I have to agree with John Elliott that what you are seeing was probably a clerical error. Even so-called offical documents often have errors in them. In our family, we have a minister who wrote in his baptism log book that he baptized "Eliza" when the child was really "Edward!" And I can't count the number of mixups over "Alfred" vs. "Albert." I, too, have seen "James" and "John" mixed up, not because it was an accepted custom, but because it was a common mistake. This is why genealogists recommend that you try to acquire MORE THAN ONE record or proof for each event--such as each birth, each marriage, death, etc. (I know that with New Brunswick genealogy, one is very lucky to find even ONE, especially when you get back to the 1700's!). The idea is that when there's a conflict or discrepancy, you evaluate the timeliness of each document and the authority of the person who supplied the record. Then you have to decide which name, or which date, etc., is the most likely to be correct. For example, a document or record that was made close in time to the actual occurrence of the event is more likely to be correct than one that represents some person's recollection from memory of an event that happened 50 years ago. And a document created by someone "in the know" such as a close relative is more likely to be correct than a record where the info was supplied by a neighbor, a tax collector, the person who carved a cemetery headstone, or a newspaper reporter. Example--I have a death certificate from New York on an elderly man that says that the person's birthplace was "Albany, NY." But I had always thought that this person had been born in New Brunswick. The death cert informant was a hospital employee in NY. The rest of my searching showed that the person migrated from New Brunswick to NY in the 1870's, with no wife, no children, etc., who could have served as a good informant. (In fact, we suspect that he was running away from a wife whom he had abandoned, so he probably tried to hide his real background from his new acquaintences in NY). Also, the fact that this hospital employee left the lines for date of birth & parents' names blank suggests that he didn't really know very much about the deceased. Now, if I were to find a birth record from New Brunswick, where the informant was probably the child's own father, or a family Bible, or his father's probate record, or anything that was written by a close relative and/or written closer to the actual time that this guy was born, I would consider THAT information to be more accurate than the NY death certificate. Trying to gather more records is certainly burdensome, but it is also fun & very satisfying when you are able to resolve a discrepancy. And we are supposed to be having fun in genealogy, right? (Smile!) Well, good luck with old James/John Guiggy/Giggey etc! Carol Norman [email protected] > 1. Re: Deeds - 2 different given names ?? (John Elliott) > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:47:06 -0300 > From: "John Elliott" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ NB ] Deeds - 2 different given names ?? > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Shirley, > > I've never known of James and John being used interchangeably - though > I've certainly known of errors due to the speaker or writer simply letting > their mouth or pen get ahead of their brain and accidentally substituting a > similar sounding name. (I do it all the time if I'm not being careful!!!) > I'd suspect this was simply a case of the clerk making a plain old > garden-variety mistake.! > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "S. Olfert" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:58 AM > Subject: [ NB ] Deeds - 2 different given names ?? > > > > Hi List, > > > > I have a 1795 Deed with 2 different given names recorded on the document - > > which, of course, has led to a lot of confusion and speculation.It has > > "James Guiggy" in the title of the document but then "John Guiggy" > > is written in the record, itself. > > I had heard that the James>John were sometimes back then used > > interchangeably but I've never seen it before. > > Any thoughts?? > > > > Shirley

Oh, Carol... Love your comments.... I sooo know what you mean!! There are 2 death records (Kent co. & Westmorland co.) on the NB Archives website for a Grgrandmother of mine. It was odd so I ordered both. Both of them had the right father for her but on the 2nd record there was a totally different woman. Well, you can imagine the scandal that would have caused! I've had those records for years and have searched and searched for that "other" woman - the informant was the local Priest. The informant for the correct document was the son-in-law. As well, the dates didn't connect for a 2nd wife.... though in the back of my mind, I knew that, that name didn't just materialize out of nowhere. It wasn't until last year, when I found out that my Grgrandmother's Mother's line had also moved from PEI to NB & suddenly there was the "other" woman's name. She must have been there that day in some capacity for the Priest to write her name as the Mother. One never knows... :>) Thanks for tips. Shirley On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Carol Norman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have to agree with John Elliott that what you are seeing was probably a > clerical error. Even so-called offical documents often have errors in them. > In our family, we have a minister who wrote in his baptism log book that he > baptized "Eliza" when the child was really "Edward!" And I can't count the > number of mixups over "Alfred" vs. "Albert." I, too, have seen "James" and > "John" mixed up, not because it was an accepted custom, but because it was > a common mistake. > > This is why genealogists recommend that you try to acquire MORE THAN ONE > record or proof for each event--such as each birth, each marriage, death, > etc. (I know that with New Brunswick genealogy, one is very lucky to find > even ONE, especially when you get back to the 1700's!). The idea is that > when there's a conflict or discrepancy, you evaluate the timeliness of each > document and the authority of the person who supplied the record. Then you > have to decide which name, or which date, etc., is the most likely to be > correct. For example, a document or record that was made close in time to > the actual occurrence of the event is more likely to be correct than one > that represents some person's recollection from memory of an event that > happened 50 years ago. And a document created by someone "in the know" > such as a close relative is more likely to be correct than a record where > the info was supplied by a neighbor, a tax collector, the person who > carved a cemetery headstone, or a newspaper reporter. > > Example--I have a death certificate from New York on an elderly man that > says that the person's birthplace was "Albany, NY." But I had always > thought that this person had been born in New Brunswick. The death cert > informant was a hospital employee in NY. The rest of my searching showed > that the person migrated from New Brunswick to NY in the 1870's, with no > wife, no children, etc., who could have served as a good informant. (In > fact, we suspect that he was running away from a wife whom he had > abandoned, so he probably tried to hide his real background from his new > acquaintences in NY). Also, the fact that this hospital employee left the > lines for date of birth & parents' names blank suggests that he didn't > really know very much about the deceased. Now, if I were to find a birth > record from New Brunswick, where the informant was probably the child's own > father, or a family Bible, or his father's probate record, or anything that > was written by a close relative and/or written closer to the actual time > that this guy was born, I would consider THAT information to be more > accurate than the NY death certificate. > > Trying to gather more records is certainly burdensome, but it is also fun & > very satisfying when you are able to resolve a discrepancy. And we are > supposed to be having fun in genealogy, right? (Smile!) > > Well, good luck with old James/John Guiggy/Giggey etc! > > Carol Norman > [email protected] > > > >