First Christmas I am doing a bit of research for a family friend’s lineage, at least as much as one can do with Ancestry.com. Part of this is inspired by the fact that one of the sons claims Scottish heritage, bought (online) and wears a tartan in this honor.

So, in my research thus far, I have hit a roadblock with the paternal side of things (circa 1808) and can’t get back any further than that. Branching off to the maternal side during the same generation, I was able to trace back a lineage to (potentially) Dutch origin, but no Scottish. On the full maternal side (Williams) they have apparently found Scottish decent, but I am unsure of whether it was pa/maternal. I’m assuming this is where he is claiming the Scottish ancestry, but he is wearing a "Brooks" (full paternal) tartan.

I have questions to go along with this:

1. Is there a registered or historical reference to a "Brooks" tartan? I havent been able to find any.

2. Can one officially claim a full Scottish heritage from a distant maternal line or does it have to come from the paternal side?

3. The origin of the name Brooks, historically.

I know these are broad strokes, but Im clueless with the Scottish side of the house; and I know this stems into the genaology side a little..sorry bout that.

In response to your number 3 question, regarding the origin of the surname "Brooks," Bardsley’s Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames states:

"Brook, Brooke, Brookes, Brooks.—Local, ‘at the brook,’ one who lived by the brook-side.  Common to all parts of England, and is especially one of the great local surnames in Yorkshire.  The s is customary in these short spotnames; cf. Briggs, Styles.  Possible it is the patronymc s, as in Jones, Williams, &c.; of this I cannot be sure."

David

Snyder;90828 wrote:

1. Is there a registered or historical reference to a "Brooks" tartan? I havent been able to find any.

There is a Brooke tartan in the Scottish Register of Tartans, in two slightly different setts but it is considered to be Irish in origin. See:

http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tartanDetails.aspx?ref=380

and

http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tartanDetails.aspx?ref=381

Snyder;90828 wrote:

2. Can one officially claim a full Scottish heritage from a distant maternal line or does it have to come from the paternal side?

I have no idea what a "full Scottish heritage" means, unless it means that every single ancestor of every single ancestor can be traced to Scotland forever (in which case he’d probably be a first). It sounds like something peddled by various clan societies and other bodies. If the question is whether he can/should wear the kilt, everyone can/should wear it, and most Scots aren’t too fussed with what tartan you wear either.

Snyder;90828 wrote:

3. The origin of the name Brooks, historically.

Brooke is very rare as a Scottish surname, though Black’s "The Surnames of Scotland" does list a 15th century Bruke in Aberdeen. I’m from that part of Scotland and I can’t say that I ever heard of someone local of that surname so it may have died out there. If not the English Brook(es) as mentioned by David, it might be a mangled form of Burke, but that takes you to Ireland more than Scotland.

James

James, I wonder if he means like I do. My example is I have Native-Irish and Cambro-Irish on my dad’s side (McGough, which has been changed a bit and Hyde) and Native-Irish and Hispano-Irish on my mom’s side (Meskel and O’Connell y Pacheco). Now clearly there’s a Spanish link and an Old English link. But, I consider them both Irish. So maybe he means like that where some other ethnicity is there but is related to Scotland? I don’t know though. Just thinking out loud.

Donn is pretty much spot on.

In the example I am dealing with now, the family name is Brooks and they claim Scottish heritage…complete with the "brooks tartan" and embrace all things Scottish. The problem is, the only Scot blood they have is from the 4th great grandmothers, 2nd great grandmothers line. This is on the paternal side.

On the maternal side, its irish (blackaby). I haven’t seen the lineage from this line, but that’s what I am told.

So, the family claims scottish even though its diluted through centuries of breeding. Part of my question is…how would one officially claim the scottish heritage with this disconnection. If the name of the scottish blood is wallace (original I know), how would the brooks represent this heritiage? Can they wear the wallace tartan since they are decendents?

The whole thing has been made moot because I was able to traced the paternal line back to yorkshire to a small noble family 600 years ago (de la brook). Granted that’s trusting ancestry.com.

Don’t know your brother or what documentation he may (or may not) have found, so I’ll take a wild (but educated) guess that someone—your brother, some other relative, a shopkeeper, or someone at a clan tent at some fair—looked up "Brook(s)" in one of the myriad lists of Scottish clans & "septs" and - Eureka!"—they found it.  This sort of instant Scottish "ancestry" is IMO best viewed as a fun game to be enjoyed but not taken all that seriously—Brigadoonery for fun and (for the tartan merchants) profit.

I’m not at home so can’t check any of the sept listings I have (a small subset of the published sept universe) to see if, indeed,"Brook(s)" is listed as a sept (essentially an affiliated family or sub-clan) of MacWhatsis.  If so, it’s likely that someone pointed to the MacW tartan & said "this is the one for Brooks."

As to the reliability of sept lists, all you can say is that (assuming the compiler of a particular sept list was acting in good faith, not just looking to sell off a few odd lots of random tartan cloth) some record was found showing someone of that name having some historical connection with the mighty MacW’s—maybe long-standing and close, maybe brief and in passing.

Another possibility is that someone named Brook(s) has, in relatively recent times, designed & registered a new tartan in that name.  If so, and assuming it wasn’t registered as a private tartan for one particular individual or immediate family, then wear it with pride—but realizing that, like newly assumed arms, it’s not a design handed down from the mists of antiquity.  (My wife’s family has done this, and take considerable pride in their tartan as a symbol of family identity and general Scottish heritage.)

Hopefully this all isn’t too uncharitable an explanation.

I know for a fact they were granted at the Ren faire for the low price of $39.95 and came with a printed sheet. When they were purchased by the son, he was told they was his without question. He was clueless to the legitimacy issues and kind of blew it off…as I had just ruined his family history. No one had looked to find out where they came from, just trusted some guy in a booth.

Michael F. McCartney;90945 wrote:

As to the reliability of sept lists, all you can say is that (assuming the compiler of a particular sept list was acting in good faith, not just looking to sell off a few odd lots of random tartan cloth) some record was found showing someone of that name having some historical connection with the mighty MacW’s—maybe long-standing and close, maybe brief and in passing.

Exactly—as you say, this is the best case situation.  If you look on any list of septs, you’ll find Baxter listed as a sept of MacMillan.  Now baxter is simply the Scottish word for baker.  According to legend, some time in the dim and distant past, a younger son of a MacMillan chief eluded enemies who were pursuing by ducking into a castle bakery and pretending to be one of the staff.  His descendants were known (in anglicized form) as MacBaxters, sons of the baker.  Or Baxter for short.

There are, it seems, people named Baxter who can trace their ancestor back to this son of the chief, and who are therefore as much MacMillans by blood as the present chief himself, but who bear the name of Baxter.

But that hardly means that everyone with the occupational surname of Baxter is a MacMillan, even though the sept lists would make you think so.

As a trained librarian might say, "Let’s shelve this book alphabetically under the name of the author, raher than a Library of Congress or Dewey decimal call number…"

(Actually they generally don’t know enough about the topic to make this call, so the books are usually filed with a call number, but if they did…)