Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a single name before. Has anyone else? Richard

On Friday, 13 November 2015 01:39:04 UTC, Richard Smith wrote: > Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used > interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of > Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of > things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the > parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears > in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a > single name before. Has anyone else? > > Richard I've never come across this. There are two more likely explanations: If there aren't Kemish in the parish before this time, then John and Isaac may have both arrived in the parish at the same time (for some job reason perhaps). If the surname is already established in the parish, then you've probably got a gap in the records. Both of these individuals could have been born in the 'Commonwealth Gap' or some other register break. Or have been baptised in the mother's parish. So you wouldn't have seen them again until they start producing their own families. You may be able to resolve this by extending your record base. Serendipity can be wonderful. Chris

On 13/11/15 01:38, Richard Smith wrote: > Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used > interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of > Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of > things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the > parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears > in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a > single name before. Has anyone else? No, but at that time I have "Jacobus Kennerley aut Petrus Kennerwelley" in this thread: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENBRIT/2010-02/1265754083 (The variation in surname isn't significant. The surname derives from a Cheshire village which was variously Kennerley or Kenworthy. You won't find in on the map; as far as I can make out it's under the M60/M56 junction.) That's never really been resolved but one possibility was that the name change marked a religious conversion and another that he was trying to cover his political past. Perhaps John was active against the interests of Charles II's brother prior to him becoming James II & found it convenient to become Isaac until the Glorious Revolution. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:dakt9kF3ct5U1@mid.individual.net... > >Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used interchangeably? >I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of Michelmersh, Hants in the late >17th / early 18th century, and a lot of things would slot neatly into place >if the Isaac who appears in the parish registers in the 1680s was the same >man as the John who appears in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard >of them being treated as a single name before. Has anyone else? > >Richard I have an ancestor born and baptised Isaac but every so often he crops up as John Isaac or Isaac John. It has cropped up in marriage banns and his son's military records. Unfortunately he lived so long ago there is no one alive who can give an answer to this. Gordon