My 4g grandfather

[Kit]

James Johnstone/Johnson/Johnston clearly wanted a son to be named after him as he named 3 of his 5 sons James.

First son died in 1833, second son (James John) was born 1834 and the third son was born 1855.

I am having some difficulty in killing off James number 2.

I have found a likely death as the age is correct but JJ reached adulthood and so it doesn't like his father in the occupation to verify it. The only problem is that JJ died after James III was born. It is only a matter of about 12 days and the baptism was 9 months later but would they give a son, born while his brother was still alive, the same name as his brother?

[kiterunner]

Yes, I would say it's possible if he was baptised after the brother's death. They may well have not chosen a name when he was only 12 days old.

(I do even have one or two cases in my tree where a child was given the same name as a sibling who was still alive.)

Also, was James senior's father called James, by any chance? It could be that he wanted a son named after his father rather than after himself?

[Phoenix]

Was the birth registered before the death? What did JJ die of?

There could be a scenario where the middle son is clearly dying, so they don't name the baby until after his death to keep the name alive.

Alternatively he may have been known as John within the family, to avoid confusion with his father.

[ElizabethHerts]

Was the family in England, Toni? Which county did they live in? - there might be burial records that are easy to find.

My ancestor James Johnston(e) was Scottish.

I have a family that had three Edwards consecutively. Unfortunately they all died.

[Kit]

I don't know what James Snr's father's name was. I have read something somewhere that he was Scottish, although I have no proof yet. The family was in India and possible JJ's burial is one of the few that does not give a cause of death. The possible death says that the person was in an army regiment.

Elizabeth I think somewhere my Johnstone's had a harem, again from what I have read, not proven. So beware if you have any missing in the late 1700s.

[marquette]

In the 1740s John A'Bear of Wargrave, Berks, called his two sons John A'Bear and John Burton A'Bear, who both married, and started 150 odd years of two sons being called John A'Bear with differing second names, Burton, Newell, William, Daniel, Gordon etc.

I don't think that the A'Bears would have been the only ones with funny traditions like this. Its just lucky the A'Bear name is unusual so there are not all that many of them running around confusing the issues.

[Kit]

Even with the unusual surname that must have caused a few headaches.

[marquette]

Indeed Toni, but thankfully a 19th C A'Bear and a early 20th C A'Bear had the sense to write down the famly history !

Making them very bearable .. I just wish mine had been so obliging ..

[Kit]

haha Julie.