Understanding a bit about naming trends over the last 400 years or so can be very useful to the family history researcher, as this can often help to separate two families of the same period headed by couples of the same names.
Until the 19th century, the British public were not particularly creative when it came to naming their children, a very high proportion of people carried one of a small choice of very common names and certain traditions were expected to be observed.
Once you trace your tree back to around the mid 19th century, especially if they were ordinary labouring folk, you will find the following names cropping up almost exclusively:
Males: William, Thomas, John, James, Peter, Richard, Robert - less frequently- Henry, Edward, Hugh, Gilbert, Miles. Roger was common up to the 17th century, but seemed to fall out of fashion. Even when monarchs of a particular name came to the throne, families stuck to the tried and tested (there are few Georges around throughout the entire Georgian period)
Females: Mary, Ann, Elizabeth, Alice, Margaret, Martha, Ellen, Margery, Jennet/Jane/Jenny, Sarah, Catherine - Dorothy was also common up to the 17th century.
Presumably a strong reason for the failure of new names to be introduced was the naming rules that most families adhered to where couples were expected to name their children after existing family members. With so many people to name their children after, there was little opportunity to introduce a name simply because they liked it:
Firstborn son - named after his paternal grandfather
Firstborn daughter - named after her paternal grandmother
Secondborn son - named after his maternal grandfather
Secondborn daughter - named after her maternal grandmother
Third born of each gender - usually named after the parents (unless they shared a name with one already used)
Subsequent children were usually named after the parents' siblings - that sibling would more often than not have been a godparent, but Godparents are rarely recorded in Anglican baptisms.
A further important rule to be aware of is that, if a child died, the next child born of the same gender would almost always take the name of the dead sibling. This seems strange to us, as our culture would balk at the apparent replacement of a lost child, but the naming rules were important to most people (and a dead firstborn son would create a vacancy for a child bearing his paternal grandfather's name). It should also be remembered that, though still a dreadful experience, losing a child was by no means unexpected. Most families had a large number of children, and those that lost none of them were the exception rather than the rule. Even a brief glance through a few families in the 1911 census (which records the number of children born and died in a marriage) will demonstrate how many families buried at least one child.
The duplicate naming after a child that died is important to keep in mind. If you find a family that, according to the rules, should have firstborns named John and Mary, yet you find a group of children with a younger child named John who has older brothers, you might rule them out - don't - check for deaths of a child of that name from the date of the next youngest son to the date of little John's birth. The eldest son, John, may have lived through the births of various brothers who were suitably named according to the rule. Then John died and the next baby was named after him.
If you already know the parents of the man of the family, and haven't yet identified his wife's surname or family, this naming pattern can help enormously. If Thomas' parents were John and Mary and you know Thomas and his wife, Ellen, have named their first two children John and Mary, you can be quietly confident that the next two were named after Mary's parents. The only likely exception would be if Ellen's parents were also named John or Mary (in which case child #1 would of course be named after both grandparents). However, if this is the case, the second born would then take his or her parent's name. If they don't, you can be confident there was no name duplication amongst the grandparents. If Thomas and Ellen's second born children of each gender were named William and Ann, we know that it is more than likely that Ellen's parents were William and Ann.
The above example is from a real family in my tree:
Thomas, born 1794 to John & Mary married Ellen, born illegitimately in 1795 to William and Ann
Children:
Mary 1817 (after Thomas' mother)
Ann 1819 (after Ellen's mother)
John 1821 (after Thomas' father)
Martha 1825
Ellen 1827 (after mother, Ellen) died a few weeks old
William 1828 (after Ellen's father)
Thomas c1830 (after father, Thomas)
Edward c1833 (name match to Ellen's grandfather and brother)
Henry 1836
Had there been another daughter after 1827, she would almost certainly have been named Ellen, after her mother and dead sister. As Thomas had only one brother, named John, there were no further male names in the paternal family to use. Edward appears in Ellen's family, and her grandfather, Edward, had left the family some land in 1826, so it's no surprise to see him honoured amongst the children's names.
The only exception to the rule for the first three of each gender is Martha, and there is no obvious reason for this, but the naming after the grandparents first has been strictly followed before they broke the rules. Henry is the only other child without an obvious namesake, but as the youngest, with no known uncles left to name him after, it's possible this child was named simply based on preference of the parents.
Occasionally couples might dispense with naming after themselves (as there was no-one to offend by doing so). Occasions when the naming after grandparents broke with tradition usually come with an obvious reason:
When couples lived with the wife's parents, especially when the husband's parents were from another town, first children sometimes took the maternal grandparents names first. Clearly couples wished to honour the parents on whom they were more dependant.
Equally, if the wife's family was significantly better off than the husband's, the couple may name after them before the paternal side. It was always wise to ensure you ingratiated yourself at the earliest opportunity - you wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to name your first son after his wealthy grandfather, as you might find you have no more male children on whom you can bestow the name.
Frustratingly for the researcher, there were some families who ignored the accepted naming rules, but the majority who did make our task a lot easier.
The Victorian period brought about a very gradual shift away from the old names and traditions. It by no means changed in one generation, and despite Victoria and Albert choosing quite creative names for their children, the public were very slow to follow suit. Perhaps the public embraced the change gradually as they slowly warmed to Victoria and Albert, who were not an instant hit with the general population.
By the end of the 19th century, change was well underway. Many families had broken with the naming traditions and were choosing names based on fashion. Equally, middle names gradually increase in popularity throughout the century. By 1900, an array of new names were commonplace alongside the traditional ones.
As middle names grew in popularity, some families started to include family surnames. Occasionally, this would work alongside the tradition of naming after grandparents, so if a mother was named Smith, her child might be named Thomas Smith Hughes. If only one child had this middle name, chances are the maternal grandfather was called Thomas Smith and the child was given both of his names. In this way, one family might include 3 different surnames as middle names after the maternal grandfather and both grandmothers.
Other families might include one family surname as a middle name for all the children, usually the mother's maiden name - a gift for the family historian.
Though traditions of naming children after grandparents still persisted to a degree - and still does, it was no longer expected by most people. Sometimes the family names would survive as middle names and the child got a new, fashionable first name.
Popular late Victorian names include:
Albert, Alfred, Ernest, Reginald, Norman, Frederick, Timothy, Percy, Wilfred, Lawrence, Geoffrey, Eric, Harold, Walter, Stanley
Gertrude, Emma, Beatrice, Emily, Emma, Winifred, Ada, Constance, Edith, Clara, Eva, Lily, Gladys, Joyce
With a wide choice of first and middle names to choose from, even those with common surnames would often have a fairly unique full name, making it relatively easy for the family historian to trace their family back to the mid 19th century, at which point we can rely on most families following naming rules to assist us in tracing them further back.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment