Naming Patterns

[newlyn]

www.cornwall-opc.org/Resc/naming_patterns.php

Found the above snippet on the cornwall opc site.

[Mal]

I wouldn't rely on that! The problem with naming patterns is that they are so unpredictable. Families half stick to them and then they throw in a Loveday or a Jenkin to confuse the issue. On the other hand they are a last resort, especially in our cases!!!
What I have also noticed is the fashion for certain names. To give you an example, I have a William Henry Davies and a Thomas Henry Davies, so I thought about a possible grandfather Henry Davies... to no avail. Then looking across the other families I noticed qute a few Thomas, William, George, etc Henries... all around 1830-1850. I have noticed this with Sampson as well.
PS Any luck on the Leah lines yet?

[Cornish Terrier]

I have not checked the site yet but then I have been dealing with 'naming patterns for a while now.

Where I find them useful is for givin at least initial clues as to the identity of parents and families.

As Malcolm says - it just don't always work!

There are always exceptions and then there are other things that dictate the use of names at various times.

For example - in my own TREWHELLA family going back into the latter part of the 17th Centry my ancestor Martin and wife Alice named their first son William and first daughter Mary.

Neither name had appeared in the family before. In fact the nearest William was a brother to Martin's grandfather back at St Erth and the name had never been used at Towednack to that time.

Mary did not seem to come into the equation at all.

So why did Martin and Alice use the names William and Mary?

When you look at the time-period - they were married in 1688 - there appears to be one very sound reason.

The then King of England was WILLIAM of Orange and his wife MARY.

Very similar to the name Charles turning up in a couple of families when it did - it seemed to coincide with the fact that the Monarch of the time was named CHARLES.

CT

[RobOats]

This has been a major guide (emphasis as opposed to a rule) for me in my research. Certainly within the families that I have studied over the last 15 years, the naming patterns were very consistent up until the late 19th century when it became apparent (through more accessible media I suppose) that it was fashionable to name after celebrities. A sad departure from tradition in my book as well. It's good to honour and remember our ancestors for we are what they were, good and bad.

There are also some other fashions that appear in the early 19th century viz. incorporating the mother's maiden name into the children's names. This was extremely useful as in many cases later on there is a lack of info on church records one can look at baptismal records for the name.

Quite often when you see an odd name introduced it comes from the maternal side. I have a number of examples of this and looking at subsequent generations one can see a very strong matriarchal influence which also adds a "human" dimension to the information because one can see character in the individuals involved.

[newlyn]

There were plenty of exceptions in my family.

I wasn't named after Kings and Queens but I was named after a boat!!!

I'm just glad the boat wasn't called 'Rosebud'

[tonymitch]

Look at my lot....We are not very original....Eldest son James, James, James and then James....13 of them from the 1600's to 1920 interspersed with a couple of Samuels and then (wait for it.....) A Barbara who married into the family of James. Just think...if she had named her eldest child after her father we would have had a James James. Actually I used to live next door to a chap with exactly that name.

I must admit however to looking for James, Samuel, Joseph or William whenever I come across a 'Mitchell'.

Me...? I was named after Anthony Eden because my mother had a crush on him! My wife and I produced 4 children, named two of them after ourselves, one after her father and one after the nearest Saint's Day.....again, seriously lacking in originality

[trencrom]

The issue of naming patterns has been discussed before on this forum and I posted some comments thereon at that time. Names did often run in families, as children were often named after their parents or grandparents or other relatives. However from the numerous families I have researched I am simply not persuaded that there was an across the board practice as to how successive children to a couple were to be named. Some other families may well have had their own rules and traditions in that regard. But many other families did not follow the same procedure.

Hence I would not call it a "rule" at all, and therefore agree with malcolm --I would not rely on it. Folk could be also named after the local vicar, but that does not indicate that he was a relative of theirs!

Also bear in mind that a common given name may have occurred on more than one side of the family , e.g. the father's father may have been a John and the wife's brother may also have been a John. So then who was their SON John named after?
One of my families had a son "Robert John" whose paternal grandfather was also named Robert. However we have surviving correspondence from the wife's father in which he acknowledges firstly receiving the news of Robert John's birth and secondly that the child was named after two of his sons, i.e. two brothers of the mother of the child, who were a John and a Robert!

CT has made an excellent point about the name "Charles" -- not a common Cornish name in Tudor times from memory. It would be interesting to know if the use of "Charles" in Cornwall predated the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 oir not. If not, then it was probably a reaction to it, all the more so as Cornwall was for the most part a staunchly royalist county in the preceding decades.

