General Chat

Yes, very normal. Sometimes a family would have two sons called John and they both lived to old age! Joy

It was considered lucky by some, a superstitious belief that if one Mary died, then another Mary wouldn't. Plus many babies were named after various relatives, so I suppose as a sign of respect you'd carry on naming them after those same relatives. I often wondered if the insular nature of villages meant they didn't know any other names! After all, if you haven't heard of a name, you can't use it.

donna - practically exactly the same happened when tracing mine. one family had 2 elizabeth jane / 3 richard hockins / 2 mary catherines! ju xxx

Donna, yes i think this is quite common, i have the same in my tree the only difference being a different middle name. Nicky

i know,i had to deleted loads cos i accidently added them to the wrong child!

i have a few examples of this on various branches! it's just so confusing!

it just seemed strange i suppose they didnt think it strange back then,they seemed to get married a lot too!

Very normal. I have one couple whose two previous Williams died and they thought third time lucky - the third William was my gt gt grandfather. His son John called his own first son John William and when he died aged 10 the next child was also John William. Similarly, my gt gt grandmother Ann had two sisters called Sophia, the eldest of which died young. I don't know why they clung to such a small number of names. Maybe the naming after relatives was a very strong influence, perhaps they remembered the dead child by using their name, possibly it was thrift as all the baby linen had already been embroidered with the right initials... nell

For info on Stillbirth please go to Tips Board and see my thread there - I will bump it up to the top for you. I've got a child being named after a deceased one too - in the 1890's. Maz. XX

I don't know when stillbirths started being registered, but these days the birth is registered if the baby is born at 24 weeks or later I believe oh and Donna, I think it was common in most families ! infant mortalify was quite high, perhaps thats why they had so many children (coupled with the lack of contraception of course)

so if the baby was stillborn they would still have registered the birth?

Hi Donna my grandfather called his first two sons william after himself,he wasnt married to the mother of his first son so when he married my grandmother he wanted a 'legal'son..sad but true!!:)))

Hi Donna. I have found that as well, while looking for my relies. Neil

ok thanks,it just seemed a bit strange,it seemed a lot of the kids died young back then in my family:(

Yes have found several like that when reserching my tree.

YES DONNA 3 CHILDREN STILL BORN IN MY FAMILY IN 1800 WHERE THE SAME XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I think it was quite 'normal' one of my family's had 3 johns in 4 years... Its a shame really... Mhairi

On my family tree,one couple had a son he must have been still born or dies young then they had a son the following year and called him by the same name!was this done a lot back then?this was the 1700's/1800's