I have seen several postings on the forum questioning the prevalence of some recent generations adding an L to Wash making it Walsh. I decided to make an attempt to explain why I think this has been done. Many who immigrated from foreign lands anglicized their surnames because they thought they would be better accepted in America. I don't think such a lofty idea was the goal of the Wash surname holders who changed. My three uncles Wash became Walsh because they didn't want their children to suffer the jokes and taunting that they did. They thought that quietly adding the L would stop it. My Mother who was Alice Lee Wash spoke about being taunted as a child. If you think of Wash and children you can imagine what could occur. My Grandfather who was Robert Edgar Wash all his life didn't think much of the idea but he didn't protest too loudly when his sons added the L. As for myself Wash is a perfectly fine name, Walsh too. Researchers should always beware of name varients. According to name thesaurus.com there are 1877 ways that the equivilant to Wash has been spelled. Much depends on the country of origin. Wash in many cases probably was an anglicized version of something else.