Help! Too many Bills!
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Help! Too many Bills!
I realize that in Alabama parents can name their two male children
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
I did see one case in which there were two Roberts, but it was because
the patriarchal name was Robert and it looks as if the first Robert
died young and the family wanted to keep the patriarchal name alive.
Obviously it would be no problem if William the Younger were son of
William the Elder, but the Will is quite explicit about it, not just in
my opinion but in the opinion of the editor of the Will.
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
Help! This could be extremely important to my quest.
P.S. -- needless to say, the family tree does not feature a Thomas
followed by two Bills -- in fact, it doesn't even have a Thomas who
sired even one Bill.
Thanks in advance.
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
I did see one case in which there were two Roberts, but it was because
the patriarchal name was Robert and it looks as if the first Robert
died young and the family wanted to keep the patriarchal name alive.
Obviously it would be no problem if William the Younger were son of
William the Elder, but the Will is quite explicit about it, not just in
my opinion but in the opinion of the editor of the Will.
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
Help! This could be extremely important to my quest.
P.S. -- needless to say, the family tree does not feature a Thomas
followed by two Bills -- in fact, it doesn't even have a Thomas who
sired even one Bill.
Thanks in advance.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
While not entirely common, this was not unheard of, and the very fact
that they distinguished "William the elder" from "William the younger"
(the typical form used in such cases) indicates that a clerical error
seems unlikely. As to why, sometimes it was multiple marriages, but
there are cases where it was certainly not. Some other possible
scenarios involve the desire to honor a recently deceased individual, in
spite of already having a child with the relevant name, or a patron or
patron saint who confered some benevolence on the parents (again, in
spite of already having a so-named child). We could also add a simple
lack of originality on the part of the parents.
taf
I realize that in Alabama parents can name their two male children
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
I did see one case in which there were two Roberts, but it was because
the patriarchal name was Robert and it looks as if the first Robert
died young and the family wanted to keep the patriarchal name alive.
Obviously it would be no problem if William the Younger were son of
William the Elder, but the Will is quite explicit about it, not just in
my opinion but in the opinion of the editor of the Will.
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
While not entirely common, this was not unheard of, and the very fact
that they distinguished "William the elder" from "William the younger"
(the typical form used in such cases) indicates that a clerical error
seems unlikely. As to why, sometimes it was multiple marriages, but
there are cases where it was certainly not. Some other possible
scenarios involve the desire to honor a recently deceased individual, in
spite of already having a child with the relevant name, or a patron or
patron saint who confered some benevolence on the parents (again, in
spite of already having a so-named child). We could also add a simple
lack of originality on the part of the parents.
taf
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
On 21 Apr 2005 10:23:13 -0700, geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:
In some places, the catholic tradition was to give to a child the
name of a godparent, i.e. the son being named as the godfather.
That use can be limited to a family or to a priest or to a small
area, but whatever the reason is, it may happen from times to times.
I have one case in the 1600s or 1700s where a family has 3 living
Peter, all named in the same record (2 of them were even married
in that record). In another case, a family had 3 Mary.
And there is one case of a New England captive named Jonathan that
was renamed to Joseph after his capture, then taking the same name
as his brother, another captive but carried to another place.
So, yes, this is quite possible to have 2 brothers of the same name,
and this doesn't mean they had different mothers.
Keep in mind that it is only recently that the child mortality became
small enough to be rather sure two children will survive. So, even
if it looks strange, in the medieval times, because some family may
prefer some given names or because godparents had the same name or
for whatever reason, it happened that there were 2 children of the
same name.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com
soc.genealogy.medieval:
I realize that in Alabama parents can name their two male children
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
In some places, the catholic tradition was to give to a child the
name of a godparent, i.e. the son being named as the godfather.
That use can be limited to a family or to a priest or to a small
area, but whatever the reason is, it may happen from times to times.
I have one case in the 1600s or 1700s where a family has 3 living
Peter, all named in the same record (2 of them were even married
in that record). In another case, a family had 3 Mary.
And there is one case of a New England captive named Jonathan that
was renamed to Joseph after his capture, then taking the same name
as his brother, another captive but carried to another place.
