Identical names in the same parish and period

Question

This may seem a bit long, but please read it all to understand the problem!

With several others, I am attempting to puzzle out the genealogy of the Laidlaws of Selkirk.

The Laidlaws had the irritating habit of giving their children only one forename out of a limited number, and the early birth registers often list only the father's name. Repeats and confusion are the result.

Example: in the parish of Lyne & Megget, 1670-80, there were 10 children registered with the father John Laidlaw. But there were 2 marriages of a John Laidlaw (1670 and 1675). Date conflicts and doubled names indicate that the children came from two different fathers, but without the mother's name it is no longer possible to distinguish between them.

In this case, the ambiguity is unresolvable, but Wikitree wants definite sources. One is forced to make a choice. In effect, a guess. This leads to erroneous paths.

Is there a way of expressing the situation "It's one or the other, but one can't tell which" without breaking the rules?

Yours, puzzled,

Patrick Chadwick (with a Laidlaw granny)

Answer 1

I think we all have a similar problem. I'm hung up making any headway on the Munt's of Wheatley. Quite common that a son in each family was named the same as the father. Of course everyone in the town new who they were, but not any of us 300 years later.

Answer 2

I had a similar problem with this Lady Elizabeth Dugdale  two born at similar times LUCKILY for me the Mothers are different it also doesnt help that one of the Rogers has a son called Roger need to get back to filling in sources took me weeks to fathom it out and was spent, the other Elizabeth Dugdale

Comments

I offer this solution in the hope that the methodology may help others in a similar situation:

A possible solution to the John Laidlaw children problem.

Since the fathers have the same name, it would be possible to distinguish the two families by the mother’s birth name - which is unrecorded! But also by the requirement (1) of at least 9 months between births to the same mother, and by the implausibility (2) of a family having two children living at the same time with identical single forenames. And the two different marriage dates (3).

The Lyne & Megget parish registers provide the following facts:
A John Laidlaw married Margaret Bryden on 31 May 1670. Referred to here as JL-B.
A John Laidlaw married Christen Lyntoune on 30 Dec 1675. Referred to here as JL-L.

Children registered:
Marion (F) 06 Mar 1670. (3) JL-B. Probably the reason for the marriage.
Christian Laidlaw (F) 19 Mar 1671. (3) JL-B.
William (M) 09 Mar 1673. (3) JL-B.
Walter (M) 02 May 1675. 7 months before the JL-L marriage, therefore PROBABLY JL-B.
Twins: John (M) 24 Dec 1676. James (M) 24 Dec 1676.
Robert (M) 16 Dec 1677.

Note the following sequence:
James (M) 01. Jun 1679. Issoble (F) 15 Feb 1680. William (M) 25 Oct 1680.

Applying (2) - William must be JL-L, since there was already a William JL-B.
Applying (1) - Issoble could not be the sister of James or William. But there were only 2 JLs recorded, so James (M) 01. Jun 1679 and William (M) 25 Oct 1680 were brothers, and James (M) 01. Jun 1679 w­­as thus JL-L. Issoble (F) 15 Feb 1680 was therefore JL-B.

Applying (2) -  since James (M) 01. Jun 1679 was JL-L, the twins John (M) 24 Dec 1676. James (M) 24 Dec 1676 were JL-B.

And finally: David (M) 14 May 1682, who cannot be assigned by the above rules, but because of the advanced date is PROBABLY JL-L.

Marion (F) 06 Mar 1670. (3) JL-B.
Christian Laidlaw (F) 19 Mar 1671. (3) JL-B.
William (M) 09 Mar 1673. (3) JL-B.
Walter (M) 02 May 1675. PROBABLY JL-B.
John (M) 24 Dec 1676. James (M) 24 Dec 1676. JL-B
Robert (M) 16 Dec 1677. INDETERMINATE
James (M) 01. Jun 1679. JL-L.
Issoble (F) 15 Feb 1680. JL.B
William (M) 25 Oct 1680. JL-L.
David (M) 14 May 1682. PROBABLY JL-L.

---

One problem with that analysis is it was common if one child died young for the name to be reused, I had one family where there were 4 sons of the same name.

---

I don't know about Scotland but in France I absolutely have families giving the same first name to several of their children, even if the oldest ones were still alive (actually, often because the oldest ones were still alive, and were godparents to the younger ones, thus naming them).

No doubt that in daily life they were using distinguishing names, but in the records we have the most common one used.

---

In Scotland it wasn't common to have multiple children with the same given name unless the earlier one died. Unlike in France where given names might include multiple names, the Scots tended toward the single given name form and middle or multiple given names tended to be rare except in some notable families.

---

For another example of a naming system for a large family (Lennox) with multiple branches and family members who have the same first name, look at 

https://archive.org/details/ourfamilyhistory00park

Answer 3

Sometimes, when you get this problem, the only answer is to spend some money on Scotland's People and look at the register itself. Very often if there is people of the same name, the registers will say John Laidlaw of Bogle or John Laidlaw in town.

Answer 4

Did any of them have a will? If there is a will it might sort things out by listing children and sometimes a spouse given name.