U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2013, 09:14 PM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,198 posts, read 2,271,121 times
Reputation: 2840

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I have to disagree. Based on my family history it appears to have been a 20th century phenomenon. I can't think of a single instance before then when a father and eldest son had the same name. Granted my ancestry back then is mainly English protestant. I have one line where they son was given the same name as the paternal grandfather, thus alternating between William and John back over a couple hundred years.

I guess I'll have to disagree with you. In my and my wife's histories, I have seen numerous instances of names repeated in successive generations starting before 1800. I found one chain of three generations, starting about 1750, with nearly identical sets of names (had the number of children been identical, I expect the names would have also been).

I have another ancestral family chain that must have liked the letter "J" because all the children of 3 generations had names starting with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2013, 09:25 PM
 
11,427 posts, read 19,438,504 times
Reputation: 18124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabinerose View Post
Is this normal? I have done a little research in our family history and found that several branches of the family reused the same names. An example: Clarence Ollie S. was born on a farm in the early 1900's (no birth cert...just a notation in a bible), he died 2 years later. One year after that, Clarence Ollie S. was born only to pass a few days later. Three years later, Clarence Ollie S. was born - his mother died in childbirth. He was "given" to the reverend and his wife (they were childless) on the neighboring farm (his father had 6 other children and couldn't raise a newborn) - his last name was changed, but the birth records in that same family bible don't say anything about the name change. One year later, his father remarried and his new wife gave birth to a boy...who was named?! You guessed it... Clarence Ollie S. (the reverend refused to give back the baby they "adopted" as he was a couple years old at this point).

All of this caused HUGE confusion for me when researching family history. For future reference...was it typical to keep naming babies the same name until one survived beyond the next child? Has anyone come across this before?
I've always heard that's a German tradition, and it's happened in my family tree. Christian S born 1723 died 1723, and three years later Christian S was born named for his late brother. That went through that side of the family for a few generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2013, 09:29 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,058 posts, read 22,780,245 times
Reputation: 119709
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I have to disagree. Based on my family history it appears to have been a 20th century phenomenon. I can't think of a single instance before then when a father and eldest son had the same name. Granted my ancestry back then is mainly English protestant. I have one line where they son was given the same name as the paternal grandfather, thus alternating between William and John back over a couple hundred years.
You may find that the 20th century is "in the past."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,216 posts, read 12,805,062 times
Reputation: 10446
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
Re-using names because of deceased children is less common, but also found.
Actually, it's extremely common in some cultures. In my Norwegian branches, I have found dozens of cases of children being named after a deceased child, even after they immigrated to the US. It's actually more difficult to find a family in this part of my tree that hasn't named a child after a deceased one!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I have to disagree. Based on my family history it appears to have been a 20th century phenomenon. I can't think of a single instance before then when a father and eldest son had the same name. Granted my ancestry back then is mainly English protestant. I have one line where they son was given the same name as the paternal grandfather, thus alternating between William and John back over a couple hundred years.
I have several examples of pre-20th century Sr. and Jr. father/eldest son in my tree. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least eight and I actually have one ancestor from the 19th century who was a III.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 03:20 PM
 
11,686 posts, read 13,074,643 times
Reputation: 30973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollydo View Post
Lots of Williams on both sides of my family. The men had this real thing about carrying on their name...it was all about their ego.
I noticed on both sides of my family, Protestant and Catholic, both men and women handed their names down in the 18th and 19th centuries....John, Paul, Edward, Samuel, Ellen, Catherine repeat and repeat genration after generation.

It continued into the 20th, as well, but now it was less common among the women. On my maternal side, all my cousins and, male and female, and I all share names that go back to our grt-grt grandparents in some cases. On my father's side many of us first cousins have names that to back the same distance, but as there are much bigger families on that side some kids got new names.

I'm named after a grt-grtgrandfather, a grtgrandfather and a grandfather, and I like the sense of connexion to these ancestors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Niagara Region
1,298 posts, read 1,420,142 times
Reputation: 4413
My family, English, 1700s and 1800s, is full of babies named after a deceased sibling, whether male or female. I always wondered if it was out of respect for the deceased child.

It was also very common in these and other lines for the firstborn male to carry his father's name, so I have some trees where EVERY ancestor for a run of anywhere from 3 to 7 generations, has the same first name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 05:49 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 5,363,024 times
Reputation: 11918
Yup I have my family tree way back to the 1600s when two babies were born in the same village on the same year and called exactly the same thing.

The village all shared the same surname too because they named themselves after the place they lived, way back in Doomsday times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2013, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Colorado
18,717 posts, read 4,703,728 times
Reputation: 5325
I knew a couple who divorced and the guy (Jim) married a woman who already had a son with
that name. He adopted her kids then they had a son of their own and named him Jim, so both
boys had the same first and last names...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2013, 12:29 AM
 
Location: A little corner of paradise
689 posts, read 1,178,782 times
Reputation: 1226
In my family, I've seen the names of deceased infants recycled. Sometimes with several children in between.
We have one line where there were 4 boys. Each of those boys had 4 boys, with a couple of them having some girls, too. The boys' sons had the same set of names. The next generation had fewer boys, but the names continued. It was a terrible mess to straighten out. Fortunately, all the boys married and most of their wives had different names.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2013, 12:06 PM
 
541 posts, read 942,778 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by pekemom View Post
I knew a couple who divorced and the guy (Jim) married a woman who already had a son with
that name. He adopted her kids then they had a son of their own and named him Jim, so both
boys had the same first and last names...
My FIL(Jim) impregnated a girl in CA, when he was 18. She left town and he sailed off to Australia, where he married my MIL. DH was named III, our son is IV.

Fast forward 42 years, son finds my FIL, guess what his mom had named him? Jim! My son calls this Jim, 2.5!

So, at family functions we have Grandpa Jim, Uncle Jim, Uncle Jim and my son Jim! I love walking into a room where they all are and saying "Jim" all four turn and look. It reminds me of that Newhart show, where he says, this is my brother Darryl and my other brother, Darryl!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top