« Reply #1 on: Thursday 05 May 22 20:53 BST (UK) »
I'm researching ancestry from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I don't find it strange that a child should carry the name of a man who could not have children of his own. My own grandfather carried the name of a childess father (Andrew Stephenson Dalglish). Strangely coincidental is the fact that the original "Andrew Stephenson" didn't have a son named after him and his name was carried on by a friend with the surname "Dalglish". The "Dalglish" friend never had a son and thus asked my gt.grandfather to name a boy in his favour, hence the long name A.S.D.Crum.
My OH has ancestors that had so many children that most of them were named after childhood friends. I'm surprised you don't think working class people could name a child after a person who didn't share family genes. Have you thought that many couples named a child after their family doctor who saved the life of a child, or the family vicar/priest/padre?
Aberdeen: Findlay-Shirras,McCarthy: MidLothian: Mason,Telford,Darling,Cruikshanks,Bennett,Sime, Bell: Lanarks:Crum, Brown, MacKenzie,Cameron, Glen, Millar; Ross: Urray:Mackenzie: Moray: Findlay; Marshall/Marischell: Perthshire: Brown Ferguson: Wales: McCarthy, Thomas: England: Almond, Askin, Dodson, Well(es). Harrison, Maw, McCarthy, Munford, Pye, Shearing, Smith, Smythe, Speight, Strike, Wallis/Wallace, Ward, Wells;Germany: Flamme,Ehlers, Bielstein, Germer, Mohlm, Reupke