RootsChat.Com
Ireland (Historical Counties) => Ireland => Topic started by: bikermickau on Tuesday 19 April 11 00:29 BST (UK)
-
I've done a search on Rootschat and not found the answer.
What is the Traditional Irish naming pattern.
Mick
Edited
Google tells me this
While researching your Irish ancestry, it's helpful to be aware of Irish customary naming patterns regarding given names:
First born son named after his father's father
Second born son named after his mother's father
Third born son named after his father
Fourth born son named after his father's oldest brother
Fifth born son named after his father's 2nd oldest brother
or his mother's oldest brother
First born daughter named after her mother's mother
Second born daughter named after her father's mother
Third born daughter named after her mother
Fourth born daughter named after her mother's oldest sister
Fifth born daughter named after her mother's 2nd oldest sister
or her father's oldest sister
-
there was a previous topic on this that might be worth a look - see : naming patterns (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,521015.msg3762037.html#msg3762037)
Shane
-
Thank you Shane
Mick
-
I am familiar with the Irish naming pattern that 1st son would be named after father’s father.
Yesterday at a Irish family history seminar, I heard that this naming occurred only if father’s father was deceased.
Because it was bad luck (or just inconvenient) to have 3 living persons with same name in same family. Is this true ?
And if so, is it reasonable to consider (for Irish family in Liverpool in 1850’s) :
If 1st son was not named after father’s father… then father’s father was still living.
(Next likely name for this 1st son would be mother’s father name).
AND if 2nd son was named after father’s father… then father’s father death occurred in the time
between births of 1st and 2nd son.
-
Hi Mick, I was sent a traditional "Irish Naming Pattern" while looking for members of my Graney line, it is the same as yours but there is a footnote saying that it varies from region to region, ie
In west Cork the eldest daughter was named after the Fathers Mother and not the Mothers mother.
Hope that helps.
Regards.
Frank.
-
These naming patterns are really only rough guides. My entire family is Irish. I don't have a family anywhere in my tree where the naming pattern was slavishly followed.
-
Many of the families in my tree follow this pattern.
In fact my siblings and I and named in this fashion and never really realised it until a few years ago.
Eldest(mise) named after my paternal grandfather,as was my own father(and my young lad!) so 4 of the same names in a row.
Next(male) after maternal grandfather(and only sister of my mothers),then sister after maternal grandmother.next brother named for only living(at the time) uncle of my fathers as he had no brothers.Last sister named after paternal granny(and only sister of my fathers).
A few more families in my tree(2 in particular ,unconnected ones) used the same few names over and over again, even going to the stage where if a child died young the same name was reused(twice in 2 cases!)
For example my grandfather had 4 first cousins with the same name ie Mary Anne ***** which was also his mothers maiden name as well as that of at least 4 or 5 nieces.Very confusing, as with large families ,generations ain't always chronologically simple ie some of his nieces were as old if not older than some of his cousins.
In fact his own mother was the 2'nd member of her family to be christened with this name as an older sister was called this but died as an infant.
-
The problem with relying too heavily on naming patterns is that, apart from the fact that not all families followed it, there are lots of things that can upset it. Common ones that I have encountered are when the father and either of the grandparents have the same name. So you obviously can’t have two or even three sons all with the same name, so a different name must be used instead; if a child dies young, then it was common practice to re-use the name. And if you don’t know about the death, your analysis of who they were named after could be completely wrong; Or if a close relative had just died and their name was used out of respect. I have also noticed that many families liked to name the odd child after the local Minister/Priest, schoolteacher or a relative with no children of their own. So for all these reasons, whilst tradition says, for example, that the 4th son was usually named after the father's eldest brother, it isn’t always so.
-
The problem with relying too heavily on naming patterns is that, apart from the fact that not all families followed it, there are lots of things that can upset it. Common ones that I have encountered are when the father and either of the grandparents have the same name. So you obviously can’t have two or even three sons all with the same name, so a different name must be used instead; if a child dies young, then it was common practice to re-use the name. And if you don’t know about the death, your analysis of who they were named after could be completely wrong; Or if a close relative had just died and their name was used out of respect. I have also noticed that many families liked to name the odd child after the local Minister/Priest, schoolteacher or a relative with no children of their own. So for all these reasons, whilst tradition says, for example, that the 4th son was usually named after the father's eldest brother, it isn’t always so.
