Hi Perry, > Pam: > > Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) > > I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven > LUTEN was from Flanders... > > "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" > > As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml > > If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the > record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most > likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & Hester > named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children > John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of > maternal uncle] and Elizabeth > so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional ways. > > On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's second > husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: > > "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal > grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal grandfather. > > The first two daughters were generally named after their grandmothers, > order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since > maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased > grandmother being used over and over again." > > As copied from > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ > > Perry My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) would argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James Brady): > But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If > all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody > says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." > :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and Biographical Society). But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not aware of one that does. Regards, Pam Sears

Hi Pam and Perry, Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, I'm also not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam referenced you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. Professional and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial genealogy, such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales since no "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less rigorous era. I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of "studies" to prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how many children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many children would have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the one early Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have been dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be reversed, or happenstance. How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? You would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but to get those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the naming pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an accurate database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming patterns. Hardly scientific. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. Sears Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ Hi Perry, > Pam: > > Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) > > I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven > LUTEN was from Flanders... > > "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" > > As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml > > If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the > record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most > likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & Hester > named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children > John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of > maternal uncle] and Elizabeth > so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional ways. > > On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's second > husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: > > "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal > grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal grandfather. > > The first two daughters were generally named after their grandmothers, > order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since > maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased > grandmother being used over and over again." > > As copied from > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ > > Perry My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) would argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James Brady): > But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If > all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody > says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." > :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and Biographical Society). But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not aware of one that does. Regards, Pam Sears ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message