So, yes, this is quite possible to have 2 brothers of the same name,
and this doesn't mean they had different mothers.
Keep in mind that it is only recently that the child mortality became
small enough to be rather sure two children will survive. So, even
if it looks strange, in the medieval times, because some family may
prefer some given names or because godparents had the same name or
for whatever reason, it happened that there were 2 children of the
same name.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com
-
Robert
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
The Wright's of Kelvedon Hall feature:
Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hall, father of
"Eldest" John, who remained in Kelvedon Hatch
"Myddle" John, styled John Wright of "Wrights Bridge"
"Young" John, styled John Wright "of South Weld"
source: http://footprints.org/7-300000.htm
geral...@earthlink.net wrote:
Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hall, father of
"Eldest" John, who remained in Kelvedon Hatch
"Myddle" John, styled John Wright of "Wrights Bridge"
"Young" John, styled John Wright "of South Weld"
source: http://footprints.org/7-300000.htm
geral...@earthlink.net wrote:
I realize that in Alabama parents can name their two male children
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
snip
-
starbuck95
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
The Wright's of Kelvedon Hall feature:
Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hall, father of
"Eldest" John, who remained in Kelvedon Hatch
"Myddle" John, styled John Wright of "Wrights Bridge"
"Young" John, styled John Wright "of South Weld"
I think the website you mention is dubious in certain respects, but a
pedigree of some of these branches of Wrights is found someplace in
Nichols' _Leicestershire_ (how much better it is than the website, I
can't say).
-
Gjest
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
In a message dated 4/21/2005 10:32:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geraldrm@earthlink.net writes:
This is interesting in light of the recent discussion of the two Joans and
the two (possibly) Elen's. I have seen a family in which the same firstname is
used more than once, but in those cases for which the relevant records exist,
it is the case that the elder child had died *prior* to the second child being
named the same.
In this case your will points out that both William's are in fact alive at
the same time, which is curious. In my own research I have not found any
cases like that. I would suggest the possibility that Thomas was hedging his
bets. Naming two boys William with the hope that at least one would carry on
that name to the next generation. That's the best I can think.
Will[iam] Johnson
geraldrm@earthlink.net writes:
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
This is interesting in light of the recent discussion of the two Joans and
the two (possibly) Elen's. I have seen a family in which the same firstname is
used more than once, but in those cases for which the relevant records exist,
it is the case that the elder child had died *prior* to the second child being
named the same.
In this case your will points out that both William's are in fact alive at
the same time, which is curious. In my own research I have not found any
cases like that. I would suggest the possibility that Thomas was hedging his
bets. Naming two boys William with the hope that at least one would carry on
that name to the next generation. That's the best I can think.
Will[iam] Johnson
-
Lynn Scott
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
There seem to be a number of instances of families having two children
with the same name in the 1400-1600 time period in England, in some
cases because a later child was named for an earlier one who had died,
but in other cases apparently to honour patrons, godparents, etc.,
through the naming of children. One of the better documented instances
is in the Paston family (of Paston letters fame), namely the eldest two
sons of John Paston (1421-1466) by Margaret Mauteby: Sir John (the
elder) Paston (1442-1479) and Sir John (the younger) Paston (after
1442-1503).
DLScott
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
with the same name in the 1400-1600 time period in England, in some
cases because a later child was named for an earlier one who had died,
but in other cases apparently to honour patrons, godparents, etc.,
through the naming of children. One of the better documented instances
is in the Paston family (of Paston letters fame), namely the eldest two
sons of John Paston (1421-1466) by Margaret Mauteby: Sir John (the
elder) Paston (1442-1479) and Sir John (the younger) Paston (after
1442-1503).
DLScott
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
I realize that in Alabama parents can name their two male children
Billie-Joe and Billie-Bob, but I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas". I have not seen any other families in
genealogies of this period in which a parent gave two sons the same
name.
I did see one case in which there were two Roberts, but it was because
the patriarchal name was Robert and it looks as if the first Robert
died young and the family wanted to keep the patriarchal name alive.
Obviously it would be no problem if William the Younger were son of
William the Elder, but the Will is quite explicit about it, not just in
my opinion but in the opinion of the editor of the Will.
