Concentrating on the male line

This is another deviation from the subject but is this a Guy Thing, concentrating on the one name?

Within my family, my uncle is very interested in researching our ancestors with his name, but when I offered to share what I had found out about his mother's ancestry, he politely declined.

I have quite often come across similar attitudes from others I have met in the family history world, that of doggedly tracking the male line, and I have an impression it is almost always men who have these attitudes. What does anyone else think?

*Alexander* - NO offence intended towards One Name Studies, which are a rather different thing*

 

I think I may have the exception that 'un-proves' the rule. My wife! Before I explain further just let me say I am so far removed from the stereotype you paint (oh they exist all right) as to be an 180 degree opposite. I have no interest in one name studies but have been helped quite a few times by those who pursue this line of study and agree this is a different thing.

But with conventional 'Family' research my wife tends to think it should concentrate on the root name and has been known to query why 'I spend so much time pursuing my mother's line beyond Grandparents' and cannot seem to grasp that I view both paternal and maternal with equal intensity. (As for tracking down Gt Gt & Gt Aunts & Uncles -on both sides - that is totally beyond her comprehension).

I notice for instance that with her own Tree (originated and researched entirely by me) when I delve beyond her (maternal) Grandparents -one of whom she knew - she loses interest. This is not so apparent with her father's line. It may well be tied into the fact her mother's family was quite large (her Grandmother married twice) and she was brought up knowing much about that side of the family. But very little of her father, who was born out of wedlock and given his mother's surname. His mother eventually married the father and my wife's father's surname was changed by deed pool. Her father never spoke about his parents or his siblings (born within the marriage) and so I think this is everything to do with her wanting to find out more about him.

I have noticed similar when watching WDYTYA when the celebrity wants to concentrate on just one side of the family (usually but not always the father's side) and the programme then pays little more than lip service to the other side.

Perhaps the answer -as the catchphrase used in the old 'Round the Horn' radio comedy programme - lies in the soil?

 

Ah another Spiers-ism - that would be deed poll, not pool (that may be genes)

And I wouldn't be too certain who/what the celebrity on WDYTYA wants to concentrate on. As we've discussed before, the show is highly 'choreographed' and I have no doubt that the line they end up following is the most suited to TV entertainment, regardless of male/female connection (oh dear, that sounds like we're going back into 'Round The Horn'

 

Well done with the Poll, not pool, a reward and a bonus for the 'genes' comment.

I agree that is a good point on WDYTYA about being highly choreographed and most likely explains why perhaps the celebrity gets no choice.

Note I've decided to keep my answer short before I type something 'Naff'' (of Jules & Sandy 'Polari' fame).

 

I was researching some Sunderland kin at the Newcastle Archives when I found a transcript of a letter sent by the vicar to the relevant authorities complaining about the lack of space in the book and asking for columns so that he could record all of the other family details.
I wish there were more like him as a lot of the extra detail provided body to the facts as well as links to other generations.

 

My first family history lecturer at a local evening class was Elizabeth Simpson, and it was only some years later that I discovered she was somewhat famous in genealogical circles. She was also a feminist, and I have always remembered her saying she had no time for men who were only interested in their own surname and male line, so loved it "when they come to a shuddering halt with a bastard!"

 

That's rather harsh and probably deserves a reverse comment that nobody should have any time for her or anyone else with a similar attitude.
For most researchers, genealogy is a hobby and one should be able to take part in whatever way the mood takes you.

Anyone who starts researching their family tree will naturally start with their own surname which, by convention, means following the male line. Even widening the search to include the female line can get stuck in a similar rut, just because the surname is known, most of the time, and hence makes it easier to know who to look for. In contrast, looking back at the purely female line involves a change of surname with each generation. That is one distinction that does not occur when tracing horse pedigrees. (My wife has Arabian horses!)

However, there is one immediate advantage in looking for female ancestors. They were probably married from home or very close to it and hence the area of search can be much reduced. With male searches, one might know who to look for but not necessarily where.

Hence, I feel that most people still concentrating on their male line only are probably less experienced and in need of a little encouragement to see the wider picture, whether they be male or female themselves.

One Name Studies are an exception where the researcher has recognised that there is just not enough time available to look into the finer detail of all lines. My own preference would probably be to conduct a Multi Name Study, where I choose who to include and who to exclude on a completely arbitrary basis.

 

Hmm. I started this thread, and I think this comment might fit in with my vague feeling about a Guy Thing.

A man will be pretty certain what is his 'own surname' but a woman who has 'taken her husband's name' (as those of us who married decades ago tended to do) may be less sure. I have had my current surname nearly 40 years, nearly twice as long as the name I was born with. My mother is now 90, and was married when she was 22, so the proportion of father's name/husband's name is even more uneven. I think perhaps women might be more aware (Bob's wife notwithstanding) that people of great many names contributed to our ancestry.

I have had most success with researching (1) my mother's maiden name, and then (2) my paternal grandmother's maiden name and (3) HER mother's (my GGM) maiden name. This is largely, but not entirely, because they are all fairly distinctive names, unlike my paternal grandfather's line, where my GGPs were a Mr Campbell and a Miss Smith. I should perhaps throw into this the fact that my mother's maternal GPs were both called Cooper (although unrelated) and i have had a lot of success with both of their lines. Although I do sometimes get a bit confused which lot I am looking at....

 

Perhaps we have a tendency to first seek our father's line as that is usually the surname we were given at birth. However I always think that we can only really be a little more sure of where we descended from on our maternal line.

 

In New Zealand, at least, the English model for use of maiden names prevailed - although we did at least adopt the far more informative Scottish model for BMD certificates, and it's also not uncommon to see the standard Scottish child naming pattern persist for the first generation born in New Zealand to Scottish parents.

I must admit it had never really occurred to me that following paternal or maternal lines is inherently more or less difficult - it seems a smaller factor to me compared to how common the surname is and how much people moved around.

 

So do I, and despite the limitations of English certificates, I've never had too much of a problem following female lines.

It tends to be much earlier, when parish registers have gone missing or marriages were not recorded, that it can be harder to follow up female lines. However, even then, there are sometimes other records - such as wills - which can supply the missing maiden name and family details or clues.