Agree with that but my paternal grandfather had sisters christened Mary Jane,Mary Anne and Mary Catherine(Kate).These were the actual names they used all their adult life.Must have been confusing calling those in for their dinner!!
Afraid my family on both sides were traditional Irish farmers who used and reused the same names with very little exception from generation to generation.Leaves it mighty hard at times when you combine the 3 or 4 most common surnames in their respective counties with a selection of christian names such as John,Patrick,James,Joseph,Mary,Elizabeth,Catherine,Anne,Margaret etc.
One thing that stands out is the fact that most families seem to have one "signature" christian name that seemed to be used a lot even amongst cousins.
In my family tree one family had a Jerome at least once in every generation for 100 years in every family whilst another had "Daniel" used a lot ,sometimes as a second name when an older brother had it as his given name.
Often wondered if people were aware of using this pattern or if its all just coincidence?
When I pointed it out to my own mother a few years ago as to how she christened us,she said it was just the names that sprang to mind at the time(early 1970's) as most people even at this stage were sticking to "traditional" "normal" names therefore choice was somewhat limited and it was prob. easier to just use the familar ones.
For example ,thinking about it now,every boy in my class was either named after his father or grandparents or had a brother who was.Same with the girls and it was only when it came to very large families(10 plus at that time) that an odd"different " name might be used and even then it was a rarity.
-
My families follow the naming pattern, although this is the first I've heard about the deceased angle, there is one father who didn't get a look it. There was no shortage of boys to name after him but his name was never used. I just though they didn't like him but perhaps he was deceased. Interesting.
-
The problem with relying too heavily on naming patterns is that, apart from the fact that not all families followed it, there are lots of things that can upset it. Common ones that I have encountered are when the father and either of the grandparents have the same name. So you obviously can’t have two or even three sons all with the same name, so a different name must be used instead; if a child dies young, then it was common practice to re-use the name. And if you don’t know about the death, your analysis of who they were named after could be completely wrong; Or if a close relative had just died and their name was used out of respect. I have also noticed that many families liked to name the odd child after the local Minister/Priest, schoolteacher or a relative with no children of their own. So for all these reasons, whilst tradition says, for example, that the 4th son was usually named after the father's eldest brother, it isn’t always so.
Another one that can throw out naming patterns is a second marriage eg if a child from the first marriage already has the name the child from a second marriage is 'due' to be called.
-
My families follow the naming pattern, although this is the first I've heard about the deceased angle, there is one father who didn't get a look it. There was no shortage of boys to name after him but his name was never used. I just though they didn't like him but perhaps he was deceased. Interesting.
I have a great-great grandmother who didn't name a son after her father until she got to son number 5. Am suspecting she didn't like him!
-
Perhaps my lot in a sea of Patricks, Williams, Christophers, Johns, Edwards Peters and Laurences just couldn't handle a Gordon. ;D
Gordon just isn't rural-Irelandish.
-
One of the issues I have come across with families paying some adherence to the naming pattern is that to avoid confusion, they seem to christen the child with one name and call him something else. With many records only having a first name on it, it is nearly impossible to know that the 'Maurice' on the records is in fact the 'James' you are looking for, as it is with one of my ancestors. Indeed, I have one family, mainly boys born in fairly quick succession, who only seem to be known by their second names. Thankfully, the 1901 census has the first and second names recorded- very helpful.
-
One of the issues I have come across with families paying some adherence to the naming pattern is that to avoid confusion, they seem to christen the child with one name and call him something else. With many records only having a first name on it, it is nearly impossible to know that the 'Maurice' on the records is in fact the 'James' you are looking for, as it is with one of my ancestors. Indeed, I have one family, mainly boys born in fairly quick succession, who only seem to be known by their second names. Thankfully, the 1901 census has the first and second names recorded- very helpful.
