I hope nobody takes this too literally: the "rule" is never more tha a guide, perhaps useful if one is not sure which of similarly named people is likel;y to be the one one is researching. In my Scottish, Welsh and English ancestry, I have found as many exceptions as follwers of the "rule." Donald Massey ----- Original Message ----- > I've learnt something new from a book recently bought --- Eliz. > Haldane: 'The Scotland of Our Fathers', 1933 (a study of Scottish life > in the 19th century). She says (p. 31): The only exception to the > regular [naming] rule was when the male child was the first to be > baptized by a new minister, in which case he invariably received the > latter's name.'

Donald, You're right, of course. However, the 'rule' refers to *Scottish* customs, and not English or Welsh. Moreover, it refers to the 18th and perhaps early 19th centuries, and not, say, 1830 or later in Scotland. But there are all sorts of reasons why the custom was not followed in the early period. Even so, I've found it an enormous help, alerting me on several occasions to a 'missing' child, and pointing me towards the right parents. Sara ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Massey" <donaldmasseyuk@yahoo.com> To: "Sara Thomas" <sethomas@btinternet.com>; <SCT-SUTHERLAND-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [SUT] Naming of Children > I hope nobody takes this too literally: the "rule" is never more tha a > guide, perhaps useful if one is not sure which of similarly named people is > likel;y to be the one one is researching. > > In my Scottish, Welsh and English ancestry, I have found as many exceptions > as follwers of the "rule." > > Donald Massey >