I have followed with interest the notes regarding the relative use and
importance of naming patterns of children in providing important clues to
genealogical research.   I have found these patterns to hold true more
often than not well into the 1800's and have found the use of these
patterns to be very  helpful in my family research.    My experience is
slightly different than some others as outlined below.

Below our my thoughts and experience with naming patterns and the use of
example my English family of Wigginton's from the Northern Neck Virginia
area and Scots-Irish Fulton's from Augusta County VA. spanning 1600's -
1700's.      I also did some analysis of the frequency of male first names
in England from 1500-1700 which I will share.    I have found this
information helpful in estimating whether common first and last name
combinations are coincidence or indicative of a likely family relationship.

Naming Patterns:
The opinions are my own based on my own experience.     I have found that
it is very common throughout northern Europe and America into the 1800's
for our ancestors to take very seriously the Biblical command to "Honor Thy
Father and Mother".       I almost all my lines, these naming patterns are
very consistent.     Even in those cases where the patterns seem to not be
used, these are also often clues to other aspects of family relationships.

I have found almost universally the strongest pattern is the name the first
son after the Father's Father.    Following this the next three sons are
almost always named after the Mother's Father, the Father's Grandfather and
the Father himself, although the order of this can vary.    It would also
seem logical that the Maternal Grandfather's would also be considered, but
I have not seen much evidence of this in my experience.    So most commonly
I see:
1st son after:    Father's Father
2nd son after:    Father's Grandfather
3rd son after:    Mother's Father
4th son after:    Father himself.

I have found female naming to be slightly less uniform.   In some families
the daugthers are named mostly after the females in the Father's Family,
which may also be Biblical in the Adam was assigned the task of naming
things.     Other families the daughters names are first from the Mother's
side.    In either case daughters are also named after Family most commonly
in the order of:
Mother's Mother
Father's Mother
Father's Grandmother
Mother's Grandmother
Mother

Some examples:
Below are samples from my Wigginton line of Stafford County, VA. and
Loudoun County Virginia in late 1600's to late 1700's and some
illustrations as to how naming patterns might be used as clues to fill in
missing pieces.     Wigginton is English, and a relatively rare surname or
Saxon origin meaning roughly "the place of Wigga's People".     Our line's
earliest documented ancestor is almost certainly a Roger Wigginton who
married in Buckinghamshire England in 1577.   Roger, Henry, and William are
common Wigginton male first names found in early records in England.    A
William Wigginton of Bristol sponsored servants to Virginia starting
shortly after 1650.    The first documented references are a cattle brand
in 1689 and a land patent in 1694 in Stafford County, VA. by a William
WIgginton.

Wills exist for three generations of the early family.    As we know in
most cases children are named in wills in birth order.      Let's look at
the Wills for:
Roger WIgginton, who died on Loudoun County, VA. in 1778, and his Father,
Henry Wigginton, who died in Stafford County, VA., in 1736, and his Father,
William Wigginton, who died in Stafford County, VA, in 1733.

In Roger's will of 1778 he names his wife Eleanor and the following
children in this order:
Mary
Henry
Benjamin
William
Elizabeth
Roger
Eleanor
We see here the classic pattern.    First and third sons after Father's
Father and Father's Grandfather and fourth son after self.    We have no
documentation yet, but it would follow as a very strong possibility that
Roger's wife Eleanor's Father was named Benjamin.       We also see see the
third daughter named after the Mother and therefore it would be a strong
possibility that first two daugthers are named after Mother's Mother and
Father's Mother.

