4 One study of Middlesex County, Virginia, found both native-born colonists and immigrants favored the same forenames in the 17th century:
|
Virginia Immigrants |
Virginia Natives | ||
Rank |
1650-1699 |
1650-1699 | ||
1 |
John |
Mary |
John |
Elizabeth |
2 |
Thomas |
Elizabeth |
William |
Mary |
3 |
William |
Ann |
Thomas |
Ann |
4 |
Richard |
Sarah |
Richard |
Sarah |
5 |
Robert |
Margaret |
George |
Catherine |
6 |
James |
Jane |
Robert |
Margaret |
7 |
George |
Catherine |
James |
Frances |
8 |
Edward |
Frances |
Henry |
Alice |
9 |
Henry |
Alice |
Charles |
Jane |
10 |
Samuel |
Dorothy |
Edward |
Rebecca |
Source: Rutman and Rutman, A Place in Time, Explicatus, 86-88.
5 This test understates the difference. The researches of the Rutmans on Middlesex County, Virginia, and Daniel Scott Smith on Hingham, Massachusetts, show a strong contrast when controls are introduced for names shared by the parents and grandparents and by grandparents on both sides. For the descent of names to the eldest male child they obtained the following result:
|
|
Percent with Same Forenames as |
| |||
Place |
Period |
Father |
Grandfather |
Both |
Neither |
N |
Hingham, Mass. |
|
47% |
17% |
20% |
17% |
155 |
Middlesex Co, Va. |
|
11% |
44% |
16% |
29% |
197 |
For the first-born daughters, the pattern was much the same:
|
|
Percent with Same Forenames as |
| |||
|
|
Mother |
Grandmother |
Both |
Neither |
N |
Hingham, Mass. |
|
56% |
18% |
15% |
11% |
156 |
Middlesex Co., Va. |
|
15% |
46% |
4% |
34% |
177 |
Source: Smith, “Child-Naming Practices,” 550; Rutman and Rutman, A Place in Time, Explicatus, 90.