I'm a gypsyologist AMA

[Devlesko]

Just this really, anyone interested I'll answer if I can.

I don't have one source for the names, but they should turn up on a google search.

I've tried the google machine but cannot see any reliably sourced information.

I and others use the word gypsy traveller and sometimes Romany interchangeably as whilst they have different cultures they are lumped together for race, which is fine to me.

Irish Travellers (who are Irish) are not the same race as English Romany/European Rom. Do you think it was a political decision to lump them together? And if so what was hoped to he achieved by it?

I know some people object, but if we are fighting the same battles, to me it seems fair enough.

What are the battles?

The only way I have found the culture to have become diluted is through government legislation and law.

Do you mean Romany was diluted by laws on Irish Travellers given ethnic status, apart from them being Irish?

The only way to keep the culture would be the ability to travel, as that has gone, so has most of the culture.

Yet most Gypsies did not travel and most, throughout history actually lived a settled lifestyle. Those that did travel, had a culture almost identical to (non Gypsy) itinerant agricultural labourers.

If there are any. What do you see as the differences between English itinerant agricultural labourers and English Gypsies historically

I feel Romany are treated terribly in some European countries and places like Hungary.

I agree in some cases yes

Comparatively speaking we tend to have it easier here, but when you look under the surface the discrimination and racism is still rife.

Do you have some examples or evidence of it being "rife" and how would someone know someone Enlgish is a "Gypsy" unless they told

In this respect I don't think we have successfully integrated at all. Our outcomes are still far worse than other groups. There are still the same barriers to education, healthcare.

What specific barriers are in place for access to education and access to healthcare?

@Devlesko thank you!

I've just collected names of people over time from articles, I'll see if I can find something else. I'm not very organised on the admin front, tends to hold me back, I've so many docs on here.

Definitely Romany and Irish travellers are different race, but all travellers face the same discrimination and whether it was a political move or not, I know many who are happy for us all to be lumped together. Maybe it's because we are such minorities it makes sense to come together to fight fo the same causes.
We are treated the same and have the opportunities or lack of, and similar outcomes in life.

I've just collected names of people over time from articles, I'll see if I can find something else. I'm not very organised on the admin front, tends to hold me back, I've so many docs on here.

Me too

Definitely Romany and Irish travellers are different race, but all travellers face the same discrimination and whether it was a political move or not, I know many who are happy for us all to be lumped together.

And many are not. I don't know if you remember the furore over the ridiculous programme MBFGW? The numerous campaigns on Facebook, by English Romany, to get it taken off air or at least to change the title to not include the word "Gypsy"? The numerous photos of real English Gypsy weddings, typical of any English wedding. The backlash was something to see. People get tired of being misrepresented. Tired of having to explain the difference. Tired of the same old tropes, that all gypsies are of a hive mind and all live and feel the same

Maybe it's because we are such minorities it makes sense to come together to fight fo the same causes.

I dont feel I have anything at all in common with Irish Travellers. Historically, culturally, and certainly not ethnically. Infact I can't think of any similarity at all

We are treated the same and have the opportunities or lack of, and similar outcomes in life.

I disagree

The thing is this. There was a romanticising of "Gypsy" life in the Victorian period. Happy clappy fireside camps, beautifully painted bow top caravans (a very recent invention and not exclusive to the Romany people). Women in jangly jewellery and a certain type of dress but this is a myth, or a self fulfilling way of life. Paintings, folk songs all romanticised. Life copying art.

In a similar way non Gypsy people would be nostalgic about a life in the countryside before industrialisation. The paintings in pubs for example, of an idealised country cottage, in stark contrast to urban polluted slums. Slums many Romany also settled in

I see no difference in culture between English English Gypsies and the English working class, industrial or rural

Lack of permanent address makes it difficult to access most services.
This is why many are forced into bricks n mortar.
We wouldn't have bought a house if we thought our dc would have had the same opportunities if we'd opted for a life travelling.

You never stop being a traveller if it's in your blood, there's no such thing as a settled traveller. It's one of the most frustrating myths that makes young travellers roll their eyes.

Even as a middle aged somewhat invisible woman (yes, we experience this too) I'm still worried when out. If I'm out with extended family we'll be refused in cafes, pubs, even booking a wedding reception pre covid.
No way could my ds tell the very upmarket venue his surname, they had to book it in my dil maiden name.
It's bloody disgusting.
My ds2 is proposing soon and the embarrassment of having to tell his future ils.
You should have seen the look on their faces at the venue when the name actually dawned on them.
Needless to say there were no dramas on that night or any other night. Everyone came out unscathed, but I feel sorry for my dc. Have no idea about dd, but I've told them all to be proud of who they are and whatthey achieve in life.