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
Help! This could be extremely important to my quest.
P.S. -- needless to say, the family tree does not feature a Thomas
followed by two Bills -- in fact, it doesn't even have a Thomas who
sired even one Bill.
Thanks in advance.
-
Yvonne Purdy
RE: Help! Too many Bills!
I've got two examples, not quite as early as yours, the first an
illegitimate son called Richard, to an errant ancestor, then on his lawful
marriage, another Richard, two half brothers in the early 1700's.
Two generations ago, I've got two Williams, both surviving, first born
William Sherlock, last born William Sherlock, one called after the paternal
grandfather, the other after a maternal uncle (who had just died). It
happens in these recent centuries as it probably happened then.
As an aside, but seeing some messages, in my family some of my female line
went on giving birth well into their fifties, I was a bit adrift in only
giving birth to my last at forty-three.
Kind regards,
Yvonne
illegitimate son called Richard, to an errant ancestor, then on his lawful
marriage, another Richard, two half brothers in the early 1700's.
Two generations ago, I've got two Williams, both surviving, first born
William Sherlock, last born William Sherlock, one called after the paternal
grandfather, the other after a maternal uncle (who had just died). It
happens in these recent centuries as it probably happened then.
As an aside, but seeing some messages, in my family some of my female line
went on giving birth well into their fifties, I was a bit adrift in only
giving birth to my last at forty-three.
Kind regards,
Yvonne
-
Dora Smith
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
I don't know the context to this - but medieval families did sometimes give
more than one child the same first name. Not too often, but it pops up.
So you would have Bill the elder and Bill the younger.
Another thing that was more common and survived for a long time in this
country, was the practice of reusing the name of a child who had died.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
more than one child the same first name. Not too often, but it pops up.
So you would have Bill the elder and Bill the younger.
Another thing that was more common and survived for a long time in this
country, was the practice of reusing the name of a child who had died.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
In a message dated 4/21/2005 10:32:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geraldrm@earthlink.net writes:
Could this be a clerical mistake? Or is it possible that Thomas did
name two sons Bill? And if so, why did he do so? Furthermore, is it
more likely for this to have happened with two different marriages than
one, or is that irrelevant?
This is interesting in light of the recent discussion of the two Joans and
the two (possibly) Elen's. I have seen a family in which the same
firstname is
used more than once, but in those cases for which the relevant records
exist,
it is the case that the elder child had died *prior* to the second child
being
named the same.
In this case your will points out that both William's are in fact alive
at
-
Dora Smith
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
I got it right. That's exactly what happened here.
See, I hadn't read the original post. I would have it it said "too many
Williams", but I thought "Help! Too many Bills!" was spam, and all the
replies were complaints about it! So the first thing I read was one fo the
responses. I don't read suspected spam - could be infected with a virus.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: Help! Too many Bills!
See, I hadn't read the original post. I would have it it said "too many
Williams", but I thought "Help! Too many Bills!" was spam, and all the
replies were complaints about it! So the first thing I read was one fo the
responses. I don't read suspected spam - could be infected with a virus.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: Help! Too many Bills!
I'm bewildered at a 1527 Dorsetshire
Will that I'm studying. In three different places, the testator
explicitly states that if his own son does not survive him, next in
line is "William the elder son of Thomas", followed by "William the
younger son of said Thomas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
Todd Farmerie wrote:
And in some cases a determination to perpetuate the name as a badge of
honour to pass consistently down the generations - the most famous &
thorough-going example of this is the family of the princes & counts
Reuss in Germany, in which every male for centuries has been baptised
Heinrich.
I'm not sure when this practice started, but perhaps Leo can tell us.
Peter Stewart
While not entirely common, this was not unheard of, and
the very fact that they distinguished "William the elder"
from "William the younger" (the typical form used in such
cases) indicates that a clerical error seems unlikely. As
to why, sometimes it was multiple marriages, but there
are cases where it was certainly not. Some other possible
scenarios involve the desire to honor a recently deceased
individual, in spite of already having a child with the
relevant name, or a patron or patron saint who confered
some benevolence on the parents (again, in spite of already
having a so-named child). We could also add a simple
lack of originality on the part of the parents.
