There seems to be a pattern for naming children.. The one that throws me is that of James and Isabel's descendant: "Christopher" named twice in 1827 & 1859.

However, looking at James born 1751 and his wife Isabel.

Firstly their parents:
Joseph was born to William and AGNES

Isabel nee Coats was born to William and MY

Background over, let me explain, Joseph married Isabel, and this is their children in birth order

Note: "in quotes" = refers to relationship as mother of child

Agnes- 1st dau named after her father's mother/OR IN MOTHER'S CASE... "MY MOTHERINLAW"
Joseph - 1st son named after himself? ( and/a grandfather, on which side?)/ "MY HUSBAND"
Mary - 2nd dau named after her mother's, mother? MY/ "MY MOTHER"
William- 2nd son named after James father?/ "MY FATHERINLAW"
Isabel - 3rd day named after her own mother "Isabel"/ "ME"

Can anyone throw some light on the naming pattern... Looking at the Coulthard ancestry, the names seemingly repetitive, and therefore, could be assumingly easy to trace back, or not.. Unlike today, whereby we seem to follow a naming pattern for our children, on an adhoc pattern of likes and dislikes to names of personal choice, we may be inclined to follow the fashionable or the not so fashionable route, depending upon choice.. There was definately a NAMING pattern handed down THROUGH TRADITION to the new offspring of the bygone era..

BUT THEN IF I STEP DOWN TO THE NEXT GENERATION

Joseph and Isabel's son Joseph born 1784 - he wed Hannah Arnold (Arnott)

her parents Thomas and Hannah

Joseph &Hannah's children( or put another way Joseph and Isabel's grandchildren)
Robert ( where does that name derive)
Hannah -after her own mother/ "me- mother"
Joseph - after her father / "my husband"
James - after her grandfather / "my fatherinlaw"
Christopher b1827 - after who?
William - after his uncle / "my brother" or "my brotherinlaw"
Jane - after her ??? /" who"
THEN THE NEXT GENERATION
WILLIAM son of JOSEPH AND HANNAH - wed CAROLINE DOWSON
THEIR CHILDREN:
JAMES B1856 - named after uncle /"my brotherinlaw"
CHRISTOPHER B1859 - named after uncle / " my brotherinlaw"
JOSEPH B1858- my grandfather / "my fatherinlaw"
ANN DOWSON B1864 - /"my mother-my nee name"

If I now return to James and Isabel [they married in 1779 James born 1751] taking his roots back further

James b1751 was son of William [b1721]and Agnes
James b1751 had the following siblings- and named after his uncle great uncle and great grandfather
John - unclear
Moses [b1765] - probably from his mother's side?
William [b170]- after his father /"my husband"
If I dare, take one step further back to examine the relationship of James [b1751] father - William b1721 (that married Agnes)
William born 1721 had the following siblings
Mary [1723]
Catherine - name not used in descandant tree
Alice [b1729]
"Alice" name cropped up 5 generations later - in 1898
Perhaps named after a relative from her mothers side "Clarke".

During the 1700-1800's, families would tell their offspring family stories/ histories that were handed down through the generations, it was of traditional importance... Today, we simply do not do that, do we? We probably know very little beyond that of our own grandparents, unless we take up genealogy and find out for ourselves... and that is why genealogy is becoming a favourite, modern pastime!!!
In contrast to this statement, I visited my ancestry town last year, along with a relative who flew in from Alaska, for the genealogy treck into Durham.... We met up with a relative, native of the town, from where we descend.. She told us that "things were not discussed in those days.. like they are today"... So perhaps descendants of the post victorian era, were not of mind to tell so much to their offspring... What I am trying to say is that, in the 1700's stories would have been told for sure, and made to be remembered and handed down, time and time over... But something happened, possibly towards the end of the Victorian Era and the First World War... People's lives so wrapped up in those unimaginable times, most families at the sufferance of loved ones gone away to fight in battle. The introduction of Radio, became very important, bringing news of the War. Understandably families had more things to worry about than tell stories, that were handed down to them,,, I do not know... But at a guess,,,the First World War and the introduction of the "Wireless", had something to do with it.. People became, and rightly so, preoccupied with the War and listening for news of their loved ones.... Just look at us today, access to computers, televisions, radio, should we care to listen to it, and the hectic way of life juggling families and jobs... little time to tell stories to our own offspring, let alone read little ones a book. The few stories I learned of were from my own grandmother nee Coulthard.