Flax

I agree with you about the misrepresentation, it fuels racism and discrimination.
I'm sorry you feel nothing in common with Irish travellers, I do have a line from Tipperary.
I'm also sorry that you are tired of having to explain the difference.

There probably isn't much difference from working class English apart from the traditional aspect. But there are traditional families that aren't travellers, too. It depends on your mindset really.

Lack of permanent address makes it difficult to access most services.

You need an address. How else would the services, schools, medical, etc, be able to keep track of you?

This is why many are forced into bricks n mortar.

The vast majority of Romany people already live in bricks and mortar and have done for some time.

We wouldn't have bought a house if we thought our dc would have had the same opportunities if we'd opted for a life travelling.

So you do live in a house

You never stop being a traveller if it's in your blood,

Not really

there's no such thing as a settled traveller.

I disagree and anyone can be "a traveller". All you need are wheels and hey ho!, you're a traveller. New age, Irish or whatever.

The most Gypsy family, by heritage/intermarrige, I know have owned the same farm for 200 years. Are they less Gypsy?

There is a difference between being of Romany heritage and being a "traveller" and there is nothing special or mysterious about any of it

It's one of the most frustrating myths that makes young travellers roll their eyes.

What is?

Even as a middle aged somewhat invisible woman (yes, we experience this too) I'm still worried when out. If I'm out with extended family we'll be refused in cafes, pubs, even booking a wedding reception pre covid.

But the names of English Romany are also everyday English names. How would a venue know you are any different, unless you announce it to them?

No way could my ds tell the very upmarket venue his surname, they had to book it in my dil maiden name.

Again how would they know by your name. The most common English Gypsy name is Smith

It's bloody disgusting.
My ds2 is proposing soon and the embarrassment of having to tell his future ils.

?

You should have seen the look on their faces at the venue when the name actually dawned on them.

How did they know?

Needless to say there were no dramas on that night or any other night. Everyone came out unscathed, but I feel sorry for my dc. Have no idea about dd, but I've told them all to be proud of who they are and whatthey achieve in life

Well yes but it depends how you present yourself l. I dont mention it to anyone. Not because I'm ashamed or fear discrimination but It's just not important to me. I see English Gypsy culture now as a Victorian age manufactured culture. It's not based in the real life 9f my ancestors. I'm English and that's my culture now. Just as it was for my ancestors. Who I think were very typical of English Gypsies who moved from rural to industrial in the 19th and 20th century. Just like millions of other people did

Romany originate from India, although this is apparent in most DNA there are those recently arguing the origins are Egypt.

It's a bit more complicated than that. In the late 18th and early 19th century linguists noticed that some of the words used by European Gypsies were of Indian origin. They concluded, correctly, that the origins must be Indian, from the North West area/now known as Pakistan.

Previously it was thought that the origin of Gypsies was Egypt (hence the name "Gypsy") but this misnomer and origin is now thought to have been a medieval appeal by the Gypsies themselves to having some kind of biblical history. A way of being accepted by Christian Europe as being a biblical "lost tribe". Clever because it ensured safe passage for the people. It was a way of being accepted but it wasn't true

The language when broken down is certainly interesting and definitely concludes the origins as Indian

Yes but the problem is that much of this English slang we have now (pahni = water for example) it's hard to tell if this came from Gypsises or from colonialism. For example sailors bringing the slang words back here from the colonies or from actual Gypsies themselves. It's probably a mixture of the 2

Flax

I can see you have different experiences and opinions to me, maybe you'd think differently if you'd travelled.

I've studied the language origins, but don't profess to know a lot. I would love to have learned but another part of the culture that went.

I can assure you I don't present myself as anything that I'm not. Racism has nothing to do with how you present yourself, you can't really think this.

I totally agree that not everyone can be a traveller, that is why new age travellers are not recognised as part of a race or traveller culture.

I think the experiences of someone still on the road will be much different to Romany who have adopted a gauja culture.
I know this having experienced both, less bricks n mortar, but covid doesn't make it worth it. Not like we have any work to go to.

