they are nonetheless reformed just as Methodism, Presbyterianism etc are reformed churches.

owenc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Other Protestants would disagree with that, I suspect.
Common usage indicates that the vast majority of reformed Christian churches which separated from the Roman See in the late Middle Ages are fairly to be considered as Protestant (ie following the protests of Martin Luther against the then established church led by the Pope.)
Some later churches, the Free Presbyterians being a local example, would also consider themselves Protestant in that they adhere to similar precepts and traditions (rejecting Papal authority, the primacy of the Bible, etc).
Catholic in the sense used by Anglicans simply means universal. It means they consider their creed to be part of a greater universal Christian whole, a body of Christians united in belief in Christ.
It doesn't mean they consider themselves part of the Roman creed. While in some regards they are closer to Roman Catholicism than other Protestant churches, they are nonetheless reformed just as Methodism, Presbyterianism etc are reformed churches.

Well after seeing that, i'd consider them catholics, and other religions protestants. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian it shows anglicans under catholics.

Cavehill Red

owenc wrote: »

Well after seeing that, i'd consider them catholics, and other religions protestants. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian it shows anglicans under catholics.

Catholic in the sense they believe in one Christian community, Protestant in the sense that they are reformed. Certainly not subject to Papal authority however, which is the sense in which the word Catholic is commonly used.
To be honest, it's neither here nor there for me, being not a Christian.
Actually it doesn't say what you claim in that link. In this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church it places Anglicans alongside Protestantism in the same reformed tradition. It also notes that Anglicanism considers itself a middle path between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism/Orthodoxy (something I'm not sure is true, to be honest.)
Incidentally, the Nicene creed which all Protestant Churches adhere to as a central expression of their belief, as the Roman Catholic church does, includes the four marks of Christianity that there is one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.

Le King

owenc wrote: »

Your obviously jealous if you commented, if you didn't care you wouldn't say that.

Jealous of being part of the Ulster-Scots? Ha your having a laugh. I'd rather not be a part of one of the most bigoted sets of people of all time.

Your seriously having a laugh.

owenc

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Catholic in the sense they believe in one Christian community, Protestant in the sense that they are reformed. Certainly not subject to Papal authority however, which is the sense in which the word Catholic is commonly used.
To be honest, it's neither here nor there for me, being not a Christian.
Actually it doesn't say what you claim in that link. In this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church it places Anglicans alongside Protestantism in the same reformed tradition. It also notes that Anglicanism considers itself a middle path between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism/Orthodoxy (something I'm not sure is true, to be honest.)
Incidentally, the Nicene creed which all Protestant Churches adhere to as a central expression of their belief, as the Roman Catholic church does, includes the four marks of Christianity that there is one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.

So they are really both then.

owenc

Osu wrote: »

Jealous of being part of the Ulster-Scots? Ha your having a laugh. I'd rather not be a part of one of the most bigoted sets of people of all time.

Your seriously having a laugh.

*sigh* i give up!