Prudence Clayton

[jonnybrowne1956]

PS I believe that it is Caroline.

Have you put together a list of known children?  So far I can see:

1830: John Ward Dainter
1832: Thomas Ward Dainter
1833: William Ward Dainter
1835: Prudence Dainter
1839: Charlotte Dainter mmn Clayton (died 1839 aged 7 weeks)
1840: Henry Dainter mmn Clayton (died 1840)
1842: Charlotte Dainter mmn “Claton” - could be “Caroline”, 18 in 1861
1845: Edward Dainter mmn “Claton”
1850: Henry Ward Dainter mmn Clayton (died 1850)
1852: Mary Ann Ward Dainter mmn Clayton

[avm228]

Yes, the daughter born 1842 (registered as Charlotte) is down as Charlotte in 1851 and Caroline in 1861.

It is very common to find names reused in a family - usually after the death of a previous child of that name.  One of my families named 3 of their daughters Rebecca, but sadly all of the Rebeccas died young.

Rarely you find reuse even within the older child’s lifetime, perhaps because the older one is known by a nickname or middle name or (in a very large family) they have run out of ideas and a name comes round again! 

[jonnybrowne1956]

That's fascinating - a practice I would assume died out with, in this country at least, lower infant mortality and smaller families
 
That explains of ocurse why I've never been able to find a Caroline Dainter that fits in terms of birth date -just weondering if the 1861 household return was misread by the enumerator as the census image clearly shows "Caroline".

Jonny

Yes, the daughter born 1842 (registered as Charlotte) is down as Charlotte in 1851 and Caroline in 1861.

It is very common to find names reused in a family - usually after the death of a previous child of that name.  One of my families named 3 of their daughters Rebecca, but sadly all of the Rebeccas died young.

Rarely you find reuse even within the older child’s lifetime, perhaps because the older one is known by a nickname or middle name or (in a very large family) they have run out of ideas and a name comes round again!

[avm228]

It could well be a misreading - obviously for the censuses pre-1911 the household returns don’t survive so we will never know what sort of handwriting, inkblots etc the enumerator had to contend with.

However it is also possible that Charlotte and Caroline were treated as interchangeable, being etymologically linked (both feminine versions of Charles).  I am not sure whether I have seen an example of this particular one, but it’s a common enough phenomenon with other groups of names, e.g.:

Ellen, Helen, Helena, Eleanor

Emma, Emily, Emmeline

Mary Ann, Marian(ne)

Isabel, Elizabeth

[jonnybrowne1956]

Interesting, I hadn’t thought of the etymological aspect, and it’s also possible I suppose that Caroline was an adopted name? If say a neighbour of friend filled out the household form for them they might have only known her as Caroline.

Names can get so easily mixed up in genealogical research anyway - I have a 2 x great aunt Eliza who is transcribed in one census as Elner and a number of researchers have her down as Elenor.

 

It could well be a misreading - obviously for the censuses pre-1911 the household returns don’t survive so we will never know what sort of handwriting, inkblots etc the enumerator had to contend with.

However it is also possible that Charlotte and Caroline were treated as interchangeable, being etymologically linked (both female versions of Charles).  I am not sure whether I have seen an example of this particular one, but it’s a common enough phenomenon with other groups of names, e.g.:

Ellen, Helen, Helena, Eleanor

Emma, Emily, Emmeline

Mary Ann, Marian(ne)

Isabel, Elizabeth