Hello Colleen I understand it was not uncommon practice for a child by a second wife to be named for the deceased wife, certainly in the 19th century and beyond. I realise it is surprising to hear of a child being called after the father's new wife, but things must have been very different then. It was a time when naming patterns took precedence - and when there was a far higher chance your partner or children would die young than today. A sad fact of life that I know I find hard to appreciate. I have seen a number of children named for the deceased partner and as many as three children in a given family with the same first name, when an earlier-born sibling by that name had died. Even here in Holland and in the 20th century, my mother in law had three sisters named Catherine, two of whom survived! OK, so they had different calling names. In Scotland, where children were and are regularly given family surnames as middle names, it would not at all have been strange for a child to bear the full name of the previous partner, plus the father's surname. Of course, from where we're standing, it can further complicate the quest to find our ancestors, but sometimes it can even be a help. Enjoy the trail of what they call Scotland's Greatest Story: our own. Katie de Haan The Netherlands --Original Message-- From: sct-renfrew-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sct-renfrew-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Colleen Covacich Sent: vrijdag 23 juli 2010 21:04 To: sct-renfrew@rootsweb.com Subject: [SCT-RENFREW] Ancestry query - McMillan <<<I find it quite incredible that James Allan McMillan marries first to Elizabeth Munro then after her death marries Margaret Campbell and calls one of their children Elizabeth Munro McMillan who apparently marries Robert Waddell. I wonder how many wives today would allow that! or am I wrong? body of the message>>>