Alison Gene Franks wrote: > > Hi Jim and All: > This would have had to be George 1 Aldrich. It doesn't appear that he > named any of his children Georg, nor does it appear that his children > named any of their children George! This is very unusual. Therefore, > this would be the only George who could have signed his name anywhere in > that time period. > > Alison Franks > Archivist, Rawson Family Association > Nothing unusual about that. You have to remember one thing: The colonists in New England were cutting off the ties to non-Biblical names. George was one of non-Biblical names. If you look at records from 1620-1700 - you would be hard pressed to find even the name Charles.. more common is Hepzibeth - that is something we don't see used by today's generation often. Hosea, Deborah, John, Joseph, Ephraim, Joshua, Miriam, etc - those are Biblical names. The church leaders in those days were more zealous in following the Bible and ensuring the given names are Biblical. Not so in the southern states. W. David Samuelsen