The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question

[McGroger]

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

[ScouseBoy]

Surely a second wife would be very reluctant to name her child after a former partner.
It would be unlikely to happen today

[RJ_Paton]

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.

Like many others I have a number of families where a spouse dies early in the marriage and the surviving spouse quickly remarries. Where the families have used the naming pattern or where I have been able to discern any pattern I have never come across an instance where a child from a second or subsequent marriage was named after a departed non parental spouse.

Where did you read this ?

[Citizen Smith]

I agree with Falkryn. I've also had similar cases but none where a second marriage included the first wife's name/s as part of a naming pattern. It's not something I've ever come across researching Scottish families. That doesn't mean it's not true just that it might be worth confirming before you base any assumptions on it.

Sarah

[loobylooayr]

I have several cases where a second marriage takes place very quickly after the death of either spouse and a second family following a year or so later. In my experience I've never noticed any of the children being named after the late spouse.
As Citizen Smith says, this does not mean that it never happened. Perhaps some couples did :/ Perhaps the late mother in this case was a good friend of wife number 2 (in all likelihood they all lived in the same small community ) and they decided to honour her by using her name for their daughter.

Looby

[ruthhelen]

Agree with all the previous comments - have plenty of examples of remarriage in my tree, but the only time I've ever seen a child of the second marriage named for the first wife was when the wives in question were cousins, and the first wife died in childbirth... So definitely the exception, rather than the rule, in my experience.

Ruth

[McGroger]

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
 

[jaybelnz]

The names Jean and Janet are often seen to be interchangeable in Scotland, as are a number of others.   It may have simply been a mark of respect in your case.

[loobylooayr]

Thank you Peter for providing that info.

One last point - if you don't know Ann's (wife no 2) mother's name - could that also not be Jean/Jane?
Then the first daughter would be named after both Mother and Father's mother with the second daughter called after the Mother.
Anything is possible I suppose, including calling your daughter after your deceased cousin ( in Ann's case) and your deceased wife (as in John's).

Looby