More common than you might think.
My nephew is officially one particular name but it has never been used.Instead he is known by an abbreviated version of a name that is not found at all in our family.This is used on everything he gets,despite having no official status.
A neighbour is the same,called a name that was something that his granny called him when he was young.
Strangely enough,my own godfather was unaware of what he was christened until he went looking for his baptismal cert. when he was getting married.He honestly got a shock when the priest told him that there was no one of that particular name on the register(Thomas *******) but there was a Martin ******* born to the correct parents about that time.
A bit off topic I know ,but have had many a "discussion" regarding both given and surname spelling and versions with people who try to tell you"but we never spelled it that way so it couldn't be our crowd"
For example people used Mcdonnell ,Mcdonell,Mdonnel,Macdonald,Mcdonald, etc as the same surname or Walsh,Walshe,Welsh,Welshe etc
Even simple versions of christian names can be different eg. Anne or Ann or Catherine,Katherine and Kate used on official papers plus lots of examples of people as the above poster mentioned,using their second name to distinguish themselves from another family member or even a cousin or neighbour(common enough where you have lots of different famikies in the same small area with the same surname
-
One of the issues I have come across with families paying some adherence to the naming pattern is that to avoid confusion, they seem to christen the child with one name and call him something else. With many records only having a first name on it, it is nearly impossible to know that the 'Maurice' on the records is in fact the 'James' you are looking for, as it is with one of my ancestors. Indeed, I have one family, mainly boys born in fairly quick succession, who only seem to be known by their second names. Thankfully, the 1901 census has the first and second names recorded- very helpful.
The first 4 in my family (2boys, 2girls) are all called by a name other than the name we were christened. John is Sean, other 3 are called second names. My mum said she felt obliged to christen us after our Grandparents but didn't want to use the names as too many Johns etc already in the locality.
My family both sides through the generations did stick rigidly to a naming pattern and although it can be a useful guide there are lots of exceptions, deaths of children and reusing names, paternal and maternal grandparents with same name, death of someone around the time of the birth not always a relative just someone prominent eg Priest.
I even have a cousin born in the mid 60's and the priest changed the name her mum wanted, my Aunt was not there (Christenings were usually the next day and mums did not attend) to insist on the name she had chosen! She was 6th in the family and grandparents were already honoured so her dad said he didn't see any need to argue with the Priest!
M
-
Had fun in the bank trying to close two of my mothers bank accounts, how she ended up with three is another story, but having one in a different first name to the other two threw the bank staff into a panic :o
My niece was giving the nurse funny looks on a visit to her Gran in hospital, so I told her the nurse was correct that was her Gran's real name, I than told her her Uncle and Aunts real names.
"Is Daddy really .....?"
Her mother answered " Yes but you other Gran isn't ........ She's ....."
"Ahaaaa I don't even know my own family"
-
I've looked for this naming pattern, and note the following: Thomas Young and wife Susannah (Flannigan) had sons Alexander, Charles and daughters Mary Elizabeth, Anne and Susannah Elizabeth. Mary Elizabeth and Anne seem to have died in infancy. I conclude that Elizabeth was the name of someone important to the couple, since it was used twice (either's mother seems likely.) I keep looking for Charles and Alexander as I try to locate the origins of Susannah and Thomas, but so far no luck. BTW, they both died young, and the children were in an orphanage. That ended any naming pattern.
-
My families follow the naming pattern, although this is the first I've heard about the deceased angle, there is one father who didn't get a look it. There was no shortage of boys to name after him but his name was never used. I just though they didn't like him but perhaps he was deceased. Interesting.
My family also followed traditional naming pretty closely (at least for the first few children) and it didn't matter if the parents were living or dead. They did make a few alterations to honour relatives who had recently died and didn't have somebody named after them yet.
I do have examples of vanishing names though. I think a lot of the extinctions tie into religion and evolving ways of how people feel about different Bible characters - especially from the Old Testament.