Starting Sept. 30, 2014, will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Weadock Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Weadock Dna Info Trade
Posted by: DIANE STILES (ID *****9430) Date: March 05, 2012 at 15:47:59
In Reply to: Re: Agree to Disagree by P Weadick of 73

So you say that you have Weadick lines listed on your Y DNA test results? I would love to trade info with you. I will send our access info to your email but not post on Gen Forum. I will need your log in info for that too. That sounds very promising of course.

My email address is

As for the female – I have been through this and yes there are things that are known and things that are not shown for female male to male being one. I was trying to explain that but it was lost in all of this.

I never said that I thought that Mac Morough was the basis for Mac Vaddock. I don't think that at all. I think that Uadog MIGHT be the CELTIC translation for ENGLISH Vaddock which might be an old fashioned Belgian name. That is exactly my POINT. This name seemed to appear out of nowhere. Is this possibly because it is a surname from some ancestress?

For instance, my (other family) 2 great granny on my mother's side was named at birth: “Isabella Dumont Stevens”. This was because her Aunt Isabella Ramsey Todd Dumont (herself named for another married into family, the Ramsey line of some importance in early America) married a rich and successful man named Abraham Dumont. So our “Belle” was born Isabella Dumont Stevens. She had become “Isabella Dumont Stevens Clark Taylor” by her death in the 1950's.

My point that sometimes these “important” surnames show up as given names in some form. I am wondering if that happened with Uadog/Vaddock.

Do you know as a fact that the Celtic Uadog was the first version of this name or is it just that it sounds “old”?? I am going to research if there is such an old name that might have had anything to do with the days of the Lancaster lines. I don't go by the impression that our family was of great significance politically later on than the 1100's or 1200's. However if there was a FEMALE who married into our family in the 1100's with the last name of Vaddock, that would be it.

The conclusion you speak of in O'Harts was the notes that I got on the book that seemed to say that we had a connection in the 1500's to some King Henry's son. The book didn't say that.

As for female and male lines, I can't say that I or anyone entirely understands exactly how that works. Case it point, if a female Vaddock married into our family in the 1100's or 1200's does that mean that there would be no representation in the male to male DNA test about that? If so then you wouldn't show that either. But I don't know not do I claim to. Your guess is as good as mine there.

Another point that I have been trying to make is that if it is Bhadach or Uadog (Celtic) or Vaddock (English) the only thing that matters is which name came FIRST. The others could be only translations of the other name.

As I said, I don't know how or even IF any Belgian showed up in your male to male considering this could have been added by a Mac Morough wife.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network