Our ancestors & kinsfolk
Go to page
Monday, 18 April 2016
The importance of family names
When I had my children, the thought never entered my mind to name them after their grandparents or other ancestors. As young people, we tend to consider our parents' names 'old-fashioned' and aim to give our own children something contemporary or popular.
But I'm talking about family names here - surnames. When my children were born, I had no real interest in family history and knew nothing of my ancestors beyond my grandparents. I did know my maternal grandmother had the same first and middle names as her mother, and that her first name is my mother’s middle name. I also knew my paternal grandmother had the middle name Guthrie and as a kid I thought it odd, a girl having a name like that. It never occurred to me it was a family name but then again I didn’t dwell on it.
Margaret Guthrie Kidd was named for her great-grandmother, Margaret Guthrie; I know that now. She was born in New Zealand to a Scottish father and a New Zealand-born daughter of Scottish immigrants. The Scots had the right idea. Time and again I’ve seen maiden names as middle names.
I constantly drop family information into conversations I have with family; I can’t help it. My kids aren’t really interested – as I wasn’t – but I’m hoping some of it will sink in. When my brother’s partner was pregnant, I suggested they think of giving the baby a family name as a middle name, as I regretted not doing so with mine. Their child now carries a maternal family name as a middle name.
One of my grandchildren has a grandmother’s maiden name as a middle name. Another grandchild’s middle name is a blend of my first name and the first name of a great-grandfather. When she grows up she’ll wonder at that name and I hope be proud she carries something of me.
I want to tell people: honour your ancestors by remembering them. If you’re a female, don’t let your female family names disappear. Consider giving a child your maiden name as a middle or even first name; give a child a family name that belonged to a great or great-great-grandparent.
One day that child will grow up. One day that child will think about their names and wonder why they were chosen or created. One day they will be proud to carry the name of an ancestor.
But I'm talking about family names here - surnames. When my children were born, I had no real interest in family history and knew nothing of my ancestors beyond my grandparents. I did know my maternal grandmother had the same first and middle names as her mother, and that her first name is my mother’s middle name. I also knew my paternal grandmother had the middle name Guthrie and as a kid I thought it odd, a girl having a name like that. It never occurred to me it was a family name but then again I didn’t dwell on it.
Margaret Guthrie Kidd was named for her great-grandmother, Margaret Guthrie; I know that now. She was born in New Zealand to a Scottish father and a New Zealand-born daughter of Scottish immigrants. The Scots had the right idea. Time and again I’ve seen maiden names as middle names.
I constantly drop family information into conversations I have with family; I can’t help it. My kids aren’t really interested – as I wasn’t – but I’m hoping some of it will sink in. When my brother’s partner was pregnant, I suggested they think of giving the baby a family name as a middle name, as I regretted not doing so with mine. Their child now carries a maternal family name as a middle name.
One of my grandchildren has a grandmother’s maiden name as a middle name. Another grandchild’s middle name is a blend of my first name and the first name of a great-grandfather. When she grows up she’ll wonder at that name and I hope be proud she carries something of me.
I want to tell people: honour your ancestors by remembering them. If you’re a female, don’t let your female family names disappear. Consider giving a child your maiden name as a middle or even first name; give a child a family name that belonged to a great or great-great-grandparent.
One day that child will grow up. One day that child will think about their names and wonder why they were chosen or created. One day they will be proud to carry the name of an ancestor.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Does loyalty count for nothing?
With the impending changes to British laws and the repercussions for Kiwis on their OEs, is it time to re-think our relationship with Britain? With the bias against Kiwis in Australia, is it time to re-evaluate our relationship with our nearest neighbour? Does loyalty count for nothing now? Are we just "too soft" when it comes to our relationships with our "sister" countries?
Debate rages presently about changing our country's flag. Next month we will choose to either adopt the new design or retain the current flag. The only difference really, is replacement of the Union Jack with the silver fern. We appear to like the blue representing the southern ocean and the stars representing the Southern Cross - we all seem to relate to them. The debate appears to be over having the Union Jack as part of our flag. None of the options selected for a new flag included it. Yes, we have a colonial history and many if not most of us have English, Welsh, Scots and/or Irish blood - but no, we are not British. Yes, we have genes, language, laws, structure and history in common - but no, we are not British.
What have we done to deserve this shoddy treatment by Britain? Was standing in front, behind and side by side through two world wars not loyal? It was happy then to consider us "one of them". Does Britain now consider us too much removed to be considered related? If so, why should we retain their flag as part of ours?
BUT - We may not be British but Britain is part of us, like it or not. I for one wouldn't exist but for my British ancestors, hardy immigrants all of them. Perhaps those immigrants were different, not like the average Brit. Maybe they were ready to cut ties.
Kiwis in Australia get a rough deal compared with other immigrants. Big sister Australia likes to belittle and ridicule little Aotearoa. Australians in New Zealand are treated much better. Once again, we show a loyalty to our shared history and genes, a loyalty not reciprocated.
Are we scared to stand on our own, is that why there's fear about letting go of some of our past? Loyalty appears to count for nothing, so maybe we have nothing to lose.
