English naming practice 1700s

[Wulfsige]

I have come across some puzzles which I hope someone might be able to enlighten me on concerning English naming patterns in the 1700s:

•   Sometimes a man has the same name as his father. When this happens, his first and third sons ought to have the same name (i.e. named after the grandfather, then the father). Was there a tradition for this eventuality?
•   Sometimes an infant died and was 'replaced' by another of the same name. Did the ‘replacement’ take the same place in the naming order as the deceased, or did the ‘replacement’ take the next place (e.g. second, third, fourth son or whatever, instead of whatever the deceased had been)?
•   My family seem to have used mainly the correct names (if I have rightly surmised about the ‘missing’ John’s parents), but the names are somewhat jumbled as to the traditional order. How significant might this be?

[Guy Etchells]

The English naming pattern was oten not followed to any great extent.
Here is a good posting on the subject
https://englishancestors.blog/2020/04/01/english-naming-traditions/
Cheers
Guy

[Wulfsige]

Thank you

[Ayashi]

Usually if the father and grandfather had the same name there would only be one child who honoured everybody of that name. On the odd occasion there might be an anomaly, particularly if the name was considered especially important and the parents wanted to ensure at least one child of that name reached adulthood, but generally not.

In my experience, reusing the dead name occurred with the next birth of a child of the appropriate gender.

A lot of mine didn't follow naming convention well. My lines from Cornwall in particular often picked names with no apparent relevance to anything. Add in some religious families who named from the Bible and some names come out of nowhere. I'm sure in some cases traditional naming pattern took a backseat to other considerations such as who in the family was most liked, who was wealthiest or more influential, honouring someone who was sick or had recently died, honouring someone out of gratitude etc so that even if all the names are in there somewhere they might have different priorities behind them.

[Wulfsige]

Yes, I'm getting the feeling that a loose adherence to the traditional pattern obtained in the period (1700s), but some names were not used, some were used but in the wrong order, and others were added for a range of reasons including the ones mentioned into above replies. Thank you.

[Maiden Stone]

Here is a good posting on the subject
https://englishancestors.blog/2020/04/01/english-naming-traditions/

This mentions something which happened in one of my families, naming children after a couple who brought up the father instead of naming them after biological grandparents. 
Richard was born 1738. He was a posthumous son of another Richard. The younger Richard's first 2 children were Alice and John, probably named after Richard's relatives who may have brought him up. The only surviving children the elder John & Alice had were 2 daughters.
 Richard named his 4th son after himself/his own father. Sons 2 & 3, one named after maternal grandfather, died before son 4 was born. Richard's mother and his wife were Jane. He named his 2nd daughter Jane.
John, Richard's son had 13 children from his marriage; 11 survived childhood. Traditional naming order was followed for eldest 5 sons and eldest 2 daughters.  First son was Richard for paternal GF. That Richard died aged 2 and was replaced by another Richard. Son 3 was John after both his father & maternal GF. Sons 4 & 5, Thomas and William, were named after their uncles on both sides as both parents had brothers with those names. That used up all male family names. Son 6 was named after paternal step-grandfather (+ perhaps a son of lord of the manor). Son 7 after his godfather. Son 8 after another son of lord of the manor.  First 2 daughters named after GMs. Daughters 3 & 4 named after maternal aunts, ignoring eldest maternal and eldest paternal aunts. Daughter 5 named after her mother.
An earlier lord of the manor (c.1600) was Cuthbert. The pre-Reformation abbey which originally owned the manor belonged to Durham Cathedral, founded by St. Cuthbert. The parish church which replaced the abbey was St. Cuthbert. Several families named a son Cuthbert, to honour either the saint or the lord of the manor.