I've been following some genealogy discussions on mailing lists recently
and noticed that many genealogists fall into the trap of taking sides
on a question - sides that are emphatically one way or another, with no
middle ground or room for a "Maybe...."One of the discussions started over a seemingly simple question -- were there naming patterns for children in the 1800s in [fill in blank with any country].
Subscribers began to jump in with their opinions - all either YES or NO with reasons or rationale or examples to support their YES or NO stance.
But no one jumped in with "MAYBE.... SOMETIMES... YES BUT...."
Let's get real! Naming patterns existed.
Were they identical in all cultures? No
Were they identical in all centuries? No.
Were they always used? No.
It's easy to forget that our ancestors were living breathing people, just as we are. They fought, they loved, they cried, they laughed, they had good days, they had bad days, and so on.
Even if there are established naming patterns that are used 99.9% of the time (as is the case with the Dutch who settled New Netherland, now New York in 1600s) --- as researchers we must keep an open mind as to whether or not the customs might not have been followed
Maybe *your* ancestor fought with his father or mother and vowed to never name a child after him or her.
Maybe *your* ancestor was a free spirit and loved the name Lancelot even though the first born male in her family had been called James for the last 10 generations
Maybe your ancestor wanted to cozy up to his rich great uncle so he named his first born son after that person instead of his father.... and gave his second born his father's name.
If you find 7 children in a family and 6 are named after known family members (paternal grandparents, maternal grandparents, aunts, uncles...) then there is a good chance that the 7th was also named after a family member - but it's not guaranteed, they might have named that child after a good friend - or an important contemporary person or a benefector.
On the opposite side of the fence, you may be trying to find parents' names. You spot what looks like a naming pattern of children which fits with the parents you are fairly confident are the correct parents. But one parent's name is missing from the pattern... That's not the time to toss out your theory! There may be a missing child, one whose existence you aren't aware of, or who died. And that child may be the missing link, named after that one parent who is missing from the pattern.
So, use Naming Patterns as a guide. That's all it is, it is not a set of rules set in stone
4 comments:
Sounds like a question I recently asked on a Welsh list on FB. I agree, the answer is maybe. Also think once these families emigrated they quickly started using other names.
Agreed! My grandmother, born US c.1895, & her siblings were named according to traditional Irish naming patterns. But Michael is missing &,if census information is correct,all my GGM's children are accounted for. The mystery of why none of her sons was named for her father will never be solved. After exhausting all other male names in their families, she & her husband apparently named their youngest son after the then-current pope.
My grandson is Aleksander Joseph. His father is John Joseph. John's father is Lucien Joseph. Both of John's grandfathers were Joseph.
Who was Aleksander Joseph named after?
This response to Anonymous: perhaps there was a child who died who was named Michael, but his birth & death were somehow never recorded. Perhaps the lady had a good reason not to want a child named for her own father.
In the 1700’s and early 1800’s the name Isabel was used quite often in one of my family branches. Then when a certain man died and his resources were divided, one of the sons showed as guardian for his adult sister, Isabel. There was never another Isabel in the family after that poor woman, whatever her problem was.
Post a Comment