Scottish Naming Conventions

Maybe be clear that a name would be constructed (for example) as:

First name: John
Last name at birth: Grant of Freuchie
Last name at death: Grant of Freuchie

the "of Freuchie" does not go in the suffix field.

Thankyou for this information Sharon.

Thanks Erica. how's this?

2. In Scotland, territorial designations are part of the surname, & do not go into the Suffix field.
...
His name recorded in the Naming field would be "John Grant of Freuchie", and he would be either 2nd Laird or 2nd Baron of Freuchie ("of Freuchie" does not go in the suffix field).

Good. Would we want to say that "2nd Laird" or "2nd Baron of Freuchie" (as example) "would" go in the suffix field or position, with a comma to separate the title from the name?

First name: John
Last name at birth: Grant of Freuchie
Last name at death: Grant of Freuchie
Suffix: 2nd Laird

(no prefix necessary)

which makes an entire display name of

John Grant of Freuchie, 2nd Laird

Instead, say "John Grant of Freuchie, 2nd Laird of Freuchie."

And, he could be "Sir John Grant of Freuchie, 2nd Laird of Freuchie".

Maybe add this article as a reference and fuller explanation:

Territorial Designations, the correct form.
By Stuart Morris of Balgonie and Eddergoll, yr.
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/territorial-designation.html

Maybe also the Wikipedia article Barons in Scotland, particularly the Usage subsection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barons_in_Scotland#Usage

These paragraphs are particularly useful:

"An English barony is a peerage (yet the abolition act of 1660 allows for some remaining non-peer baronies not converted by writ to remain as feudal baronies of free socage "incorporeal hereditament" similar to a lordship of the manor), but whether Scottish barons rightfully rank as peers is disputable.[5] They are known as minor barons currently treated as noble titles of less than peerage rank. The Scottish equivalent of an English baron is "Lord of Parliament".

"The feudal baronial title tends to be used when a landed family is not in possession of any United Kingdom peerage title of higher rank, subsequently granted, or has been created a knight of the realm. The name recorded by the Lord Lyon as part of any grant of arms or matriculation becomes the holder’s name for all official purposes.

"The holder of a Scottish barony (e.g., "Inverglen") may add the title to his existing name (e.g., "John Smith, Baron of Inverglen") or add the territorial designation to his surname ("John Smith of Inverglen, Baron of Inverglen"); some of the oldest Scottish families prefer to be styled by the territorial designation alone ("Smith of Inverglen").[6][7][8] Formal and in writing, they are styled as The Much Honoured Baron of Inverglen. A baron may be addressed socially as "Inverglen" or "Baron," and introduced in the third person as "John Smith of Inverglen, Baron of Inverglen" or "The Baron of Inverglen". When referred to informally in the third person it is incorrect to refer to him as "Baron Inverglen" or "Lord Inverglen", as these would imply a peerage title (i.e. Lord of Parliament)[9] A married couple may be styled "The Baron and Baroness of Inverglen", "Inverglen and Madam Smith of Inverglen", "Inverglen and Lady Inverglen", or "The Baron of Inverglen and Lady Inverglen."[6] The oldest son of a feudal baron may be known by his father's territorial designation with the addition of "yr" (abbreviation for "younger"), as in "John Smith of Inverglen, yr" and the eldest daughter if heir apparent is entitled to use the courtesy title "Maid of [Barony]" at the end of her name."

Those are great, Justin - I'll definitely include links to them. Thankyou.

Did we want to say anything about Scottish Gaelic and its use?

What field for Patronyms ?

What do you want to say about Scottish Gaelic? Is it covered by the general rule to use the closest version to the original that we have?

On the medieval Scottish tree, patronyms have been put in the Birth Surname field. Is this also a general rule on the WT (Except for the Scandinavians)?

Oh, dear, somehow I missed all of this. Shall I go write up the Welsh?

And as to patronyms -- yes, they go in the Birth Suname field, and in the Welsh, I put them in the Surname field, too, UNLESS the person is also called by their English name, in which case I put the English name in the Surname field.

I do this instead of simply putting the Welsh into the separate language box because it makes it clear that they are border people, either of time or of space, and the two names exist at the same time.

If that makes sense.

When the patronymic is divided into two pieces, as it is in the Welsh, both pieces go into the surname field.

