ABERDEEN-L ArchivesArchiver > ABERDEEN > 2005-11 > 1133119949
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Naming traditions William Mitchell
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:36:05 -0800
It's actually the same pattern -- if you followed it far enough back, you'd
probably find a William who was the third son named after his father. Then
his first son would be named after the paternal grandfather, and they would
keep on doing that, in spite of the fact that each generation was then
William. One would hope they wouldn't name the first and third sons both
William, after the paternal grandfather and the father respectively, but it
did happen. And if the maternal grandfather was also a William and the
family was really determined to follow the tradition, you'd get three
Williams in the same family, but the younger ones would be called by
nicknames to distinguish them.
My brother was Peter VIII -- eight generations of Peters in a row.
Unfortunately he died young with no sons, so the "dynasty" ended with him.
PS: Thanks, Ray, for filling in the more detailed naming pattern. I just
gave Prasad the basics to start with.
At 01:41 PM 11/27/05 EST, wrote:
>My family has had a tradition of the name William Mitchell. Many times it
>is the father, the son, the grandfather etc. In all cases, I always descend
>from William Mitchell
>What I am trying to say is, does the naming tradition differ when you are
>fact named after your father, and grandfather?
>What would be the subsequent naming pattern?