Yes it is possible they were brothers, and both living at the same time, but at this period I would have expected at least one of them to have been baptised with a second forename as well, that would distinguish him from the first. I would see the following possibilities as also occurring (without knowing how common the surname and he names of the parents are): 1) As people have indicated, they were a different set of parents of the same name. They could have been cousins of some sort, but naming patterns are also local to areas as well as extended families, so the relationship may not be either direct or obvious. In particular if the parents have names like John / William / Mary / Ann(e) it is extremely possible. 2) That the father is the same, but you do have two wives of the same name, with the first wifes death somewhere in the period. So they would be half brothers rather than brothers. Again at this period I would have expected to see a second forename on one of them. 3) That the first Henry did die somewhere in the 12 years after his birth and the one that died in 1837 is some other unrelated Henry that just happens to match the details, and possibly was not even born in the area. 4) That both Henry's are one and the same, and the two baptism records are either because the parents forgot or were not sure he had been baptised, or that the first entry relates to a private baptism and the second to being received into church. 5) That there is a transcription error on behalf of the original clerk, and he has either got the name of the child wrong (possibly the same as the name as a preceding or subsequent entry) or the names of the parents wrong. If there is a AT/BT, do check the records here as well to ensure that they are the same. I am sure that members of this list could also add at least a couple of further scenarios to this list. As you have not said what records you have used (and their quality), it is difficult to assess the probabilities of the above five, versus them really being brothers (and even with that information it will still be difficult). One thing you should check, as much as you can, is the that the period between the births of all the children does in fact make sense, and that nowhere in that are you seeing evidence of baptisms for two separate families. You do possibly need to start looking round for other evidence than parish records that there really was only one family living at the time. Wills, tax records, deeds, etc. Note that for this you do not need dates; even something like a tax list showing there were two people with the name of the father, versus only one, will help here. Do any further records you have already found match (or eliminate) any of the scenarios I have listed, versus them being brothers? regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 03/08/2014 10:11, Pam Downes via wrote: > Are you absolutely certain that they are brothers and not second > cousins? (Don't think they can be first cousins if the fathers have the > same name.) > I have one family where the three sons each gave their sons the names of > themselves and their brothers, and then those sons gave their sons the > same three names. As they were all born within about a 10-year period > it's a complete nightmare to sort whose son married Emily, who married > Mary 1, who married Mary 2, etc, without buying/obtaining the marriage > certificates. > > I also have a case of two boys with the same name being born in the same > village a year apart and both married an Emma. (They're twigs so I > haven't probed any further back than their baptisms at the moment so > they may well be related if I go back one or two generations.) If you > rely just on PRs then you could assume that it's just one Charles and > Emma, when it's two. > > But I have heard of instances where two children in the family have the > same name. (I assume that you've checked for a burial for the first > Henry, possibly in another village/town.) > > Pam > > On 03/08/2014 09:04, Brian Sillett via wrote: >> I seem to have two brothers both named Henry by the same parents and born 12 years apart. The first Henry was still alive when his namesake was born in 1819 and died in 1837. They lived a mere 3 miles apart. >> >> I have checked for any possible errors on my part but can’t find anything obvious so I am left with the thought that it might not have been unusual to have two brothers with the same given name when both were alive. >> >> Do any listers have the same conundrum? >> >> Brian Sillett >> >> ------------------------------- > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

I wish to thank everyone who helped with the same name siblings conundrum. Keith: I am slowly going through all the points you made. All baptisms were from PR images and all 11 children were born at regular 2 year intervals between 1802 and 1819 to James & Martha Sillett at Alburgh, Nfk. (except I can't find Robert b.c. 1811!). There is a Shipmeadow Workhouse record in 1817 a few miles from Alburgh, (but near Beccles in Suffolk) where James & Martha and 6 out of 11 of their children (including Robert) were housed. The older Henry who would have been 11 is not there and the younger Henry yet to be born but he was baptised 1819 back in Alburgh. The family's stay looks to have been a short one. Some way to go then!! Brian Sillett -----Original Message----- From: Keith Drage via Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 6:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NFK] Same name siblings Yes it is possible they were brothers, and both living at the same time, but at this period I would have expected at least one of them to have been baptised with a second forename as well, that would distinguish him from the first. I would see the following possibilities as also occurring (without knowing how common the surname and he names of the parents are): 1) As people have indicated, they were a different set of parents of the same name. They could have been cousins of some sort, but naming patterns are also local to areas as well as extended families, so the relationship may not be either direct or obvious. In particular if the parents have names like John / William / Mary / Ann(e) it is extremely possible. 2) That the father is the same, but you do have two wives of the same name, with the first wifes death somewhere in the period. So they would be half brothers rather than brothers. Again at this period I would have expected to see a second forename on one of them. 3) That the first Henry did die somewhere in the 12 years after his birth and the one that died in 1837 is some other unrelated Henry that just happens to match the details, and possibly was not even born in the area. 4) That both Henry's are one and the same, and the two baptism records are either because the parents forgot or were not sure he had been baptised, or that the first entry relates to a private baptism and the second to being received into church. 5) That there is a transcription error on behalf of the original clerk, and he has either got the name of the child wrong (possibly the same as the name as a preceding or subsequent entry) or the names of the parents wrong. If there is a AT/BT, do check the records here as well to ensure that they are the same. I am sure that members of this list could also add at least a couple of further scenarios to this list. As you have not said what records you have used (and their quality), it is difficult to assess the probabilities of the above five, versus them really being brothers (and even with that information it will still be difficult). One thing you should check, as much as you can, is the that the period between the births of all the children does in fact make sense, and that nowhere in that are you seeing evidence of baptisms for two separate families. You do possibly need to start looking round for other evidence than parish records that there really was only one family living at the time. Wills, tax records, deeds, etc. Note that for this you do not need dates; even something like a tax list showing there were two people with the name of the father, versus only one, will help here. Do any further records you have already found match (or eliminate) any of the scenarios I have listed, versus them being brothers? regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 03/08/2014 10:11, Pam Downes via wrote: > Are you absolutely certain that they are brothers and not second > cousins? (Don't think they can be first cousins if the fathers have the > same name.) > I have one family where the three sons each gave their sons the names of > themselves and their brothers, and then those sons gave their sons the > same three names. As they were all born within about a 10-year period > it's a complete nightmare to sort whose son married Emily, who married > Mary 1, who married Mary 2, etc, without buying/obtaining the marriage > certificates. > > I also have a case of two boys with the same name being born in the same > village a year apart and both married an Emma. (They're twigs so I > haven't probed any further back than their baptisms at the moment so > they may well be related if I go back one or two generations.) If you > rely just on PRs then you could assume that it's just one Charles and > Emma, when it's two. > > But I have heard of instances where two children in the family have the > same name. (I assume that you've checked for a burial for the first > Henry, possibly in another village/town.) > > Pam > > On 03/08/2014 09:04, Brian Sillett via wrote: >> I seem to have two brothers both named Henry by the same parents and born >> 12 years apart. The first Henry was still alive when his namesake was >> born in 1819 and died in 1837. They lived a mere 3 miles apart. >> >> I have checked for any possible errors on my part but can’t find anything >> obvious so I am left with the thought that it might not have been unusual >> to have two brothers with the same given name when both were alive. >> >> Do any listers have the same conundrum? >> >> Brian Sillett >> >> ------------------------------- > > ------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------- 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