I don't really understand this argument. It sounds like both of you are of Romany heritage but that the significance of that to your daily lived experience is not the same. But why should it be? People are different. I relate to much of what @Devlesko is saying about outrageous forms of prejudice even in situations where it barely seems credible because my DP is from Irish stock and has a very Irish name. I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't happened under my very nose, but we have been turned down and away in relation to all sorts of things, some of them quite important, when we use his name that are no problem when we use mine. It has always reminded me of years ago when a black boyfriend of mine used to make me hail cabs on the street so they would actually stop. Listening to you feels, @Flaxmeadow - and forgive me if I'm reading you wrong - like listening to a well-resourced black person with an oxbridge degree and a city career who insists there's no such thing as racial discrimination. Or a high flying woman who thinks allegations of sexism are an outmoded excuse. You only need to spend a bit of time on MN reading about the property buying and selling that goes on to ensure DCs are in the catchment of an especially desirable school to know that the educational issues for kids in a family who don't stay in one place for long are of a whole other order from what passes as the norm in most circles. I feel you are being quite disingenuous about this kind of thing, and I'm hardly an expert.

I really appreciate what @Devlesko is doing on this thread, producing quickfire realtime answers to both general and detailed questions by allcomers, which is not an easy thing to do. She has a background in research so could undoubtedly produce more nuanced answers to any of these issues if she had time to focus on one at once. But most people here can do some googling based on the signposts she's providing if they're interested to, so that's not what she's trying to do on this particular thread.

What she has done for me is provide a nudge to look in a new direction for answers about my family history, and in doing so has put me in a position to understand things I didn't understand before, which affects my identity profoundly and has been very important. That's nothing to do with a romantic 'Victorian' view of Romany culture but is to do with my personal history, which takes on new meaning when placed in the context of the wider relationship between Romany society and, for lack of a better way of putting it, conventional English C20 society.

I feel you are attacking her for not sharing your much more clinical view of Romany genes, which is a perfectly fine view of things if it's right for you, but for many of us family history is not so clinical.

None of this is to say you have not made excellent and interesting points, but it would be nice if you would not undermine her at the same time.

Fascinating threat; thank you @Devlesko & all the other contributors.

I live in an area with a lot of gypsies and over the years have acted for quite a few families (I'm a lawyer).

I am always delighted to act for the families, which is not the case in all firms. I always teach my trainees how to spot a client who can't read (not all non-readers are gypsies and not all gypsies and non-readers), as generally people training to be lawyers haven't dealt with people who can't read & I feel it is important to impress upon them that lack of education does not equal lack of intelligence

ConquestEmpireHungerPlague
- and forgive me if I'm reading you wrong - like listening to a well-resourced black person with an oxbridge degree and a city career who insists there's no such thing as racial discrimination. Or a high flying woman who thinks allegations of sexism are an outmoded excuse.

This is bizarre.

I'm not a high flyer or well resourced, far from it, or someone with an Oxbridge degree or city career. I'm working class, and unlike the OP, I'm not a home owner either. I come from a poor background

You only need to spend a bit of time on MN reading about the property buying and selling that goes on to ensure DCs are in the catchment of an especially desirable school to know that the educational issues for kids in a family who don't stay in one place for long are of a whole other order from what passes as the norm in most circles. I feel you are being quite disingenuous about this kind of thing, and I'm hardly an expert.

My point is, it's a choice to live an itinerant lifestyle. That choice does not give you, or shouldn't give you, any more rights than anyone else. Everyday ordinary agricultural labourers were sometimes itinerant, it was a career requirement, not a specific culture that came with special rights

A choice to live an itinerant lifestyle is not culture and never was. It was/ is not even a major part of Gypsy culture. The vast majority of Gypsies throughout history were not itinerant. They were settled. This is well documented.

The idea that all Gypsies traveled about all the time in bow top caravans is a modern invention. Far removed from historical fact. Even a so called Romany language is disputed as just being common slang.

There was no difference between ordinary English itinerant agricultural labourers/hawkers/peg makers/scrap metal dealers than English Gypsies of the same occupations. There was also a lot of inter-marriage between the two. So much so that Gypsies just became rural English people like anyone else

I feel you are attacking her for not sharing your much more clinical view of Romany genes, which is a perfectly fine view of things if it's right for you, but for many of us family history is not so clinical.

I take a clinical view of history yes and of genealogy. We are not our ancestors, we are modern people living in 2020. This whole "blood" business (I find it nauseating when I see "my blood" mentioned TBH) and getting emotionally involved with people who lived in a different era clouds our judgement of historical fact. Its romanticising and it does our ancestors a disservice.

but it would be nice if you would not undermine her at the same time

Fair comment. I apologise if this is how I have behaved with my questions

Loving this thread, thanks so much, @Devlesko. Utterly fascinating stuff.

