2728
Scotland / Re: The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question
« on: Tuesday 16 August 16 11:03 BST (UK) »
And thanks to you, too, Falkyrn. Also much appreciated. Cheers, Peter
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2729
Scotland / Re: The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question
« on: Tuesday 16 August 16 10:57 BST (UK) »
Thanks very much jaybeinz, Looby and pharmaT for your further comments. Much appreciated. Cheers, Peter
2730
Scotland / Re: The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question
« on: Tuesday 16 August 16 06:41 BST (UK) »
Thank you everyone, for sharing your experience.
To fill in the names: I’m trying to equate a John McGregor having a family in the 1730s to 1750s at Buchanty/Wester Buchanty, Fowlis Wester parish, with a John McGregor son of Gregor McGregor and Janet McFarlane baptised when living at Rinzoorach farm, Buchanan parish in 1712.
The first daughter to the second wife was Jean, thus fitting with John’s proposed mother’s name, Janet McFarlane. The problem is, John’s first wife was also called Jean. (The second wife was Ann, who called her first daughter Ann. I’m making an assumption that Ann shared the name with her own mother; no mother’s name was given at Ann’s baptism.)
To make things a little more complicated, as in Ruthhelen’s out-of-the-ordinary case, both wives may have been cousins, because they had the same maiden name (Dow) and came from adjoining parishes. Also as per Ruth’s example, going by the pattern of baptisms and the date of the second marriage, the first wife could have died in child birth.
On the other hand, the second daughter from the second marriage wasn’t born until about twelve years after the death of the first wife, so things would have been a little more remote from that first wife by that stage.
(Ruth, could I ask where and when your example/s happened?)
Falkyrn, I’ve come across a number of sites referencing a rather formal sounding “British Isles Naming Convention of the late 1500s to 1850s”. (However, I haven’t been able to find the source referenced by these sites.) I think one reference was in an old Rootsweb forum; another was on the Tyrone Family History site. Each reference I came across said that the first daughter from a second marriage should be named after the first wife. However, the Tyrone site did say that this was more an Irish pattern than a Scottish one. (I’ve also had another look at the instance I mentioned in passing that had occurred in my tree. It wasn’t exactly the same. In my case, when this father remarried it wasn’t one of his subsequent daughters who was given the ex-wife’s name, it was one of his daughter’s daughters - the ex-wife’s granddaughter, in fact.)
The only conclusion possible in this case, I think, is that it is (slightly) more probable that Jean was named for her father’s mother than for her father’s first wife. So it is more probable than not that John’s mother was called Janet/Jean - which adds a (tiny) bit more to a pile of circumstantial evidence I have for a link from John McGregor back to Gregor McGregor and Janet McFarlane.
Thanks again to everyone. Cheers, Peter
To fill in the names: I’m trying to equate a John McGregor having a family in the 1730s to 1750s at Buchanty/Wester Buchanty, Fowlis Wester parish, with a John McGregor son of Gregor McGregor and Janet McFarlane baptised when living at Rinzoorach farm, Buchanan parish in 1712.
The first daughter to the second wife was Jean, thus fitting with John’s proposed mother’s name, Janet McFarlane. The problem is, John’s first wife was also called Jean. (The second wife was Ann, who called her first daughter Ann. I’m making an assumption that Ann shared the name with her own mother; no mother’s name was given at Ann’s baptism.)
To make things a little more complicated, as in Ruthhelen’s out-of-the-ordinary case, both wives may have been cousins, because they had the same maiden name (Dow) and came from adjoining parishes. Also as per Ruth’s example, going by the pattern of baptisms and the date of the second marriage, the first wife could have died in child birth.
On the other hand, the second daughter from the second marriage wasn’t born until about twelve years after the death of the first wife, so things would have been a little more remote from that first wife by that stage.
(Ruth, could I ask where and when your example/s happened?)
Falkyrn, I’ve come across a number of sites referencing a rather formal sounding “British Isles Naming Convention of the late 1500s to 1850s”. (However, I haven’t been able to find the source referenced by these sites.) I think one reference was in an old Rootsweb forum; another was on the Tyrone Family History site. Each reference I came across said that the first daughter from a second marriage should be named after the first wife. However, the Tyrone site did say that this was more an Irish pattern than a Scottish one. (I’ve also had another look at the instance I mentioned in passing that had occurred in my tree. It wasn’t exactly the same. In my case, when this father remarried it wasn’t one of his subsequent daughters who was given the ex-wife’s name, it was one of his daughter’s daughters - the ex-wife’s granddaughter, in fact.)
The only conclusion possible in this case, I think, is that it is (slightly) more probable that Jean was named for her father’s mother than for her father’s first wife. So it is more probable than not that John’s mother was called Janet/Jean - which adds a (tiny) bit more to a pile of circumstantial evidence I have for a link from John McGregor back to Gregor McGregor and Janet McFarlane.
Thanks again to everyone. Cheers, Peter
2731
Scotland / The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question
« on: Monday 15 August 16 12:23 BST (UK) »
Here’s a really curly one for wise and experienced users of the Scottish naming pattern. It is a real case, but I’ve deliberately refrained from using the actual names in order to avoid any possibility of unduly influencing anyone’s thoughts.