The Middle name field can then be used for nicknames. Thus, Madog Fychan ap Rhys -- Madog, first name. Fychan, "the younger," middle name. "ap Rhys," son of Rhys, surnames.

Same thing in Scots and Irish. James Mor MacDonald -- James, name, Mor (Big), middle name, MacDonald (son of Donald), surname.

What about the rather common case where there are two patronymics? One refers to the father, and the 2nd to the grandfather or perhaps a more distant ancestor.

We need to remember that today there are many Scots people not of higher nobility who use territorial designations as an integral part of their surname and would be upset if the territorial part of their surname was treated as a suffix.

It would be great if Welsh naming conventions were written up, too! I totally struggled years ago, particularly on which field to put the name elements.

I'm in agreement with Anne Brannen suggestions and would like to see all the UK area follow the same ideas, if we can.

Examples of the patronym first element would also be useful in one place. For instance I had google up "nic" the other day.

re: What do you want to say about Scottish Gaelic?

To my limited understanding, there are historical examples where both an English Scots & Gaelic Scots name was used. But I'm unclear when / where we should be looking for them, I have the impression (?) this is on movement from Highlands to Lowlands.

Justin Durand -- trying to think of an example of this -- do you mean, for instance, Rhys ap Madog ap Llewelyn? In that case the surname is ap Madog ap Llewelyn.

You don't need the "ap Llewelyn," as the tree will make it clear that the father of Rhys is Madog ap Llewelyn, but it shows up because some of the old accounts write it that way, and INDEED in the old accounts you see giant strings of names, because of course that's how it makes sense; such giant strings get put into Geni sometimes but I just break them up and make the tree.

Otherwise you can't see how to merge them.

(fun fact: sometimes you see things like "Rhirid ap Caradog," with the father Unknown. No. The father is not unknown. I know who he is. He is Caradog.)

Is it only the Welsh that gives that problem of dividing the patronymic into two pieces? I have seen, on Geni, the "ap" or the "verch" not only in the middle name field (which I think in some genealogical programs they call for, though it Makes No Sense), I've seen it in the first name field.

Rhys ap. So that everybody in Wales has a first name with two pieces, including the ap of the verch. Oh, and sometimes people capitalize the whole thing. AP. I haven't figured that one out yet.

The being confused by Welsh makes total sense to me. Putting ap and verch in all caps, nope, I don't get.

Oh, and of course, since a lot of the old accounts use "vch," or "uch" that shows up, too.

all over the board

Now, where it REALLY gets messy -- for the Welsh at least -- is when they are forced ot use surnames, so they start making things up.

But different children in a family might use different methods. So you'll have Rhys ap Lewys, for instance, and his children might be Madog Rhys, John ap Rhys, Lewys Lewys, and Ieuan Price.

Why not.

Anne, this is a problem I often see among the Scots. In a clan society it is fairly common for the real, local identifier to be an individual patronymic. So, we might find Duncan mac Iain. And he might appear in local records as Duncan mac Iain mac Angus. But, this guy is a really a MacDonald.

So, we end up with two levels of "patronymic". The first level is a real patronymic. The other is a patronymic surname.

What I've been doing is put the real patronymic in the middle name field if there is also a surname. For example:

First Name Duncan
Middle Name mac Iain
Surname: MacDonald

There is also a parallel here to the period when Scandinavians adopted their patronymics as hereditary surnames. Not exactly the same, but a similar problem.

It's very common to find, for example a man named Johan, son of Lars, son of Claes. He was born Johan Larsson, but when he adopted a permanent surname it might have been Johan Larsson or it might have been Johan Claesson. Often depending on his age and whether his father was still alive. And often different siblings went different directions.

Ah, yes.

The clan system affects the names. So that even if you don't have what the English think of as a surname, you have a clan identification, which is often different from your patronymic.

That didn't happen in Wales.

In Wales, it was REALLY clear that you were descended from Rhodri Mawr, or Elystan Glodrydd, but it wasn't ever part of your name, EXCEPT in the recitation of the Giant LIne of the Names of the Fathers.

Indeed, I've seen Welsh medieval people referred to as "of the Tribe Glodrydd," etc, for instance, but it's been done by people outside of the system -- it's more how the English think of it.

Please write up the Welsh, Anne. If not you, who? :-)

I shall!

:-)