Debate rages presently about changing our country's flag. Next month we will choose to either adopt the new design or retain the current flag. The only difference really, is replacement of the Union Jack with the silver fern. We appear to like the blue representing the southern ocean and the stars representing the Southern Cross - we all seem to relate to them. The debate appears to be over having the Union Jack as part of our flag. None of the options selected for a new flag included it. Yes, we have a colonial history and many if not most of us have English, Welsh, Scots and/or Irish blood - but no, we are not British. Yes, we have genes, language, laws, structure and history in common - but no, we are not British.
What have we done to deserve this shoddy treatment by Britain? Was standing in front, behind and side by side through two world wars not loyal? It was happy then to consider us "one of them". Does Britain now consider us too much removed to be considered related? If so, why should we retain their flag as part of ours?
BUT - We may not be British but Britain is part of us, like it or not. I for one wouldn't exist but for my British ancestors, hardy immigrants all of them. Perhaps those immigrants were different, not like the average Brit. Maybe they were ready to cut ties.
Kiwis in Australia get a rough deal compared with other immigrants. Big sister Australia likes to belittle and ridicule little Aotearoa. Australians in New Zealand are treated much better. Once again, we show a loyalty to our shared history and genes, a loyalty not reciprocated.
Are we scared to stand on our own, is that why there's fear about letting go of some of our past? Loyalty appears to count for nothing, so maybe we have nothing to lose.
Saturday, 25 July 2015
Friday, 19 June 2015
Genetic link between modern Europeans and native Americans
Europe's family tree has a THIRD branch: Link in genetic connection between modern Europeans and native Americans found.
Article
Article
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Thursday, 26 March 2015
Sunday, 7 September 2014
Monday, 4 August 2014
Early New Zealand: interesting reading -
Thor in the South Pacific
NZ history questioned -- The Ruamahanga European skull
Thor in the South Pacific
NZ history questioned -- The Ruamahanga European skull
Friday, 11 July 2014
What makes a politician?
What makes a person want to be a politician? Is it the prestige, the power, the opportunity to improve things, or is it just about money? Governments the world over seem to be much of a muchness. Deceit, bullying, arrogance and smugness appear to be traits of some politicians in every government. Who do these people think they are and why do we let them get away with it? They are not our bosses, not our owners. They're supposed to work for us. We pay them, so why don't we have a say when it comes to perks and pay-rises?
In the "civilised world", governments are always speaking of cut-backs and down-sizing to try and save the country money, yet they don't cut back or down-size their own salaries, perks and pensions. They're quite happy to take their twice or thrice-yearly pay increases, regardless of whether or not they're earned or deserved. They certainly don't need them; how could they when they pay for literally nothing? The increases aren't small either - usually over 10 per cent. While they take that with one hand, with the other they decree wage earners will get only one or two per cent a year because "times are hard" and people "must manage their money better" and "learn to economise". Sure, they know people are struggling - well, they say they do - but they're hardly in touch with the real world. When one's getting several hundred thousand dollars a year plus perks (meaning we the tax-payers pay for their accommodation, cars, petrol, air travel, clothes, etc. etc.) they lose touch. When you don't pay your own power or fuel bills, why on earth would sky-rocketing power or petrol prices affect you? From that lofty position it would be easy to make the assumption the great struggling unwashed public don't know how to manage their money.
I'm sure there must be "good" politicians, people who went into the game because they want to do good, and the salary and everything that goes with it is just the icing on the cake. I'm also enough of a realist to know one can't change things without jumping through hoops and you just can't jump when your ankles are tied. It must be incredibly frustrating at times, seeing how things could be fixed but being unable to do anything about it.
Okay yes, constantly being interviewed and attending meetings would be tiring. Yes, the hours are long and one's in the public eye, every grimmace, facial tic and smirk reported upon. But gee, working days are long for everyone. Working one or more jobs to make ends meet, with all the travel and child-care costs that entails, missing out on your kids' special days because you have to work or sleep, knowing the onus is on you to pay for everything - that's tiring. Struggling is tiring.
Our ancestors were miners, sawyers, agricultural labourers, blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, soldiers; they knew what hard work was. They emigrated to make a better life for their families. Far as I know, not a one of them ever ventured into politics. Who'd want to be a politician?
In the "civilised world", governments are always speaking of cut-backs and down-sizing to try and save the country money, yet they don't cut back or down-size their own salaries, perks and pensions. They're quite happy to take their twice or thrice-yearly pay increases, regardless of whether or not they're earned or deserved. They certainly don't need them; how could they when they pay for literally nothing? The increases aren't small either - usually over 10 per cent. While they take that with one hand, with the other they decree wage earners will get only one or two per cent a year because "times are hard" and people "must manage their money better" and "learn to economise". Sure, they know people are struggling - well, they say they do - but they're hardly in touch with the real world. When one's getting several hundred thousand dollars a year plus perks (meaning we the tax-payers pay for their accommodation, cars, petrol, air travel, clothes, etc. etc.) they lose touch. When you don't pay your own power or fuel bills, why on earth would sky-rocketing power or petrol prices affect you? From that lofty position it would be easy to make the assumption the great struggling unwashed public don't know how to manage their money.