In the 1730s/early 1740s in Perthshire a couple have a family that includes one daughter. She is named after her maternal grandmother. The mother dies. The father remarries. They then have a family in the late 1740s/1750s that includes two daughters.
The pattern of the boys’ names shows strict adherence to the naming pattern. In fact, all members of this family to at least the first three children of each gender - including all cousins researched - from the 1850s back, followed the pattern 100% of the time; any apparent deviations have been explained after further research.
I have read that, at least in later times (19th century), in most of the cases like this, the first daughter born after the first wife’s death would be named after the first wife, often using her full (first and maiden family) names. And such has been my experience. But as for earlier times I’m not so sure. However, in the case I’m looking at, this certainly did not happen. The first new baby was named after the new wife’s mother (and, coincidentally, after the new wife herself). That is, the deceased wife was overlooked, while the new wife and her mother were honoured.
My question is: for the next daughter (i.e. the new wife’s second daughter), is it more likely she would be named after the deceased wife this time, or after the father’s mother? My own thoughts are that if the deceased wife wasn’t honoured at the first opportunity after her death, her name may have had to wait at least until after the father’s mother was honoured.
A seemingly impossible question, I know. But I’m asking about probabilities. With a family following a naming pattern so rigidly, might there be a “pattern within a pattern” that they might have stuck to.
I’d love to hear from any researchers who have had experiences of such situations.
Cheers, Peter
In the 1730s/early 1740s in Perthshire a couple have a family that includes one daughter. She is named after her maternal grandmother. The mother dies. The father remarries. They then have a family in the late 1740s/1750s that includes two daughters.
The pattern of the boys’ names shows strict adherence to the naming pattern. In fact, all members of this family to at least the first three children of each gender - including all cousins researched - from the 1850s back, followed the pattern 100% of the time; any apparent deviations have been explained after further research.
I have read that, at least in later times (19th century), in most of the cases like this, the first daughter born after the first wife’s death would be named after the first wife, often using her full (first and maiden family) names. And such has been my experience. But as for earlier times I’m not so sure. However, in the case I’m looking at, this certainly did not happen. The first new baby was named after the new wife’s mother (and, coincidentally, after the new wife herself). That is, the deceased wife was overlooked, while the new wife and her mother were honoured.
My question is: for the next daughter (i.e. the new wife’s second daughter), is it more likely she would be named after the deceased wife this time, or after the father’s mother? My own thoughts are that if the deceased wife wasn’t honoured at the first opportunity after her death, her name may have had to wait at least until after the father’s mother was honoured.
A seemingly impossible question, I know. But I’m asking about probabilities. With a family following a naming pattern so rigidly, might there be a “pattern within a pattern” that they might have stuck to.
I’d love to hear from any researchers who have had experiences of such situations.
Cheers, Peter
2732
The Lighter Side / Re: How many convict relatives in your tree?
« on: Monday 15 August 16 12:15 BST (UK) »
When I was a little boy, my mum told me, somewhat shamefacedly, that there was a convict in our family - on her mother’s side.
The one Mum knew about - her mum’s paternal grandfather - was transported to New South Wales in 1828. What she didn’t know about was that there were another other six, with the result that her own mum was from 100% convict stock. Mum would have died of shame.
And Dad, from proud Scottish roots... I think Dad knew nothing of his mother’s forebears (perhaps because he was only three when she died, or perhaps because it was probably a secret kept firmly inside his dad’s in-laws’ closet).
Dad’s mum was okay on the paternal side - pure, unadulterated commoners. But Dad’s maternal grandmother was pure convict stock - seven of them.
If we still had the sensibilities of sixty years ago, I’d have a closet full of hidden horror and a permanently bowed head. But we don’t - so now I can skite about ‘em!
Now, if only the non-convicts were as easy to trace...
Cheers, Peter
The one Mum knew about - her mum’s paternal grandfather - was transported to New South Wales in 1828. What she didn’t know about was that there were another other six, with the result that her own mum was from 100% convict stock. Mum would have died of shame.
And Dad, from proud Scottish roots... I think Dad knew nothing of his mother’s forebears (perhaps because he was only three when she died, or perhaps because it was probably a secret kept firmly inside his dad’s in-laws’ closet).
Dad’s mum was okay on the paternal side - pure, unadulterated commoners. But Dad’s maternal grandmother was pure convict stock - seven of them.
If we still had the sensibilities of sixty years ago, I’d have a closet full of hidden horror and a permanently bowed head. But we don’t - so now I can skite about ‘em!
Now, if only the non-convicts were as easy to trace...
Cheers, Peter
2733
The Common Room / Re: OFFER - OCR digital transcription from typed documents
« on: Monday 15 August 16 11:58 BST (UK) »
Josey, if by non-commercial you simply mean not-for-profit and you’re not looking for something small-and-local, a place to start might be the Gutenburg Project. It’s been digitising Public Domain literature for 40 years or so, I think, and all run by volunteers. Internet Archive is another one but it’s probably a bit more commercial; I think it has some paid staff. Cheers, Peter