I believe that there was a formula that decided what child would be named after which ancestor, If anyone can give me some clues I would be gratefull. regards Joe Austen 9934 in OZ

There was a tradition (up to the last 3 generations, when names became part of fashion) in my family to name the first son after the father, the first daughter after the mother, and subsequent children after the father's father/mother, then the mother's father/mother. Beyond that, and bearing in mind the confusion caused by [a] child mortality and [b] introduction of second and third Christian names, it seems to have been arbitrary (at least in my family). This has resulted in a large number of Richards, Georges, James and Fredericks. Names in the royal family seem to be used quite a bit, especially in Victorian times. I was the first child in my family to be called Anthony (my mother wanted to Christen me Tony, but was dissuaded by the vicar!). Best wishes Tony 9967 Freezing Petersfield, Hampshire On 17/02/2008, Joe Austen <austengenealogy@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > > I believe that there was a formula that decided what child would be named > after which ancestor, If anyone can give me some clues I would be gratefull. > regards Joe Austen 9934 in OZ >