Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a little - umm - would flippant fit? Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to > bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women about > with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their > parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so creating > and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child > was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family then > adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives of > the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't see > how we can ever discover. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > > > In message <[email protected] > > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes > >>Dear all, > >> > >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? > >> > >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is this > >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips > >>with > >>this. > > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be > > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is > > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions > > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas the > > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', > > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. > > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of > > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of > > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some transcribers > > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old > > transcriptions without noticing which was used. > > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, > > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same > > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. > > -- > > Eve McLaughlin > > > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >

You've illustrated my point, I think, Ros. Unless Eve actually tells us what was in her mind, we have no way of telling. I agree that a lot of people seem to repeat names when they remarry. Perhaps it's a case of feeling comfortable with someone who bears the same name or perhaps names shape the way people develop and the ideas they adopt. No-one could blame someone wanting a similar model to replace the old much loved original. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late > husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother > married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but > still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a > little - umm - would flippant fit? > > Ros > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > >> As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to >> bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women > about >> with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their >> parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so >> creating >> and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child >> was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family > then >> adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives > of >> the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't > see >> how we can ever discover. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years >> >> >> > In message <[email protected] >> > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >> >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? >> >> >> >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is >> >>this >> >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips >> >>with >> >>this. >> > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be >> > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is >> > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions >> > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas >> > the >> > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', >> > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. >> > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of >> > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of >> > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some >> > transcribers >> > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old >> > transcriptions without noticing which was used. >> > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, >> > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same >> > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. >> > -- >> > Eve McLaughlin >> > >> > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> > >> > >> > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >> > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: > 21/07/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

As I understand it, many people were named for grandparents or godparents and that quite often led to two brothers or sisters being named identically. This was because the family knew that John 1 was named after his paternal grandfather and John 2 for the maternal grandfather both of whom were likely to leave something on death to their favoured grandchild. If this is correct it's a practise that would tend to concentrate the use of names on a limited selection and perpetuate the habit. You might only have got a new name if you came late enough for it not to matter. I suppose it's a theory that could be put to the test if someone was patient enough to go through enough family trees. Ken -----Original Message----- From: Norman Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 July 2006 15:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years You've illustrated my point, I think, Ros. Unless Eve actually tells us what was in her mind, we have no way of telling. I agree that a lot of people seem to repeat names when they remarry. Perhaps it's a case of feeling comfortable with someone who bears the same name or perhaps names shape the way people develop and the ideas they adopt. No-one could blame someone wanting a similar model to replace the old much loved original. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late > husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother > married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but > still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a > little - umm - would flippant fit? > > Ros > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:34 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > > >> As a matter of interest, how do you know that these men didn't want to >> bother memorising a new name for a new wife? There were a lot of women > about >> with a limited selection of names. Perhaps it was more a case of their >> parents not bothering to be inventive when a new girl was born so >> creating >> and perpetuating a limited selection? It certainly is a gift when a child >> was given a name unique in her locality and particularly if the family > then >> adopted it for later generations. But the same name for subsequent wives > of >> the same man raises all sorts of questions the answers to which I can't > see >> how we can ever discover. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years >> >> >> > In message <[email protected] >> > online.co.uk>, Yvonne Purdy <[email protected]> writes >> >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>Please, does anyone know of a website where I can check a date? >> >> >> >>I've got a burial from the parish register of 28 February 1568. Is >> >>this >> >>actually 1568 or 1569? (New Style/Old Style)? I never did get to grips >> >>with >> >>this. >> > It should be old style and therefore 1569 in modern terms. However, be >> > wary that if this is from a transcribed version of a register, it is >> > quite possible that the date has been adjusted. Early transcriptions >> > (and some done for LDS) do correct the date to modern style, whereas >> > the >> > later transcribers mostly followed the convention of putting '1568/9', >> > to make it quite clear what was actually written and intended. >> > A full printed transcription will state this at the beginning, but, of >> > course, if you are using the IGI/Family Search, there is no way of >> > telling, since no single convention was followed (i.e. some >> > transcribers >> > knew about old/new style, some didn't, some copied from old >> > transcriptions without noticing which was used. >> > It can be quite difficult, just gathering names from a transcript, >> > because a lot of men married a second (even a third) wife with the same >> > name as the first, to avoid having to memorise something new. >> > -- >> > Eve McLaughlin >> > >> > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> > >> > >> > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >> > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >> > [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: > 21/07/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH

In message <[email protected]>, Rosemary Jarvis <[email protected]> writes >Such coincidences still happen without any deliberate intention - my late >husband married two Rosemarys, me and his first wife, and his brother >married two Gillians - ok in his case his very first wife was Venetia but >still ... in this family it was the norm! But I suspect Eve was being a >little - umm - would flippant fit? Exactly. But in my experience, there are far too many second marriages where the bride's name is the same as that of the first wife for it to be a pure coincidence. John and Mary, sure, masses of those. but James and Kezia X 2? Stephen and Rebecca X 2? When you think of the consequences of the husband's coming home and saying 'Lizzie, where's me dinner?' to a second wife named Maggie - given a spirited Maggie, his dinner would end up over his head, not on his plate. And in more intimate moments..........? -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society