kerrand
08-10-16, 15:53
Scottish clan sites love to claim that everyone in a clan is descended from a single family and hence carry the family name. This seems unlikely to me.
For example, the first Ker (or Kerr) recorded in Scotland was in about 1250 or so (apparently descended from a de Ker who was a Norman who came over with WIlliam the Conqueror). Are all Kerrs descended from this family or (as seems more logical) did some of their tenants just take the name? Does anyone know of statistical or popultation studies which have looked at this kind of thing?
Between 1650 and 1700 there were about 3552 Kerr (and similar) births recorded in Scotland (FamilySearch.org). If I build a very naive model assuming 50% births as male and 3.5 births per family per generation and a 25 year generation time starting in 1250, curiously I get a number in the 3000-4000 range by 1700.
I know the model is very simplistic but at least it's in the same ball park. Any thoughts?
For example, the first Ker (or Kerr) recorded in Scotland was in about 1250 or so (apparently descended from a de Ker who was a Norman who came over with WIlliam the Conqueror). Are all Kerrs descended from this family or (as seems more logical) did some of their tenants just take the name? Does anyone know of statistical or popultation studies which have looked at this kind of thing?
Between 1650 and 1700 there were about 3552 Kerr (and similar) births recorded in Scotland (FamilySearch.org). If I build a very naive model assuming 50% births as male and 3.5 births per family per generation and a 25 year generation time starting in 1250, curiously I get a number in the 3000-4000 range by 1700.
I know the model is very simplistic but at least it's in the same ball park. Any thoughts?