Re: Children with same name

There have been a few items recently on this, I rummaged through some old
note books and found this remembered item. It wasn't a family I was
researching, but was in the same street.

HO107/669 F.30
Park St
George Dinn 36 Boot M No
Sarah " 30 No
Frances " 11 Yes
George " 9 Yes
George " 11 Yes
George " 3 Mnths Yes
Martha " 79 Ind No

A. Gwilliam...

It's not an absolute rule of course, but when you see ages not in order
within a household it usually implies a change in the nature of the
relationship.

Since you've given an example from the 1841 census which didn't
formally require relationships to be stated, any explanations's going
to be guesswork without further evidence from elsewhere. But... the
gap in ages suggests that the youngest George at least is either the
child of a second marriage or a "visitor".

Now was George determined to have a son named after him, or was it a case
of bad memory and he forget when it came to registering the next child?

Eve McLaughlin...

This obviously does not mean that all the children called George were in
the same family. In 1841, no relationships at all are stated, so we can
argue nothing about the composition of this family.
We can guess that Martha is granny, that George 36 is her son, Sarah may
be his wife, and the first George may be theirs, but the other two could
well be nephews - grandchildren to Martha by other non-resident
children.
Only 1851 will sort this out.

Charles Ellson...

1841 or 1851 ? The former does not specify relationships and cousins
(or nephews, nieces or grandchildren) bearing the same surname are
often found mixed in with other children. The grouping as shown hints
that more than one marriage could be involved (i.e. the last two
Georges could be nephews with different parents).

Alec Lefevre