Believe me I do see Flaxmeadow pov and differing opinion on some things.
I think there are several things we would be in agreement about.
It is a choice of course it is, but it's a choice that Romany and other travellers have to decide.
As I said my decision involved compromise and I think the choice was right. I still get to keep the parts of my culture that I enjoy and it does/ did until covid include singing and dancing around a campfire.
To me this isn't romantic, it's something I enjoy and always have enjoyed.
We are all different though, with different experiences and opinions.

This is bizarre. I'm not a high flyer or well resourced, far from it, or someone with an Oxbridge degree or city career. I'm working class, and unlike the OP, I'm not a home owner either. I come from a poor background

It's not bizarre. I never said you are those things. I said it was like listening to someone who etc. It's a valid comparison.

My point is, it's a choice to live an itinerant lifestyle.

No, I don't entirely think so. That's like saying it's a choice to be a prostitute. (And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that's an opinion you personally hold - it's another comparison.) Or, to put it less in stark economic terms, like saying it's a choice to go into the family firm even though you'd have preferred to do something different. Some choices can be made more freely than others.

I don't know enough to comment on most of the rest (although I doubt anyone here is dim enough to have imagined that all Romany gypsies travelled romantically around the mist-wreathed countyside in bow top caravans) but about this: - getting emotionally involved with people who lived in a different era clouds our judgement of historical fact - I think you are plain wrong. History is not clinical, nor, often, is it a matter of uncontestable 'fact'. For family history I think this goes double, as individuals are uniquely placed to interpret family history from, as it were, the inside. In other words, to speak of how much you dislike genes or 'blood' as a point of focus is to miss the point. The point is access. What is known objectively about Romany (or any other) history and culture sheds light on lived experience, which often only those with privileged, i.e. family, access can know about. Similarly, lived experience (if shared) expands what is known about an ethnic group's culture and history. For me, without going into too much identifying detail if you'll excuse me, the discovery that my paternal family was Romany, and not simply itinerant workers, sheds light on things that happened and were said that has completely recontextualised my experience of family life and how I was parented. My self-identity has shifted in a way that leaves a great many things about my life making more sense to me, and as a result, my relationship to my cultural context - by which I mean modern day, C21 British culture - is clearer and more comfortable (in some ways, less in others actually).

There is necessarily an emotional component to this but it's not even remotely a process of 'romanticising' and does no one a disservice. Not me, for sure, but also not my parents and grandparents, whose life experiences and relationships with their own social circles have been clarified for me by the simple fact of discovering they were racially different from what I had always been led to believe. I can't believe anyone really thinks this is not important.

Hi Devlesko, do you ever travel now, when you can? For example in the school holidays?

My kids made friends with some Romany kids on a campsite once. The families had houses but travelled through the summer laying hedges for farms in Suffolk.

@Devlesko, I can't find it now but did you say upthread somewhere that there's a dedicated board on MN for discussing this stuff? And did you mean Romany/Traveller culture, or genealogy more generally? I've looked but can't find anything relevant but maybe I'm misremembering what you said.

I have ancestors who were Romany, the Elliott and Gray families who roamed Lincolnshire. I've had my DNA tested, what marker do I look for to confirm?

For me, without going into too much identifying detail if you'll excuse me, the discovery that my paternal family was Romany, and not simply itinerant workers, sheds light on things that happened and were said that has completely recontextualised my experience of family life and how I was parented. My self-identity has shifted in a way that leaves a great many things about my life making more sense to me, and as a result, my relationship to my cultural context - by which I mean modern day, C21 British culture - is clearer and more comfortable (in some ways, less in others actually

That you might, or might not, have discovered some English Romany in your family is not the point. The point I keep making is that English Romany "culture" is no different from English rural culture, more specifically the culture or lifestyle of an ordinary itinerant agricultural labourer. There is no difference to "shift away" from. The Romany have been recorded in England for approximately 600 or 700 years but these original people back then were a tiny proportion of the labouring class who very quickly became "English".

There is necessarily an emotional component to this but it's not even remotely a process of 'romanticising' and does no one a disservice. Not me, for sure, but also not my parents and grandparents, whose life experiences and relationships with their own social circles have been clarified for me by the simple fact of discovering they were racially different from what I had always been led to believe. I can't believe anyone really thinks this is not important.

But they would not be significantly "racially" different" (whatever that means) Statements like "I'm 50% Romany" do not make sense in this part if Europe.

The basic history of the migraton is this

Around a 1000 years ago a group of people, of North West Indian heritage, migrated into the Balkans area and settled there. Places now known as Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, former Yugoslavia area, Slovakia. Over time there was some admixture with local people. But these people retained, and still do, much of their DNA heritage. These are the Rom/Roma

Over time some of them migrated further into Europe, Spain, France, Italy, England, but these people very much mixed with the local populations, especially in England.

