Hi Ailsa, I've been reading this conversation with much interest, as I too have noticed the same in my family. I'm especially interested in the naming tendencies, as the same happened in my family - they always named their children family names, for about 150 years, and then all of a sudden... almost precisely after 1890 it seems!... they all start to name their children names that they obivously just liked. Was there any reason behind this rapid change, or was it just a change in fashion? I've always been particularly interested in names and naming patterns, and agree that this is another very interesting angle on social history. Best wishes and good look in your research! Gill ======================================== Message Received: Jan 23 2006, 08:11 PM From: "Ailsa Petrie" To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: [NYorks] Family Size in England 1920-1940 Hi Peter, I'm pleased that I wasn't imagining it! I have noted other patterns in my family, too, which makes an interesting social comment of the times. Does the following compare with your research, too? Before the 1891 census, farmers' daughters married farmers' sons and those sons invariably worked with their fathers, the majority living with their parents until marriage. After 1891, sons were working for others and by the 1901 census, even many daughters were working and living away from the family home. Farmers' daughters didn't marry farmers' sons, either, but men in a range of occupations, including a lot of railway employees. In my family, it began a move outwards to other areas, although most appear to have stayed within Yorkshire. The other pattern I've noted is that after 1891, a wide range of new names were used for their children, instead of those of generations passed. William, John, James & Robert etc., gave way to Norman, Kenneth, Stanley and Maurice; Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth and Jane etc., gave way to Muriel, Beatrice, Florence and Elsie. It all reflects the changes in society, doesn't it, something I find fascinating. It's a history in itself, from a different angle. Regards Ailsa Peter Appleton wrote: > Hi Ailsa, > > I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it but, yes, the same pattern is > there in my family tree. My grandparents on both sides were having their > respective families during the 1920s. Each had only three children. Yet, > individually three of them were from a much larger family: Fred APPLETON was > one of 10 (9 surviving past infancy), Thomas EVANS was one of 12 (10 > surviving infancy), Hannah Mary APPLETON (nee FAWCETT) was one of 11 (only 6 > surviving infancy) whilst Evelyn EVANS (nee BOWERS) was one of 4. > > regards, > > Peter Appleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 23/01/2006 ==== ENG-NORTH-YORKS Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from the ENG-NORTH-YORKS list, send the command "unsubscribe" to [email protected] (if in mail mode) or [email protected] (if in digest mode.) ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx