[The following article was first published in the July 2012 issue of CI’s newsletter, The Conococheague Pioneer Times.]

   In the summer of 2012, I started an internship here at CI and was given the task of researching and organizing a collection of papers related to several different families and individuals from Welsh Run. My first step was to research those people’s lives in order to provide context for the papers. As I started to look into the genealogical material in the library, however, I began to notice an interesting trend in regards to those individuals’ names: the same first names appeared over and over again within each family, sometimes even appearing multiple times within the same generation. This trend made it difficult to determine which person was the one I was supposed to be researching, and moreover, made me curious about the broader implications of naming patterns for researchers and genealogists.

Detail of a page in the Miller Account Book mentionioning a Davis descendant from 1843 (#2012.292).

   Take the Davis family, for example. I was looking for five Davises in particular: the first settler on Rock Hill farm, John Davis; John’s sons David, Daniel, and Samuel; and Philip Davis, a man who settled along the Conococheague at the same time and was likely kin. What I discovered though, was that there were multiple Johns, Davids, Daniels, Samuels, and Philips in both families. As I looked into the Davis family genealogy further, I noticed even more names that repeated in both John’s line and Philip’s line.  I decided to count up the names that appeared multiple times within the first three generations of Davises in Welsh Run. Between both John Davis and Philip Davis’s families, there were five Eleanors, five Marys, five Margarets, six Jameses, six Davids, six Elizabeths, six Marthas, seven Catherines, eight Johns, eight Samuels, and nine Sarahs.  Many of those names repeated within the same generation. For instance, Philip Davis’s son Samuel had five daughters. Four of those five daughters each named one of their daughters Margaret. That makes four cousins all with the same name!

   Seeing the same names repeat again and again within a family is certainly not unusual. I have come across similar trends when researching my own ancestors, and I am sure that many others who have studied their family’s genealogy have observed certain names that appear over and over again.  And while it was still possible to sort out which individuals in the Davis family were the ones I was actually looking for—by comparing birth, marriage, or death dates, for example—I was still curious why the same names were used repeatedly, even within the same generation.  Was it a lack of originality?  Were the names a way to honor common ancestors? Or was there a specific pattern that each family member followed when naming their children?  I decided to research colonial naming practices to see if I could uncover any patterns for the Davis family.

   Apparently, historians and genealogists have in fact identified several specific naming patterns that would have been used in colonial America. Those naming patterns vary by both culture and time period.  The standard pattern for British families in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries (which is almost identical to the Welsh pattern) is as follows:

 For Male Children:

• The first-born son was named after his father’s father
• The second-born son was named after his mother’s father
• The third-born son was named after his father
• The fourth-born son was named after his father’s second oldest brother or his mother’s oldest brother

 For Female Children:

• The first-born daughter was named after her mother’s mother
• The second-born daughter was named after her father’s mother
• The third-born daughter was named after her mother
• The fourth-born daughter was named after her mother’s eldest sister
• The fifth-born daughter was named after her mother’s second oldest sister or her father’s oldest sister

   Some families followed the patterns more strictly than others, and thus there are many variations of and exceptions to those naming patterns. Rigidly following the pattern could have resulted in giving two children the exact same name. For instance, following the above pattern, if a family’s paternal and maternal grandfathers were both named “John,” both the first-born and second-born sons would theoretically be named John.  Different cultures and individual families addressed that situation in different ways, allowing for variation.  British families would often just skip to the next name on the list.  Scottish families, on the other hand, would not skip to the next name, and would therefore have children with duplicate names. Additionally, if a parent remarried, the pattern started over, and thus half-siblings would often have the same name. Other exceptions to the pattern pertain to naming children after the recently deceased. It was common to give a child the name of a relative or friend who recently died rather than giving them the next name on the list.  Also, if a child died, the next child of the same gender would often be given the same name. Similarly, if a spouse died, it was common that upon remarriage, the first child born of the same gender would be named for the deceased spouse.

   Being familiar with these naming patterns can be both beneficial and detrimental to those doing genealogical research. If it is apparent that a family was indeed following a standard naming pattern, a researcher could use the names of the family’s children to guess missing names within the family, such as grandparents or other siblings. However, many genealogists warn not to put too much stock in naming patterns.  According to genealogist Donna Przecha, it would have been very difficult to actually follow a pattern precisely.  The names of relatives were often repeated but not necessarily in a certain order, making it difficult to know for certain for whom a child was actually named. Genealogist Enid Wood cautions that even though a family may, for example, have a first-born son who was named after the father’s father and a second son who was named after the mother’s father, it does not necessarily mean that family was actually following the standard pattern. Moreover, common names like John or James for boys and Mary or Elizabeth for girls may seem to indicate a pattern, but in actuality, could be picked at random. 

   So, what does this all mean for the Davis family?  After reading about the standard colonial naming patterns, I looked over John Davis and Philip Davis’s lineages again, to see if each family followed the standard British or Welsh naming pattern. It appears that the Davises were not, in fact, following a set pattern after all—at least not completely. Some children do appear to be named after certain grandparents and parents, although not in a definitive pattern. Even though the Davis family names did not ultimately fit the standard colonial naming pattern, however, being familiar with naming patterns may still be valuable when working with other genealogy projects.

   How about you? Can you find any naming patterns in your family?

 Sources:

“Britain and English Welsh Naming Patterns,” http://www.mengelfamily.com/naming/namingenglishwh.htm

Doherty, Thomas P, “Onomastics,” http://udel.edu/~tdoherty/Naming.pdf

Harris, Linda, “Colonial Naming Patterns,” http://genforum.genealogy.com/waler/messages/29775.html

Przecha, Donna, “The Importance of Given Names,” http://www.genealogy.com/35_donna.html

Woods, Enid, “Naming Patterns Can Help and Hinder Researchers,” The Fort Scott Tribune, March 25, 1992.