I recently used ancestry.com to discover that I am the 20th grandson of King Robert I of Scotland, or at least the records on this site say I am. What I don't understand is why in the mid-1400s my family's surname changes from Stewart (the royal family of Scotland) to Cash (my grandparents' surname.) The records say the father of Thomas Cash was James Stewart, meaning Thomas's surname should remain Stewart because it was his father's surname. Did ancestry.com supply me with false information or am I missing something?

During that time period ( and even today in many countries)children only get the father's surname if born in wedlock or are acknowledged by the father as their child.

If Thomas Cash's mother's surname was Cash you can bet that Thomas was the issue of a union that was not a marriage, or as they said then he was "baseborn"- to use a polite term.

Wikipedia says James, Thomas's "father", only had 3 sons - James, Alexander, and John. I still don't see where a Thomas Cash comes in.

I checked James II in my own database, he had four sons: James and Alexander (twins), David, and John. And, following up on one of the sources I used (The Scots Peerage) I discovered James II did have one illegitimate son, but his name was John Stewart of Sticks and Ballechin, ancestor of the Stewarts of Ballechin in Perthshire [SP 1, p. 20]. None of the sources I used on him (Complete Peerage, Scots Peerage, AR7, Burke's Peerage, et al.) showed he had an additional son, Thomas Cash--sorry.

Then, there were numerous Stewarts named James--I have 31 James Stewarts in my own database who stem from several of the Stewart branches including the Royal Stewarts. So the possibility exists he was descended from a James Stewart, just not James II. Another facet of this puzzle is that hereditary surnames were not an absolute rule in Scotland at the time and their could have been many reasons for the father and son not having the same surname. Aside from illegitimacy, it was not unheard of for one to change his surname as part of an agreement in order to inherit lands and or titles from in-laws, distant relatives, etc. Then, there were even instances where many had taken the name Stewart who were not related to any of the main Stewart branches, some having actually served a Stewart family and taken the surname of their patron. So just trying to figure this out from the evidence offered allows for many different possibilities. I'd suggest taking the information obtained from Ancestry.com and find proofs the each preceding generation was in fact the correct one. Then follow back as far as you're able to insure the line is correct or to find the correct lineage--whichever is the case.


Jim

I was wondering the same thing. I am a decendedent of thomas Cash ..My great grandmother was Julia Cah of Spartanbur South Carolina. I would appreciate any imformation on this name change.
Yhanks,
Donna

Hi!

Great site, eh???? I am thinking they need to add a couseling service once someone comes up with a shock like this....

Seriously, in about 20 generations - the same question is going to be asked about me. My Dad married my mom under an alias....thus my maiden name doesn't match HIS name.....

There can be all types of reasons why the names don't match. The only one which puts you off track of course if there was out of family adoption. But is you can get the marriages verified, the assumption is that your their kid.

I suppose in the future with all the kids born out of marriage, the only sure thing will be the DNA tests....which might change all kinds of families around!

I recently found out that I have some famous historical family too. I don't think us Americans are mentally pre-pared for it since we were pretty much taught in school that the US was founded by people running from prision or they were starving.

Actually, they now say that there were "gateway" ancestors early on in the US that came because they were younger kids of nobles who wouldn't inherit title/lands, so they came here with alot of backing in funds & education and talent to make their way and because they were better off than a starving somebody - they got to plant large familes here!

The US actually has a larger population of royals now than Britain by some estimates thru these "gateway" families.

Please do follow up and find your clan connections for Scotland!! There's a huge movement happening with new clan societies collecting the families together and many events and activities to enjoy.

Try www.electricscotland.com to find out about lots of Scottish stuff.

Verra best wishes, coz!
bonnie

I came across a similar problem in my tree which would tie me to English king, Edward IV, of the Yorkist side of the Wars of the Roses. (Brother of Richard III). But there was some kind of jump, and the only way I can see that someone made that connection was that he had a daughter named Margaret of York. Supposedly she married the ancestor of mine. The problem with that is that Margaret of York died before reaching 1 year. So I simply dismissed the connection and deleted it from my tree. However, I noticed that several other family trees have him listed, and I realize that many people just take other trees' research for granted, without questioning it. Anything that old without documentation makes me suspicious.

Oh, and there's more. I also found a connection to John Alden, of the Mayflower Compact. But, unless he left his known wife in Plymouth, went to Virginia and led a whole other life, then returned to Massachusetts, there's no way he was related.

I have done a lot of borrowing from other people's trees, but would eventually like to substantiate most of it from records. I consider the work of others as a starting point.

On Ancestry, you ALWAYS must operate under the assumption that what you glean from another public tree might just be a placeholder for that person. I use ancestry for just that reason, as a vague outline for guesses until I prove the names.

As I prove the relation, then I start adding in details, like marriage dates, all the childrens birth dates, property details, etc.

the ones with just names have not been proved at all.

And I must say, once you tie in with a royal bloodline, it is SO nice to be able to find paintings and documents online readily !

Hi, I'm a Scottish genealogist and oddly enough claim descent from the the family of King Robert the Bruce. My coat of arms, that's a real coat of arms incidentally recorded at the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh, ie. not the false rubbish found on the internet displays the chevron of the Earl's of Carrick, hinting at a link to the Bruce's.

Basically I will say this, that most Scots are related (cousins), and it is really no big deal to be descended from Robert the Bruce, the Scottish Kings, or the even the Kings of England, who readily intermarried.

Like most Scots, I am my own cousin several times, if I looked up enough lines and found common ancestors. 'Landed' families tended to marry amongst themselves.

However from the account you are looking at, it looks extremely suspicious and suggests ancestor invention on the part of someone. There is a lot of that goes on, on here, whether intentional or a plain old mistake. Sadly these mistakes are then copied into a lot of trees and fast become widespread.

I'd suggest that you put no trust in that connection, or in any trees compiled by anyone else. Do your own research wherever possible, and always ignore anything that looks doubtful or unlikely.