SCOTTISH NAMING.....

[Dubbleu]

I've been struggling with my Livingstones - who definitely adhered to a naming pattern, but my question is - Would it be common to follow a pattern by naming from the maternal side only and completely leaving out those on the paternal side?

Here's my quandary. John Livingstone married Crawford Spencer 1851, Glasgow. I've got a good line on Crawford, but very little on John and keep looking for clues in the names of their children. There were 12, all with surname Livingstone (last 2 born US):

John Spencer (b.1852)
Mary Reid (b. 1854) - my g-g-grandmother
Janet (b. 1856)
Margaret (b. 1858)
Martha Spencer (b. 1860)
Thomas Spencer (b. 1863)
Henry (? Spencer) (b. 1865)
Jessie (b. 1867)
David (b. 1869)
Isabella Lauder (b. 1872)
Alice May (b. 1875)
Sarah Briggs (b. 1877)

Crawford's parents were John Spencer and Mary Reid, m. 1830, Eastwood. It really looks like the first two children were named after Crawford's parents or would the maternal middle name be used if both sets of grandparents had the same forenames? Many of the other names also appear in Crawford's family - she had brothers Henry, Thomas & John and sisters Margaret and Janet. Looking at her side of the family, a naming pattern was clearly used by her parents.

My current theory is that John's parents could have been John Livingstone & Mary Frazer, m. 1829 Glasgow, with 2 recorded children in the OPR - Archibald Frazer 1830 and Janet Frazer 1832. I am basing this theory on John's DC (in US) that names parents as John & Mary and a reference to membership in the Clan Fraser in son Thomas's obituary. There's no OPR for John's birth (?May 1833) and I've yet to find him definitely in the 1851 or '41 census.

Does it make sense to anyone that the names would have only come from the maternal side or is it just as likely that all the names repeated on John & Crawford side?

Wendy

[Lorna Allison]

Frances: Thanks so much for that. Another problem solved - another avenue opens. Great stuff.

Regards

Lorna[/quote]

[JustJean]

I've been struggling with my Livingstones - who definitely adhered to a naming pattern, but my question is - Would it be common to follow a pattern by naming from the maternal side only and completely leaving out those on the paternal side?

Here's my quandary. John Livingstone married Crawford Spencer 1851, Glasgow. I've got a good line on Crawford, but very little on John and keep looking for clues in the names of their children. There were 12, all with surname Livingstone (last 2 born US):

John Spencer (b.1852)
Mary Reid (b. 1854) - my g-g-grandmother
Janet (b. 1856)
Margaret (b. 1858)
Martha Spencer (b. 1860)
Thomas Spencer (b. 1863)
Henry (? Spencer) (b. 1865)
Jessie (b. 1867)
David (b. 1869)
Isabella Lauder (b. 1872)
Alice May (b. 1875)
Sarah Briggs (b. 1877)

Crawford's parents were John Spencer and Mary Reid, m. 1830, Eastwood. It really looks like the first two children were named after Crawford's parents or would the maternal middle name be used if both sets of grandparents had the same forenames? Many of the other names also appear in Crawford's family - she had brothers Henry, Thomas & John and sisters Margaret and Janet. Looking at her side of the family, a naming pattern was clearly used by her parents.

My current theory is that John's parents could have been John Livingstone & Mary Frazer, m. 1829 Glasgow, with 2 recorded children in the OPR - Archibald Frazer 1830 and Janet Frazer 1832. I am basing this theory on John's DC (in US) that names parents as John & Mary and a reference to membership in the Clan Fraser in son Thomas's obituary. There's no OPR for John's birth (?May 1833) and I've yet to find him definitely in the 1851 or '41 census.

Does it make sense to anyone that the names would have only come from the maternal side or is it just as likely that all the names repeated on John & Crawford side?

Wendy

Hi Wendy

I would hope that when the country wide 1851 and more specifically 1841 census indexes for Scotland are released that you might be able to finally place John with his parents. Or at least prove or eliminate your theory that he fits with John and Mary...and siblings Archibald and Janet.

As for the naming pattern seemingly favoring Crawfords's side of the family. I honestly don't know!! Not everyone followed the pattern as my own family surely did not. I don't think your answer to your paternal line is going to be found in the naming.....I think you need to sift through the census. With luck John will be found!!

Does their Marriage banns state which parish of Glasgow they were married in or where they were living? Were John and Crawford married before the 1851 census was taken?

Best wishes
Jean

[Dubbleu]

Thanks Jean - I'm really hoping for something different from those census records too!

John & Crawford married in December 1851. Crawford was at that time living at 105 Saltmarket with her parents.
Interestingly, the OPR shows they were married by a minister from Gorbals, although I'm told this is just over the bridge from where Crawford was living and it was not at all unusual for a minister to do this.

On both the 1861 (Milton) & 1871 (Bridgton) census, John lists his place of birth as Pollockshaws. Crawford was born in Eastwood & found there in the 1841 census. Jack has been very helpful in looking through these census records. I am anxiously awaiting the 1841 & 1851 coming online and hoping there'll be something new that will help make a connection or even find John himself.

Wendy

OPR 644 (City) Vol 44 pg 126.
John Livingston, twister in Glasgow and Crawford Spencer residing there, married 31st December 1851 by Mr Robert Houston, minister of the parish of Gorbals.