Hi all, I'm new to this list so be gentle with me! just to comment on this - My Mother was baptised Peggy - not a Margaret in sight. I also know a Margaret who is usually called Meg or Miggs. -- Regards, Peter Hirons (Family roots in Long Lawford - Parish of Newbold upon Avon) > Although Polly was most often used as a pet name for Mary, including > Mary Ann, it could be used for any of the Mary names (such as > Marion/Marian) and another common formation was Molly. It is not > restricted to Mary Ann (indeed Polly Ann can be found, baptised Mary > Ann). Similarly Meg or Peg or Peggy was usually a pet name for > Margaret, but might also be used for any of the Marg names, such as > Maisie or Marjorie. There is an interesting discussion of these issues > in George Redmond's book 'Christian names in Local and Family History', > in which he warns against assuming a 'proper' name from a 'pet name', > citing one Betty who was baptised Elizabeth and another baptised > Beatrice, belonging to a quite different name group (and many other > examples). This doesn't matter when you have the kind of evidence that > Gus has, but it can obviously mislead if, for example, you have a > servant Molly xxxx in a census and start searching for the xxxx females > in baptism registers, and disregard all except the Mary Anns, because > you believe that Polly is only a pet name for Mary Ann. > > However, Gus, you're obviously quite safe in this instance. > > David

Welcome, Peter! My gt gran was Maggie...registered and baptised as just that. Her siblings...Tommy "John Thomas" and Harry "George Henry" had me thinking she must be Margaret Something...but no, just Maggie! We shall never understand the whims of our ancestors...but it is fun trying!! The real mystery in my research has been a family with two sons baptised "William". Before you all shout...BOTH reached adult hood, both married and spawned more Williams!! The only conclusion I could draw was that the elder trotted off to make his way in the world in mid-teens, and parents needed someone around to call Will...they had an enormous brood!! Jacqui ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Hirons To: David Franks OPC Cc: warwick@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WAR] A Nickname - and Coventry Street Name [continued] Hi all, I'm new to this list so be gentle with me! just to comment on this - My Mother was baptised Peggy - not a Margaret in sight. I also know a Margaret who is usually called Meg or Miggs. -- Regards, Peter Hirons (Family roots in Long Lawford - Parish of Newbold upon Avon) > Although Polly was most often used as a pet name for Mary, including > Mary Ann, it could be used for any of the Mary names (such as > Marion/Marian) and another common formation was Molly. It is not > restricted to Mary Ann (indeed Polly Ann can be found, baptised Mary > Ann). Similarly Meg or Peg or Peggy was usually a pet name for > Margaret, but might also be used for any of the Marg names, such as > Maisie or Marjorie. There is an interesting discussion of these issues > in George Redmond's book 'Christian names in Local and Family History', > in which he warns against assuming a 'proper' name from a 'pet name', > citing one Betty who was baptised Elizabeth and another baptised > Beatrice, belonging to a quite different name group (and many other > examples). This doesn't matter when you have the kind of evidence that > Gus has, but it can obviously mislead if, for example, you have a > servant Molly xxxx in a census and start searching for the xxxx females > in baptism registers, and disregard all except the Mary Anns, because > you believe that Polly is only a pet name for Mary Ann. > > However, Gus, you're obviously quite safe in this instance. > > David ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 21:50

Jacqui: > The real mystery in my research has been a family with two sons baptised > "William". Before you all shout...BOTH reached adult hood, both married > and spawned more Williams!! The only conclusion I could draw was that the > elder trotted off to make his way in the world in mid-teens, and parents > needed someone around to call Will...they had an enormous brood!! This is a bit of a long shot by way of explanation, but it is possible to get a family (eg in one of the censuses) with two children of the same name who are unrelated. For example, Mr and Mrs X have a son called William. Mr X dies while William is very young (perhaps not even born). Mrs X remarries a widower, Mr Y, who already has a son named William Y. Mrs X becomes Mrs Y, and William X also takes the name William Y, as his new father is the only one he's ever known. Of course, if you've got baptism records that's something else! Best wishes Paul Prescott