I have finally finished my update to the Haslingden Clan, having previously separated out the Radcliffe part of the old Haslingden and Radcliffe clan. Despite losing the Radcliffe part, the clan has gained in size, and is now the third largest of all the clans.
A lot of the additions are based on material sent to me by Stephen Carr, but I have expanded on these. Despite this there are many lines that could be explored further, and I have noted these in the text. If you want to develop any of these lines I would be happy to include your input. Also I would like to hear from clan members.
A number of related families appeared in Haslingden in the early 18th century, descended from the two sons of the clan founder Robert who died in 1694. I have endeavoured to fit these families together on a best fit basis, sometimes diverging from IGI pedigrees which don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Nevertheless I cannot be sure it is entirely accurate. I have written before about the problems of a small group of names being repeated. For example three Henrys born within 2 years were followed by three Henrys marrying within a couple years. There is uncertainty in assigning the correct Henry to the correct wife, but as they were all cousins to start with I am confident that all the families are part of the clan, even if the linkages might be incorrect.
By the last quarter of the 18th century the Industrial Revolution had come to Haslingden, and with it an influx of workers. It is therefore necessary to be more certain about family linkages. At the least an age at death is needed to tie a burial to an original baptism. The situation is complicated by the appearance of individuals for whom no baptism is recorded, at least on-line, but who claim to be born in Haslingden. Here I suspect the problem stems from the growth of non-conformist chapels with non-existent, or non-digitised records. Two examples of this are James, the father of John who emigrated to Utah, and is recorded in the Haslingden and Utah clan, and the father of the (in)famous Choppy Warburton.
On the other hand records do get steadily more comprehensive, providing many checks and balances for the later families. Nevertheless there are a number of families on the Haslingden Families spreadsheet on the Parishes page which are not included in this, or any other clan. I have updated the spreadsheet as I went along and this has also been republished.
Robert, the founder of the clan, came from Musbury (modern Helmshore) which is within 3 miles of Subbins, where the Edenfield clan first appeared 200 years earlier.
A link between the two clans would seem obvious, and both clans are in the Lancashire Group of clans linked by DNA. However the Haslingden clan is the only clan in the group where the original test has not been updated by SNP tests. The markers tested by the original STR tests seem quite volatile, and calculations to date common ancestors give dates that are a bit too early.
However, in all but one case the SNP tests have shown a shared SNP which is only 10 generations ago on the FTDNA Y-Tree. The exception is the Tottington clan which has a SNP that is not shared by other clan members but is dated 20 generations ago. Without the assurance of a SNP test we can’t know if the Haslingden clan is another exception, or whether it is firmly within the Lancashire Group.