In England, unlike in the Balkans, they were only a tiny proportion of the general population and became Anglicised very quickly, taking on English rural traditions, language/slang and surnames. There is a lot of local admixture in the DNA, much more than in a country like Romania or Bulgaria (which still have significant Gypsy populations). In other words, the English Romany are by now English. What you have to remember is that we see the English census of Romany, what we are seeing is a diluted DNA and centuries of intermarriage with local rural people, who had also often lived an itinerant lifestyle as well. You cannot tell by surnames if someone is Romany because those surnames are very common English surnames anyway. Just because someone is named Smith, or Grey, or Brinckley or whatever, and was an agricultural labourer moving around, it does not mean that they are a Romany Gypsy.

This admixture and intermarriage in England is well documented and one of the earliest records of this is in the Winchester Confessions 1615. I have a hard copy of this and can post more detail if anyone would like. Its fascinating because it shows very early (1615) assimilation, intermarriage and integration with local people

books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Winchester_Confessions_1615_1616.html?id=DSNYAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Going off the specific topic a bit sorry, but I completely agree with @ConquestEmpireHungerPlague that there is inevitably an emotional element to genealogy and that there is nothing wrong with that. I think that many (most?) humans have a need to know about their roots - that is exactly why sites like Ancestry and tv programmes on the subject are so popular. Obviously its a lot more complex than the simple Mendelian genetics that most of us learned in school, but I think you do see traits, both physical and personality wise that run in families. My DH recently discovered that he has relatives on the other side of the world that nobody knew about (long and rather scandalous story) and last year we met them. The similarities in physical appearance, mannerisms, interests and abilities between my DH and his similarly aged 2nd or 3rd cousin (i never quite worked it out) were striking, and within hours it was like they had been friends for life. I don't think that's coincidence.
And our ancestors life experiences do influence us. Some of it is purely behavioural. For instance the way we were parented probably influenced the way we parent, and our own children will be similarly influenced. But there is increasing scientific evidence that the genome is not static, and the way genes are expressed is influenced by environmental factors. I don't claim any expertise in epigenetics but I have been doing some reading on the subject recently.I did do some genetics as part of my degree, but even so, the science is way over my head, but basically the idea is that our environment and life experiences actually change the way our genes work, and that these changes can then be passed on to future generations. There is work that seems to corroborate this theory in both physical and psychological fields.
So whilst it is a highly complex field, and I don't really buy into the stereotypes that you sometimes heat, like someone with Spanish ancestry is going to be a better classical guitarist than someone who doesn't, or that those with a Romany background will be able to foresee the future, I do think that we are all, at least in part, a product not only of the DNA our ancestors have given us, but also of their experiences. So it is interesting to know more about those as it may give us insight into ourselves.
And aside from any of that, it brings history alive if you have a connection. For instance, my children all got a lot more interested in their school lessons about WW1 after I had shown them photos and the war records of my grandfathers and great uncles because it brought home to them that it happened to real people, who they are connected to, who looked like them. Yes, its emotional but is that bad? Humans are emotional beings after all.

Conquest

Yes, there's a Family History board on here, can't remember where it is, but I don't see it active very often.
I'm not pushing you or anyone else as I know it's a very personal decision but if anyone wants to join the fb group I mention, well, the friendliest I will step away from it for a while to protect anonymity.
Obviously just tell me you've joined first. It's no problem for me, I use other groups and sometimes I'm busy working anyway.
The main group is Romany Ancestry UK. They are a lovely friendly bunch, and you'll just have to say which family name, to join. It's a closed group.

DrYang

With those names you don't need to confirm but you may have markers like Asia, Persia, perhaps something like Tajikistan, then Mediterranean or East European.
It varies tbh, several of my family including ds2 have Spanish, I have Italian and no Spanish at all.
My ds2 and one of my first cousins have just European and none of the usual associated Romany markers like Asia or Persia.
There's no mistaking we are from the same family, they just skipped that gene.

If anyone has done a DNA test and uploaded it to Gedmatch (some don't trust this) so fair enough, I do as i don't have anything to lose.
If you join a group and post your results, you'll be talking to live relations, some distant some could be closer.

A bit of further info on my ancestry, I am descendent from John & Jemima Elliott - on 3 different branches because of the inter-marriages going on! It's a right mess on my tree

I am 95% Irish/Scottish and 5% south east Asian, so I think that fits with my lineage.

My results are on Gedmatch, and Ive linked to quite a few Romany descendants on the Facebook pages through this.