Ancestry

>>2892916
From my father side as far as I know we were peasans with no fame, just plain working fellow, generation from generation of farmers in souther france.

I'm a black man named Jamal King. I'd imagine the "king" part comes from the fact that my ancestors use to be pharaohs in Egypt.

Peasants from the Rhine and East Prussia.

>>2892916
>How much can you tell about your ancestry based on where you live/your family have lived and your second name?
Without using the records you mean? Just going off assumptions given my last name and place of origin?
Well I have it easy enough. My surname is very typically local of where I was born, so either I'm from one of the very many branches of said family, which has resided in the area since the 10th century, or my family arrived here from abroad and changed our name to fit in better. It was use to take the current ruler's surname, so that would be 17th century as an approximate date of arrival.
Now I actually know about my paternal ancestry because records, but if I didn't, it would be one of these two options.

>>2893011
>without records

Yes. His argument is that his family have all been from Ireland (some from what is now Northern Ireland and many from further west) since before Thomas Clarke's time, and he reckons that a shared name of "Clarke" makes it incredibly likely that he is somehow related.

It sounds fairly reasonable; hardly a direct descendant, but probably related?

Tracking ancestry in Ireland is fucking hard anyways.

>>2892916
Depends on where you're from
The natives of America didn't have surnames so especially in the Spanish colonies lots of them share names
Irish and Scottish lived in grand clans, and people made a surname of their clan. So your friend is just another fucking plastic paddy who should drown himself in boiling beer.
Common job names like Smith, Bannister and Walker mean you were a fucking pleb and shouldn't be WEWUZZING at all because every viallge had two of you at least
Whilst aristocracy would take the name of ancestral lands 'house of hapsburg' comes from them owning Hapsburg castle in Switzerland. Due to the lack of standardisation similar names may be descended from the same person, going back to Hapsburgs it has been spelt hapsburg, Habsburg, hapsbourg, and hapsbourge.
Double barrel names come from division of family lands, typically by the king in Europe as Europe tended to have primogeniture succession, (one example is the Wittlsebachs in Bavaria being split into two branches, then the alternating branches being made electors). Double barrel would also come from bastardisation, more common in the Victorian era where a woman fucks a man, has the baby, then gets married, so because the child is a bastard to married parents they merge names as they are de jure not bastards
Going back to your friend, Clarke could be both a clan name, but also corruption of shop clerk, which surprisingly all shops had, so he can go fuck himself with a rusty spoon
Any more questions?

>>2893020
>a shared name of "Clarke" makes it incredibly likely that he is somehow related
Clarke is an occupational surname (from clericus > clerk), and it's the 32nd most common surname in Ireland, 15k people sport it right now.
Your friend is extremely unlikely to be related to the irish rebel just because he shares a surname. I mean I'm not saying he isn't, just that his argument is laughably thin. Might as well argue that all Smiths, Potters, Bakers, etc are related to each other on the same basis.

>>2893028
Sounds about right, the only reason I leant any credit to his wewuzzing is that he is actually from Ireland as is almost all of his family, with the only foreign relatives being some fags in shetland in the year 1800 or so.

>>2893020
>>2892916
As far as I know Thomas Clarke had 3 sons but none of them had children. I think your friend is fibbing.

Also as
>>2893028
Says Irish naming structures are complicated. "Clarke" isn't an Irish name, there's no Clarke Clan or Dynasty or anything because it isn't a name native to Ireland. It's an anglicised form of the name Ó Cléirigh. Thomas Clarke's ancestors, probably his grandparents given when he lived, would've changed their name from Ó Cléirigh to Clarke to fit in better.

Ó Cléirigh was variously anglicised as O'Clery, O'Cleary, Cleary, Clerry and Clarke.

>>2893047
Tell him it's more credible to be that /pol poster that thought white farmers were superior than Asian farmers because they made the food that Newton and Locke ate

>>2893050
>they wouldn't all Anglicanise when moved to america
I have a range of options of why he was wrong
Reminder that Americans thought Irish weren't white

>>2893020
Without records, Iam some German kike with big head.
With records, iam Czech with partly Slovak and Polish ancestry and no Kikes or Krauts in family at least for 5 generations.

Irish names are tricky because historically Irish people have anglicised or outright changed their names to blend in to an increasingly anglicised Irish society. It's only recently that people are starting to change their names back.

So a lot of the Clarkes in Ireland probably aren't related to each other. They're only called Clarke because their ancestors changed their name from Ó Cléirigh and Mac Óclaich and things like that.

It's hard to know when the whole area got ethnically cleansed of relations in the 20th century after many centuries.

>>2892916
>regular peasant name
>mother's also

Yeah, can't discern anything.

>>2893052
>white farmers were superior than Asian farmers because they made the food that Newton and Locke ate
What?

>>2892916
Both sides of my family were farmers from inner anatolia, my mother's side used to be pretty rich appearantly with a lot of land but my great grandfather sold everything and blew through the money.

>>2893244
>sold everything and blew through the money.
Maybe he is related to my uncle who sold fine ass XIX century rifles so he could have money for a bet that he lost