I concluded my last blog with the hypothesis that there were probably four siblings who must have been born in the last twenty years of the eighteenth century, Henry, John, James and William, all of whom farmed at Maxwells Walls. I have written earlier blogs about each of them, but have not however come across any documentation which has named either of the parents of these siblings, if siblings they truly were. There is of course one 'test' which might suggest a name for either or for both of them, and that is to apply the Scottish and Irish naming pattern. Can we demonstrate that this Maxwells Walls family followed this tradition which was indeed strong in the 18th and 19th Centuries in the Province of Ulster?
So can we reasonably ask, from the information we already have, what was the first name of our clan progenitor in Maxwells Walls? First, we must ask whether there is a common first name given to any first male grandchildren of our eponymous male. Let us take each of the siblings in turn. Henry's first son (so the eldest grandchild) was either John or Henry. They appear both to have been born about 1800, and possibly even were twins. Henry's brother John, as far as I can tell, had only daughters. The third brother, James, though it is possible that he married, it is uncertain whether he had any children. The fourth brother William certainly did, and his eldest son was also Henry. Therefore our first proposition from the 'Naming Pattern' must be that the 'common name' of a first son in the third generation was Henry, and that therefore quite possibly our progenitor had been Henry McIlhagga.
This hypothesis would be strengthened if we could find that the same pattern applies when we look at generations two and four, seeing them of course as grandfathers and grandsons. And what do we find? Henry (generation 2) had three 'first grandsons', who were Henry son of John, Henry son of Henry, and Henry son of William Gage. William (generation 2) had four 'first grandsons', William son of Nathaniel Owens, William son of George, William son of Jane, and William son of Archibald. Our conclusion? The naming pattern seem to have been followed perfectly! Strictly, Jane's first son should have been Daniel (her husband's father's name) and her second son should have been William, but for some reason she and her husband reversed the name order. Their 'second' son was indeed Daniel and their first was William. They must have had some special reason for calling their first after Jane's father, for they even gave him the second name of McIlhagga. Their surname was Boyd. I have put the word 'second' in inverted commas because the Boyds had two male infants who did not live beyond infancy.
So we have seen that the second and third generations follow the patters almost 100%. What of the fourth generation? This list is bound to be longer and the percentage accuracy not as high. It will be clearest if I list them:
John son of Henry, 1st son Henry named after paternal grandfather;
Henry son of Henry, 1st son Henry named after paternal grandfather;
William Gage son of Henry, 1st son Henry named after paternal grandfather;
William Gage's 2nd daughter Margaret not named after paternal grandmother;
John's 3rd daughter Ellen's only son Robert may not be named after paternal
grandfather, William, but after his father;
Nathaniel Owen son of William, 1st son William named after paternal grandfather;
Nathaniel Owen son of William, 1st daughter Henrietta may be named after maternal grandmother and is named after her mother;
Nathaniel Owen son of William, 2nd son James Wilson named after maternal grandfather;
Nathaniel Owen son of William, 2nd daughter Margaret may be named after her paternal grandmother;
George son of William, 1st daughter Margaret may be named after a grandmother;
George son of William, 1st son William named after paternal grandfather;
George son of William, 2nd son Samuel Robinson named after maternal grandfather;
George son of William, 2nd daughter Eliza Ann may be named after her maternal grandmother and is named after her mother;
Jane daughter of William, 1st son William McIlhagga named after maternal grandfather;
Jane daughter of William, 1st daughter Mary Ann named after paternal grandmother;
Jane daughter of William, 2nd daughter Margaret may be named after maternal grandmother;
Jane daughter of William, 2nd son Daniel named after paternal grandfather;
[NB. As I have noted above, Jane and her husband reversed the naming pattern, presumably for a good reason.]
Archibald son of William, 1st son William named after paternal grandfather;
Archibald son of William, 1st daughter Jean named after maternal grandmother;
Archibald son of William, 2nd son Robert named after maternal grandfather;
Archibald son of William, 2nd daughter Margaret may be named after paternal grandmother.
You will have realised that of these twenty-one relationships, ten definitely follow the naming pattern, ten probably follow the naming pattern and one does not, so our conclusion must be that in all probability we have reconstructed the Maxwells Walls family tree with a high degree of accuracy. And so the last thing that must be asked is whether the naming pattern can help us fill in any gaps in the Family Tree? We have already said that there may be a good probability that the name of our clan progenitor in Maxwells Walls is Henry. The other name which has kept cropping up is Margaret: William Gage's second daughter, Nathaniel Owen's son William's second daughter, George son of William's first daughter, Jane daughter of William's second daughter, and Archibald son of William's second daughter. I think the likelihood therefore is that William, son of our progenitor [Henry?] married a Margaret. Finally, do we have any clues from the naming pattern to the possible name of the wife of the progenitor [Henry]? There are two Marys and one Jane in generation three. More than this we cannot say, except that two to one, she may have been Mary!
No comments:
Post a Comment