1688 incidentally was the year that William of Orange and his wife Mary BEGAN their reign in what became known as the "Glorious Revolution" which saw the overthrow of the unpopular James II. Clearly it was a popular development with te family CT refers to, and probably with many others as well.

Trencrom

[Cornish Terrier]

Agreed Trencrom and your added thoughts are most welcome and have reminded me of in issue that was raised some time ago whilst working on part of the Quick family.

I believe this was the family of Paul QUICK who married Elizabeth QUICK at St Ives in 1772.

They had only two sons - Paul and Richard.

Paul was obviously named after his father but the problem was with younger brother Richard.

Paul Quick (the father) was son of James and Mary so the contentious train of thought was that his wife, Elizabeth, must therefore have been the daughter of a Richard Quick.

For various reasons I had already decided Elizabeth had to be the daughter of Andrew and Honour Quick and this has been subsequently proved.

At the time I suggested that young Richard may have been named (for whatever reason) after the husband of Paul's Sister Ann - Richard BARAGWANATH.

The name Richard does not appear in the family of Paul Quick and nor in that of his grandfather or great-grandfather.

Equally this name does not appear in the family of Elizabeth Quick or the three previous generations.

Whilst there may have been yet another reason for his naming the most immediate answer is that he was named for his uncle.

For those who are interested young Richard Quick was baptised in 1776.

CT

[Mal]

I am still not convinced about naming patterns as far as first names are concerned, however I did recently solve a Devon mystery using middle names. I had a brickwall with a John James Cann married to Elizabeth (??) taken from census materials (not too great for Devon I must say, useless for East Riding too!!!). I hadn't a clue about who this Elizabeth might be and Cann's married to Elizabeths in the mid 19th century a ten to the dozen!!! I then noticed that the daughter was Mary Tidbold Cann. Tidbold smacked of a surname rather than a Christian name and so I did a BMD for Elizabeth Tidbold, which came up with Elizabeth TEDBOALD coincidentally marrying a John (James) Cann in about the right year and the right place. Enough evidence for me.

So the middlename/surname custom CAN be quite useful whereas the first name thing just doesn't work reliably enough in my trees to be counted on. If only they were all Spanish it would be so much easier!!!

Re names- Well I have the same name as my dad by accident because my mother thought the nurse was asking the father's name and not the child's name, and there you go, "branded for life" My father was going to be called a different name but my grandfather came back from WWII in time to avert the horrendous name he was about to be given.

A great uncle of mine was Hector Macdonald, patriotically so named because he was born at the time of the Relief of Mafeking.

[Deleted]

I have also noticed the same names of grandfathers, fathers & sons, with one difference: John de la Gwnn and his son John atte Gwnn. Pray tell what does 'atte' mean?

[Mal]

Atte is a medieval English preposition used as a "byname", rarely found in surnames after about 1400 it basically means "at the". As I understand it is usually followed by a placename, i.e. Atte-Wode, would be "at the wood" etc. Why it would be used this way with a Cornish name meaning "white" is puzzling.

By far the most common preposition in medieval English usage was at, generally combined with the definite article as atte 'at the' (or some minor variant). Typical examples are Attewode 1243 'at the wood' and Attemille 1242 'at the mill'. Many other prepositions also occur: Vnderegge 1194 'under edge', for someone who lived at the foot of an escarpment, Overthebek c.1270 'over the beck (i.e., stream)', Bithewaye 1243 'by the way', for someone who lived by the road, and in theffelde 1333 'in the field' are good examples. Just about the _least_ common preposition is of, though it does occur once in a while, e.g., othe felde 1327 'of the field' [3]. In most cases the preposition (and article, if present) were eventually lost; the full forms are rare after c.1400. In a few cases they were fused with the noun, as in the modern names Atwood, Attwater, and Underhill.
www.s-gabriel.org/names/arval/bynames/

[Deleted]

Grammacy, thy assumption was correct! I used Gwnn as an example - it is found using my surname Furze. John de la Fursa is related to Philip atte Fyrs. Hence they all lived either in or by an area of beautiful (thorny) yellow flowers ;D Gwnn or Angwin is also in my pedigree.

[nic1]

Interesting, but then there are always maverick families like the St. Just Perrows - quite often name the eldest boy after his father and then the second boy is named after the grandfather rather than the other way round suggested on the site.