What's in a (Sur) name

[Bob Spiers]

I would be interested to hear how other members cope with family SURNAME variations in their own databases and how they record online. I will use Westbury as an example in my own paternal line, but purely as an example as it applies to virtually all surnames, unless Smith & Jones escape, which I doubt.

As far as I am concerned WESTBURY is what I call the denominator name with the right spelling. I am aware however of finding variations back in time (particularly via IGI and Parish Records) such as Wedgbury or Wedgebury, and likely typos/mis-transcribes like Wesbury, Wesberry and others in a similar vein.

Being pedantic of nature I like to maintain one surname denominator for lots of reasons but mainly for ease in indexing and finding; and yes I know variations are often picked up with wild card searching. I always make notes within my own FH programs to record a variation name was found, and explain where and how.

I do sometimes get round my dislike of using a variant surname by including it as a middle name (not an hyphenated surname) so it would show, for example as John Wedgbury Westbury. The surname would still index as Westbury and allow others (perhaps in Ancestry) who have opted for the extant spelling to understand I am aware of the alternative spelling. I am not alone in this and indeed picked up the practice from other Researchers.

There will always be those who record – again to satisfy pedantic reasons of their own - EXACTLY what they find even down to using different surname variations within the same family. (I have such an example where two of 6 children had their (Parish) births recorded as Wedgbury, the remainder as Westbury). Often when following through you find they re-revert to the denominator surname on marriage, or in Censuses and Death records. Those who continue with the variant surname are of course special cases, and here there is need to show the variation. Examples of both situations I am sure occur in most families; they certainly do in mine.

So as I said at the start of this discussion, how do others respond and record surname variations? I know a similar case can be made for first names, Elisabeth, Elizabeth, Susannah, Susan, Hannah and so on but it is really surname variations to which I refer.

 

[Tim]

Hi Bob, great question.

In GenoPro, I used to create a text box and put the variations in there. It was very visible and used to prompt me to use the other names to search on as well.

In Ancestry on-line, you can add comments to an individual but that's not very good. You can do the same in FTM2012.

Can't see a way to add a note to a group of individuals.

 

[Cathy]

Hi Bob,
Like you, I usually use the main variant as the main surname.
I record my research in Legacy Family Tree.
So I add an AKA for every real variant - I don't include mis-transcriptions. In Legacy AKA's can be sourced.
If I haven't been able to see the original record and only have a transcription that looks as if it's probably a mis-transcription, I make a note.

I was taught that the convention was to use the name as given in the birth record or the record closest to birth that you have. However I find it easier to work with a standardised form. In the source and in notes I record the name exactly as found in the source.

The exception is where I can see when a name change occurred.

I would never add it as a middle name. That's just confusing. Some people really do have the same surname as a middle name.
Certainly I wouldn't think that Wedgbury was there as a variant of Westbury.

If I found the need to have the actual variant for that person more visible for research purposes, I'd add it to the surname in privacy brackets. In Legacy that's double square brackets. They can be used in any field and the contents is only included in output if you choose to override the privacy bracket aspect of privacy. It can then be included with or without the [[ ]]. However, it's an all or none choice.

How does that work online? Ancestry trees can have AKAs though I'm not sure that I included them when I uploaded my basic tree - but then most of my variants are trivial. FOOT/FOOTE; COOPER/CUPPER; HARRIS/HARRISS; etc. SLAUGHTER/SLATER is probably the biggest variant I have.

If I dealt with the amazing variants one of my friends does I'd probably make use of the Name Suffix field which I don't otherwise use. (I don't put degrees or honours there as people weren't born with them, except the aristocracy and I don't have any of them.) She deals with Mowcoomber/Malcomber etc and took some time to prove to me that people did change from one to the other.

 

[Carla]

When I have added ancestors to my family tree I have written their surname...and indeed their christian name...exactly as it appears in the document I have found them in. The spellings often seemed to stem from how the enumerators understood the accent of the householder, a fact I wrote about in another post on this forum.

I have had great fun, if you could call it that, hunting for certain ancestors, because of the variations in a surname.....Milin/Milan/Millin, Petslin/Pentin/Pentan/Penten (Petslin was the first one i came across and it took me ages to see it was Pentin), and Luter/Luther/Lutter are just some I have had. I tend to place a note by the name to show the variations.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

My own preference is to record the name as you suggest Bob as a "main" spelling then I record an additional NAME fact (called AKA in many programs) with a source for any variants. If it's a transcription error then I don't bother but if its a genuine difference in how the name may have been recorded over time I find having an alternate name fact with sources very useful. The spelling I use in reports etc is then simply the "preferred" fact. Thus if at a later date I decide I want to change the spelling all I do is select the alternative name as the new preferred fact.

NB. I source EVERY fact in my tree (I'm somewhat obsessively pedantic about that - FTA will have a report about missing sources at some stage). So regardless of which NAME is the preferred fact I always know where I found that variant of the name.

The important thing to realise is that it is only very recently that we became obsessed with spelling and very very recently that we became obsessed with how to spell our names. For the vast majority of family history records out there the spelling is simply how the person recording the fact thought it sounded and has absolutely NOTHING to do with how our ancestor spelt their name (hint most couldn't write let alone spell).

 

[Mike]

On webtrees (My favourite program) which I think follows the Gedcom standard, you use SURN for all the variants and NAME for the name as the person would have written it.

I'm afraid I don't practice what I preach as I only have one example of this in my tree where Thomas Cahillane is also recorded by the Irish version O'Cathalain.

