Since the naming pattern was pretty consistent in those days if the John married to Frances didn't include Robert or Sarah in their children names I wouldn't have thought he was the John born in Kirkby Overblow in 1781.
If it was down to an either/or I would say your John was the stronger contender for being the son of Robert and Sarah - my concern is that Kirkby Overblow is miles away from Eppleby/Forcett.
Hi Paul,
Annette mentioned a Robert and a Sarah as likely contenders because of the naming pattern - she's spot on because as far as my ancestors were concerned this area did adhere to it. Just to enlarge on what Annette said, assuming these are all their children :
~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Mowson
Bap. 1807
James Mowson
Burial 1808
James Mowson
Bap. 1809
Ann Mowson
Bap. 1812
John Mowson
Bap. 1814
Thomas Mowson
Bap. 1816
Elizabeth Mowson
Bap. 1819
Sarah Mowson
Bap. 1821
~~~~~~~~~~
First born son named after the father's father.
Second born son named after the mother's father.
Third born son named after the father.
Fourth born son named after the father's eldest brother.
Fifth born son named after the father's second oldest brother, or mother's oldest brother.
First born daughter named after the mother's mother.
Second born daughter named after the father's mother.
Third born daughter named after the mother.
Fourth born daughter named after the mother's eldest sister.
Fifth born daughter named after the mother's second oldest sister, or father's oldest sister.
~~~~~~~~~~
Providing Robert was their oldest son and with hopefully none missing, I'd say he was the most likely contender to be named after the father of John, although Elizabeth should be the above choice for his mother. I seem to have searched everywhere - only thing I can think of doing now is trying to prove he wasn't the one who was born in Kirkby Overblow.
If that makes sense ??
Kind regards,
Pels.