And in some cases a determination to perpetuate the name as a badge of
honour to pass consistently down the generations - the most famous &
thorough-going example of this is the family of the princes & counts
Reuss in Germany, in which every male for centuries has been baptised
Heinrich.
I'm not sure when this practice started, but perhaps Leo can tell us.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
They were in awe, for some reason, with one of the Holy Roman Emperors which
is why they started this.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
is why they started this.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
Todd Farmerie wrote:
While not entirely common, this was not unheard of, and
the very fact that they distinguished "William the elder"
from "William the younger" (the typical form used in such
cases) indicates that a clerical error seems unlikely. As
to why, sometimes it was multiple marriages, but there
are cases where it was certainly not. Some other possible
scenarios involve the desire to honor a recently deceased
individual, in spite of already having a child with the
relevant name, or a patron or patron saint who confered
some benevolence on the parents (again, in spite of already
having a so-named child). We could also add a simple
lack of originality on the part of the parents.
And in some cases a determination to perpetuate the name as a badge of
honour to pass consistently down the generations - the most famous &
thorough-going example of this is the family of the princes & counts
Reuss in Germany, in which every male for centuries has been baptised
Heinrich.
I'm not sure when this practice started, but perhaps Leo can tell us.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
Leo wrote:
I see on Genealogics that they even named a few daughters Henriette as
well - can't have too much of a good thing, apparently, when you are
toadying to an emperor, or fawning over his memory!
Peter Stewart
They were in awe, for some reason, with one of the Holy
Roman Emperors which is why they started this.
I see on Genealogics that they even named a few daughters Henriette as
well - can't have too much of a good thing, apparently, when you are
toadying to an emperor, or fawning over his memory!
Peter Stewart
-
Rick Eaton
Re: Fact or fiction
Just a marginally related footnote to this point. Historians and
professional genealogists will know this. The rest of us have had to learn
it the hard way. I hope it saves someone a lot of grief.
A "minor" who was an heiress, especially of royal or noble blood, might well
have been "betrothed"(or even "married" possibly, although I am not sure of
the latter) to a much older man, but not reside in his court or household.
Another approach that I read of (Don't ask me where or who it was as I
cannot remember the people details, except that I recall that they were
royal and English and French) is for the "intended" groom to actually "take
posession" of the child, who then resides in his court, until she comes of
marriable age. That age may, I gather, depend as much on contract as
religious law, within then somewhat maleable confines of canon law.
It seems to me that there was a thread on this subject some time ago,
If this is of any value, the pros will add to it, correct it or tear it
apart as is needed for accuracy.
Rick
professional genealogists will know this. The rest of us have had to learn
it the hard way. I hope it saves someone a lot of grief.
A "minor" who was an heiress, especially of royal or noble blood, might well
have been "betrothed"(or even "married" possibly, although I am not sure of
the latter) to a much older man, but not reside in his court or household.
Another approach that I read of (Don't ask me where or who it was as I
cannot remember the people details, except that I recall that they were
royal and English and French) is for the "intended" groom to actually "take
posession" of the child, who then resides in his court, until she comes of
marriable age. That age may, I gather, depend as much on contract as
religious law, within then somewhat maleable confines of canon law.
It seems to me that there was a thread on this subject some time ago,
If this is of any value, the pros will add to it, correct it or tear it
apart as is needed for accuracy.
Rick
Dear Newsgroup,
If Ellen ferch Llewelyn were born in say 1215 and
wed to Malcolm II, Earl of Fife as a minor of 12 or 13 (note that Isabel of
Angouleme was of a similar age when She married King John of England and that
She had a number of children by him, then married Hugues X de Lusignan in 1220
and had eight more children after the age of 32, so It is not so improbable
that Elen had children into her forties.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Help! Too many Bills!
The Reuss family is enormous and I have to enter many more. If only I had
more time, or more hands.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
more time, or more hands.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Help! Too many Bills!
Leo wrote:
They were in awe, for some reason, with one of the Holy
Roman Emperors which is why they started this.
I see on Genealogics that they even named a few daughters Henriette as
well - can't have too much of a good thing, apparently, when you are
toadying to an emperor, or fawning over his memory!
Peter Stewart