Hi Ian, I think that if the 3rd son could not be named for his father for the reason you gave, then the son would get the name of his father's eldest brother, and probably not chosen arbitrarily, unless of course there were no other sons in the father's family. In which case, my thinking would be to consider the mother's eldest brother. As for the first son dying, at what age did he die? If he died in the first week of life, as in one case I know about, the name was passed on. If the first son had started school, say, or had even lived long enough to establish an identity in society, the name would probably not be reused, except perhaps as a middle name. Just my thoughts. Barbara Brown Allen -----Original Message----- From: Ian Ritchie <iritchie1@iprimus.com.au> Sent: Jul 25, 2004 10:19 PM To: DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [D-G LIST] Scottish Naming Patterns Hi Listers, I have a query which will hopefully not be totally obscured by my fractured logic. If a first son was born and named after the paternal grandfather as per the Scottish naming pattern. Then a second son was born and named after the maternal grandfather. A third son was born and would normally take his father's name but could not because,since the father had the same name as the paternal grandfather,that name had already been given to the first son. Thus he was named arbitrarily. Then say the first son died! Is this son then discounted from the pattern allowing a new,now third son,to take the father's name as the original is now defunct? My apologies for this hypothetical situation the answer to which could send me off into a new frenzy of searching. Ian Ritchie ==== DUMFRIES-GALLOWAY Mailing List ==== FIND YOUR ANCESTORS http://www.directcon.net/tomas/Ancestry/index.html/