Grahams of Cumberland – part one

Many years ago, it was said there were more Grahams in the Carlisle phone book than Smiths.

Phone books have gone the way of the dodo, but the point remains: the surname is really common in Cumbria, and a nightmare for family historians.

Grahams of Cumberland Where to start?

There is a temptation to say ‘don’t bother – try an easier line instead’! Even if your family includes a name like Montmorancy, the chances are it was a family name, passed down by brothers to their sons and so on. Leaving you scratching your head over three Montmorancy Grahams living in the same village at the same time, with no way of telling which is your direct ancestor.

And if, like me, your known ancestor was called John…

Your best hope is wills. I did a short post on this here.

If you are lucky, the right one will confirm you are on the right track, through the names of the beneficiaries. If might include place names that will help you look back further.

However, my John Graham’s will in effect says: “I leave everything to my wife Ann.”

Luckily for me, the will of her father DOES mention specific land. And some digging, on visits to Carlisle Archives helped me trace the history of that land back. But in the case of the Grahams, only by one generation.

So, I am stuck on a John Graham, born about 1774, whose father was also called John. Dad John for sure occupied the land when little John was a child, so he was born (roughly) circa 1750.

The reiver Grahams of Cumberland and Scotland

But while it’s possibly impossible (!) to take my Grahams back before the mid-1700s, there is always that reassuring/frustrating sense that they have to be connected to the notorious border reivers.

It is recorded that by the close the 16thC, the Grahams 

‘could muster a light cavalry of around 300 men‘. 

National identity

Like most border reiver families, they were

‘a lawless people, that will be Scottish when they will, and English at their pleasure’

The border, and nations, mattered far less than self-interest! One clan might forge an alliance with another because it suited both at the time, only to be on opposing sides at some point later. ‘Allegiance’ to the English or Scottish crown was also a matter of expediency, rather than patriotism.

The clans

While families were large, and while it doesn’t take long for one progenitor to have hundreds of descendants, it should also be noted that not every member of a clan was a blood relative.

Son-in-laws could change their name to that of their father-in-law. And if their first wife died and they remarried, any children of the second union could still be called (for example) Scott – even though neither parent was a Scott by birth.

Meanwhile, some were not poor relations of the clan leaders, but families who were dependent on them and took the name to show loyalty.

The clan leaders had fortified homes (pele towers), but the Grahams weren’t all so well-off.

When 90 Grahams were listed in 1606 for transportation:

‘Six are cottingers and outlaws. Twenty-six are cottingers answerable and poor people’

And:

‘September 13, 1606. Carlisle. The Commissioners to the Earl of Salisbury. We have sent the chief Grahams to the port of Workington… We have not been able to send away fifty families, because some of the poorer sort who had yielded themselves into transportation, at the instant thereof fled, out of weariness of their bondage to their masters, the chief Grahams’

A word on tartan!

Look on any site, or in any shop, that is eager to sell you stuff based on ‘your family’ and you be invited to buy fridge magnets with ‘your coat of arms’ – just don’t fall for it. I did a post on the subject here.

But in the case of tartan – wear any pattern you like!

To explain it in a few words:

Official approval for the kilt came in 1822, when George IV wore one in Edinburgh. Tartan was a popular pattern for both belted plaid and kilts, but the idea of specific tartans being associated with particular clans is largely a Victorian invention.

BBC History Magazine.

There are five Scottish surnames on my family tree (and six reiver surnames – I am very much the descendant of a bunch of cattle thieves!).

Some of those ancestors may have taken the name, rather than being blood relatives (who knows?). But in terms of tartans, it doesn’t matter.

As one website puts it:

Q.  Can I wear tartan if I cannot find my name associated with any of those on the recognised list?
A.   Yes. Tartan is a gift that we have given to the world. The idea that a man can only wear a kilt in his own family tartan or one associated with it has given way to a more broad minded approach and most ladies are quite happy to choose tartan with the colours they like best.

I can ‘legally’ look at the tartans of four clans and feel ‘entitled’ to wear or decorate my home with whichever I like best. But I could also buy a nice stole in the Earl of St Andrews tartan – with zero connection to the earl or the location – if I simply liked the the shade of blue.

Back to the clans

The same website also makes a point about how having a surname doesn’t mean you are a blood relation of the leaders of a clan:

The surname Scott is one of the twelve commonest in Scotland where is has a long association with the Border region as well as being found frequently in the northern counties of England…There will of course be many families of the name in that area, each having no connection except that they were regarded as Scots by the southern neighbours.  

Back to the Grahams of Cumberland

There is a LOT more to be said about this lot! But not in this post.

You can read part two here.

And part three here.