In Roger's Father Henry's will in 1736 he names his wife Sarah (due to ages
of children, Sarah is almost certainly a second or even third wife) and the
following children:
William
Henry
Roger
Elizabeth
Peter
Ann
Sarah
Jane
Benjamin
James
Winifred
Mary
From this we also see the classic pattern.   Henry names his first born
after his Father.   Second son after himself (or grandfather), third son
after grandfather?? or even great grandfather (William, Henry ,and Roger
are very common WIgginton names).   Then we have a fourth son named Peter.
This if the first Peter Wigginton I have found in any records.    Based on
naming patterns, this would suggest Peter is the first name of Henry's
wife's Father.      As so often happens with old records, there are no
marriage records to identify      Using naming patterns as a clue
indicating Peter as the likely first name of Henry's Mother's Father, I
began a search.    Knowing that most people married people who lived close
by, I looked for records of a man named Peter who had a wife and/or
daughters with names like Elizabeth, Ann, and perhaps Mary.     Well in
early Will records of Stafford County, Virginia, I found a will of a Peter
Beach who died in 1702 leaving a wife Mary, and three minor daugthers,
Elizabeth, Ann, and Mary.    The will was witnessed by Henry Wigginton's
father William WIgginton.   There are other clues to help corraborate the
link, but I personally am convinced that this Peter Beach is my ancestor,
the father of the wife of Henry Wigginton.   Going further, since Henry
named daugthers Elizabeth, Ann, and Mary, which one became his wife?
Since Henry named an older daugther Elizabeth, that is his son Roger named
a second daughter Elizabeth (and no daugther named Ann), my educated guess
is that Henry married Elizabeth, daugther of Peter WIgginton.    Further,
the names in Henry's will starting with Sarah, then Jane, Benjamin, James,
etc. are new names not found in the Beach family, provide clues Henry's
second wife's family.

Now for the will of William WIgginton who died in 1733 in Stafford County,
VA., and who was the Father of above Henry and Grandfather of above Roger.
In his will, William, a widdower, names the following children and
grandchildren:
Granddaughter Ann, daughter of William WIgginton deceased
Granddaugther Sarah, daugther of WIlliam Wigginton deceased
Names his daugther in law, Mary, wife of WIlliam Wigginton deceased
Names his four grandchildren, sons of Henry Wigginton:  William, Henry,
Roger, and Benjamin
Separately names another specific bequest to another grandchild, another
son of Henry, Peter.
Daughter Mary Young
Grandson Nicholas Russell (from an unamed deceased married daughter)
Daugther Ann Butler
As you can see, you can continue to see clues to possible family
connections backwards through both male and female lines.     Of course in
all this one must keep in mind it is not exact.    There are many
variables, not the least of which is children who may have died childless
before the will and therefore are not named, but still there are many clues
to possible connections.    As you can see, even though the connections
crystal clear, the sames names are used over and over again and to me
clearly indicate family connections.     There is even a clue in the
appearance that William WIgginton who died in 1733 naming his first son
William.    This is almost certainly not a case of William Wigginton naming
his first born after himself.   That would have been considered
inappropriate.   What is does indicate is that almost certainly William's
Father was not named Henry.    WIlliam's Father was likely also William
WIgginton which would fit the time lines of his being a son of the WIlliam
Wigginton who first visited Virginia as a seaman from Bristol in the
1650's.

Much of this can seem like a hopeless puzzle, but it has been my experience
when you start mapping out the naming patterns of closely related families,
you can start to see valuable clues in filling in missing pieces.