I'm sure there must be "good" politicians, people who went into the game because they want to do good, and the salary and everything that goes with it is just the icing on the cake. I'm also enough of a realist to know one can't change things without jumping through hoops and you just can't jump when your ankles are tied. It must be incredibly frustrating at times, seeing how things could be fixed but being unable to do anything about it.
Okay yes, constantly being interviewed and attending meetings would be tiring. Yes, the hours are long and one's in the public eye, every grimmace, facial tic and smirk reported upon. But gee, working days are long for everyone. Working one or more jobs to make ends meet, with all the travel and child-care costs that entails, missing out on your kids' special days because you have to work or sleep, knowing the onus is on you to pay for everything - that's tiring. Struggling is tiring.
Our ancestors were miners, sawyers, agricultural labourers, blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, soldiers; they knew what hard work was. They emigrated to make a better life for their families. Far as I know, not a one of them ever ventured into politics. Who'd want to be a politician?
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Friday, 18 April 2014
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Monday, 24 March 2014
Grammar, spelling and punctuation - Are they still important?
When I was at primary school in the 1960s, every morning we recited the timestables from 2x1 through to 12x12. All these years later, the answers still come automatically to me.
Once a week we had a "spelling bee" and it was a matter of pride to move up to the next level book. Punctuation and grammar were given the same attention. How it annoys me now on social media to see misuse of apostrophes and capital letters, not to mention misspellings. The most common and annoying error appears to be "your" for you+are (you're). Some people think every word ending in s must have an apostrophe before the s. Have they never stopped to think of the actual purpose of an apostrophe?
I guess if one can make sense of the sentence, it doesn't really matter about spelling or punctuation but grammar is probably more important. Grammatical errors can be quite humorous; they're common in newspapers and magazines these days, not to mention on television. "Stupidness", "ambitiousness"? We know what is meant but they are so wrong.
Though I could spell and punctuate relatively well during my childhood, my grammar was less than perfect. One example was saying "should of" rather than "should have"; another was a "k" at the end of words ending with "thing", e.g. "something" became "somethink". I wasn't even aware I was doing it. Once my errors were pointed out to me, I became very conscious of the way I spoke and that in turn made me aware of how others speak.
It's not as if I don't still make the odd grammatical error but I'm careful with how I word things. It's a similar thing with spelling; I can usually tell when I spell an unfamiliar word incorrectly. I'm not happy with, "Oh, it doesn't matter; people will know what I mean." I have to make sure I get it right; it's the perfectionist in me.
It's said the English language is a difficult one to learn. I don't know how people learning English as a second or third language can get to grips with it when it confuses those that are "born into it". Language is a constantly evolving entity, I understand that, but surely punctuation was created for a reason? Or was it? Who first used punctuation and capital letters and what made them do so?
Perhaps young people today have decided it's no longer important. With "text speak", are vowels even necessary? Is language going to become a blend of letters and numbers; will numbers replace apostrophes? Texting is a nightmare for "oldies" like me.
L8ers
Once a week we had a "spelling bee" and it was a matter of pride to move up to the next level book. Punctuation and grammar were given the same attention. How it annoys me now on social media to see misuse of apostrophes and capital letters, not to mention misspellings. The most common and annoying error appears to be "your" for you+are (you're). Some people think every word ending in s must have an apostrophe before the s. Have they never stopped to think of the actual purpose of an apostrophe?
I guess if one can make sense of the sentence, it doesn't really matter about spelling or punctuation but grammar is probably more important. Grammatical errors can be quite humorous; they're common in newspapers and magazines these days, not to mention on television. "Stupidness", "ambitiousness"? We know what is meant but they are so wrong.
Though I could spell and punctuate relatively well during my childhood, my grammar was less than perfect. One example was saying "should of" rather than "should have"; another was a "k" at the end of words ending with "thing", e.g. "something" became "somethink". I wasn't even aware I was doing it. Once my errors were pointed out to me, I became very conscious of the way I spoke and that in turn made me aware of how others speak.
It's not as if I don't still make the odd grammatical error but I'm careful with how I word things. It's a similar thing with spelling; I can usually tell when I spell an unfamiliar word incorrectly. I'm not happy with, "Oh, it doesn't matter; people will know what I mean." I have to make sure I get it right; it's the perfectionist in me.
It's said the English language is a difficult one to learn. I don't know how people learning English as a second or third language can get to grips with it when it confuses those that are "born into it". Language is a constantly evolving entity, I understand that, but surely punctuation was created for a reason? Or was it? Who first used punctuation and capital letters and what made them do so?
Perhaps young people today have decided it's no longer important. With "text speak", are vowels even necessary? Is language going to become a blend of letters and numbers; will numbers replace apostrophes? Texting is a nightmare for "oldies" like me.
L8ers
Friday, 27 December 2013
Mother's diet during pregnancy alters baby's DNA
According to researchers, a mother's diet during pregnancy can alter the DNA of her child and increase the risk of obesity.
Article
Article
'Memories' pass between generations
Studies done on animals suggest behaviour can be affected by events in previous generations that have been passed on through a form of genetic memory.
Article
Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)