Hi Angus, Re. > I would suggest that the Thomas of 1812 died in infancy and in 1814, a new > son was given the name of Thomas. >> My thoughts also; common sense dictates this. Though your conclusion is likely correct, you should keep in mind that there are several instances where two children in a particular family have been given the same name without the older one's having died. This sometimes occurred when grandparents on both sides had the same given name, or when, with the high rate of child mortality, the parents simply wanted to insure that the name would pass down in the family. I initially made the assumption in my own family of the older child's having died and so was quite surprised when I subsequently came across a census record with them both still living. Since then I have learned that this was not an infrequent occurrence. Good luck! Maureen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Ferguson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Renfrew] MURRAY/Greenock: Birth date conundrum > Hi Bobbie, > > You said: > >> I would suggest that the Thomas of 1812 died in infancy and in 1814, a >> new >> son was given the name of Thomas. > > My thoughts also; common sense dictates this. > >> I have also found that the ages given in >> a census, particularly the early ones, are not always correct. > > All the other enumerated ages with this family are though correct. > > There are/have been so many recording mistakes both present and past with > this family that it seems so unlikely. Unless someone can suggest why I > should not, I'll go with the 1814 birth. > > Angus >