Just a general resopnse to your post. First of all families who named a second child for an earlier child who died was very common . . AND there is nothing weird or freaky about this. If they had chosen an uncle's name for instance and the child died at birth or in infancy, and they still wanted to use that name there was no reason not to use it again if they chose to do so. I have found that in nearly every branch of the families I have researched.

Duplication of names is and has always been an interesting puzzle for a true genie hunter to figure out.

I am not related, but for some reason this post has made me feel that you enjoy flaunting what could be the worse possible family events in some of your families, and that is insulting and embarrassing in my opinion, and it might well be for all of the genealogy world as well . . . for me, when I come across these things, they are only facts of history that I cannot change and I do not put any "personality" on them as being good things or bad things . . . they are simply one more little piece of what eventually should become the story of our ancestors . . . but cut the snake oil stuff if you expect to get any assistance from any family member . . . they will likely not tell you one thing because they will never trust you with their family stories . . .