As this is getting longer than I anticipated, I will only briefly describe
a similar pattern in the Scots-Irish Fulton Family of Augusta County, VA.
In early Augusta County, VA., records is the will of James Fulton, who died
in 1753.    In his will he names his wife Sarah and the following children:
Hugh
James
William
John
David and Thomas (described as young boys)
Daughters:   Elizabeth, Elliner, and Jane.
Based on naming patterns we would anticipate James' Father to be Hugh, and
Paternal Grandfather to be William or John.    We would also expect his
mother to be either Elizabeth or Elliner and either his or his wife's
grandmother to be Jane.
Now going back to Ireland in the records of Lisburn Cathedral in County
Down we find the following records of a Fulton Family who seem to have
disappeared from the records there in the early 1700's as follows:
Hugh Fulton married Ellinor Johnston on Feb. 21, 1681.    Recorded are the
births and dates of 6 children as follows:
William 1683
Robert 1685
Jane 1686
JAMES  1690
John  1692
Thomas 1694
So when you combine the two you have a pretty clear idea based on typical
naming patterns that James is the son of Hugh and Ellinor and named his
eldest son and second daugther after his parents.   It would also seem
clear that Hugh's Father was William and the James named his third son
after his Grandfather.   Jane it would appear likely is named after James'
Grandmother.     Even the gaps in the dates are a clue.    Missing from the
Lisburn list is a son Hugh after Hugh himself.   Seems like a record gap
also in 1688 which might well have recorded a son Hugh missing from
records.     Continuing on the theme of clues, we have James son David and
daughter Elizabeth for which there are no examples in James' immediate
family.    That would indicate these might be clues to James' wife Sarah's
family.     And in fact, living next door in Augusta VA and also coming
from Ireland is an extensive Steele Family in which the first name David is
very common.

Again, as I hope you can see, although far from 100% certain, these common
naming patterns can provide very helpful clues to pieces of the family tree
for which no hard documentation exists or will ever likely be found.

There are even clues in examples where the pattern is not followed.   For
example, if  man does not name his first born after his Father it could
well be that he didn't know who his Father was or perhaps his Father was
not a man he thought well of.

I have found this pattern holds very true in almost all my family lines
until the early 1800's.    The exception is where the family has grown very
large and staying in the same area.    I have one line in which a man had 7
sons who all grew and married and had families in the same area.    If all
named sons after their Father (and most did) there would be great confusion
with so many boys with the same name in the same area.    These are the
cases in which I see variations starting from the naming conventions, else
there would be many group of young men in the same area with the same name.
In one somewhat humorous entry in August County VA in the 1788 will of
Andrew Hamilton, he elected not to name all his grandson but just gave a
common bequest to "each of my grandsons named Andrew".

FIRST NAME MALE FREQUENCY:
I did the following analysis some time ago using computer lists of Parish
Registers in England between 1500-1700.    I was trying to determine how
common certain first names were in order to help provide clues as to
whether certain combinations of FIrst and Surnames would likely indicate a
close family tie.     The analysis and conclusions are my own.    What I
found was a much higher degree of concentration that I thought would occur.
67% of boys were names one of the top 5 first names.     Almost 90% of boys
held one of the top 15 names.    My conclusion was that any first name not
in the top 10 that was common to another line with the same surname was a
strong indication of a close family tie.     For example, since Roger was a
first name I found for less than 1% of all boys, this to me was pretty
conclusive circumstantial proof that the Roger WIgginton who married in
1577 in Buckinghamshire England was the ancestor of the American
Wigginton's of Virginia in which Roger was a very common first name.

Following is my analysis of the frequency of male first names among 15,216
births recorded scattered throughout England for the Surname SMITH in
computer Parish Registers spanning 1500-1700.    I would expect this
pattern to be slightly different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where
the Scots were much more fond of James, Hugh, and Alexander and much less
likely that the English to us Thomas, Richard, Henry, George, and Edward.

Rank  First Name  %
1.    John        23.1%
2.    Thomas      14.6%
3.    William            14.1%
4.    Robert              7.8%
5.    Richard             7.3%

6.    Henry         3.9%
7.    George              3.2%
8.    Edward              3.2%
9.    James         2.5%
10.   Samuel              1.8%

11.   Francis             1.8%
12.   Joseph              1.8%
13.   Nicholas      1.2%
14.   Christopher   1.2%
15.   Ralph           .9%
Total Top 15 Names       88.1%

51 other male first names were checked, all having less than 1% frequency.




Thanks,   Rich Fulton, [log in to unmask]
World Wide Mid-Market Sales Executive, zSeries SW, SWG
IBM, home office
2409 Columbia Drive
Flower Mound, TX. 75022  USA
Phone: 972-724-4794, t/l 450-8996
mobile:  469-360-3875

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html