The Gedcom looks like

1 NAME Thomas /Cahillane/
2 GIVN Thomas
2 SURN Cahillane, O'Cathalain


There is a big help file on the webtrees site about it. It does have some webtrees specific stuff in it of course but there is a good general explanation with Gedcom refs, using the examples of the Star Wars 'family' and how Luke Skywalker is also known as Darth Vader etc and how you would record this in webtrees.

Worth mentioning this page is quite long and the more relevant information is quite a way down the page.

http://wiki.webtrees.net/en/Names:_Advance_Topics


It probably doesn't help if your family tree program doesn't conform to the Gedcom standard though.

 

[Cathy]

My own preference is to record the name as you suggest Bob as a "main" spelling then I record an additional NAME fact (called AKA in many programs) with a source for any variants. If it's a transcription error then I don't bother but if its a genuine difference in how the name may have been recorded over time I find having an alternate name fact with sources very useful. The spelling I use in reports etc is then simply the "preferred" fact. Thus if at a later date I decide I want to change the spelling all I do is select the alternative name as the new preferred fact.

NB. I source EVERY fact in my tree (I'm somewhat obsessively pedantic about that - FTA will have a report about missing sources at some stage). So regardless of which NAME is the preferred fact I always know where I found that variant of the name.

The important thing to realise is that it is only very recently that we became obsessed with spelling and very very recently that we became obsessed with how to spell our names. For the vast majority of family history records out there the spelling is simply how the person recording the fact thought it sounded and has absolutely NOTHING to do with how our ancestor spelt their name (hint most couldn't write let alone spell).

That's great that you are thinking of adding a missing sources report to FTA.
Note that Legacy Family Tree has had this ability for years.

On the substance of this discussion - you have stated more succinctly what I do.

Also on Spelling. There was a time when a sign of education was the ability to write a name in many different ways - which is why on some documents you'll find the same person spelling the same name in a variety of ways. Not carelessness as we'd understand it if someone did it today.

 

[Bob Spiers]

In GenoPro, I used to create a text box and put the variations in there.
In Ancestry on-line, you can add comments to an individual but that's not very good.

Although I only use GenPro for its excellent chart making properties -which I often create for various branches of the family and send on to cousins, Aunts & Uncles - I agree text boxes are excellent for all sorts of notations and especially surname variations where found. That allows me to maintain the denominator name the family will recognise but show a text note to indicate I also found it recorded under an alternative (AKA) name.

Ancestry comments -I assume you mean name variations - I find very useful and have notified a fair few myself. On the whole I welcome them providing a search actually finds the ancestor I seek. So if I seek a Westbury and the search shows Wedgbury (aka Westbury) it has achieved its purpose. One can also check the sobriquet of the person notifying and make contact if you wish further information; or even disagree!

 

[Bob Spiers]

I would never add it as a middle name. That's just confusing. Some people really do have the same surname as a middle name. Certainly I wouldn't think that Wedgbury was there as a variant of Westbury.

I can well understand the practice of adding an alternative SURNAME as a middle name might seem confusing. As a stand-alone concept it sounds confusing, and is hardly correct practice. However it really proves its worth when seeking an Ancestry Connection (Public Trees mainly but I expect Private too) for a family member.

Ancestry uses a 'soundex' technique and so throws up many 'sound-alike' names which I would be the first to admit can be quite irritating. However when scrolling through the list of 'would-be' connections (and deleting the more ridiculous) I always stop when I find someone using an alternative 'soundex' name (sometimes in brackets) as well as the surname I seek. (Or the reverse holds true -the surname I seek plus an alternative). Either way I will always take a peek at such Trees (Public) to see we are on the same wavelength, and often we are. The reason for the alternative name will become obvious and you can always make contact to glean further information.

For Private trees you will need to make contact first. This is a more long winded approach because you can't vet and discard as you can with Public Trees. You will have to explain your reasons and then face either no response or being turned down (for good reasons no doubt). Even when given permission to view, you may find it is not what you seek at all.

But Public or Private; each to his own

 

[Tim]

Ancestry comments -I assume you mean name variations

No, I didn't. You can add comments to individuals, but this is not a good solution as ideally I would like to add a comment to a whole group.

You can add a new fact of NAME, and I want to experiment with that to see if Ancestry adds all the names to searches.

 

[SuzanneD]

I tend to standardise how I enter the surname too, and use the 'alternate name' (aka AKA ) event/fact to record others. I've just started using Roots Magic and all primary and alternate names show up in the alphabetical list of people in my tree. I use the notes field to record where the different spellings were used.

The only exceptions I've made to my standardising are where the surname was spelled fairly consistently one way for a period, then changed to a different but fairly consistent spelling. One example I have is Hoyte / Hoit families all becoming Hight / Hite families within a couple of generations. They are all standardised in my tree under Hoyte or Hight as appropriate.

 

[Bob Spiers]

No, I didn't. You can add comments to individuals, but this is not a good solution as ideally I would like to add a comment to a whole group.

You can add a new fact of NAME, and I want to experiment with that to see if Ancestry adds all the names to searches.

I do use Ancestry general Comments a fair amount (and get responses from others). If necessary I copy and paste the comment to a spouse or a child. (Someone once told me it was possible to transfer the comment to another automatically but for some reason have not learned how this is done). To be truthful I cannot recall any time I wanted a comment to cover a whole group but not doubt the time will come.

As for NAME variants which I thought you originally meant, I do find Ancestry hit and miss on searching original names and variants. In the main they do but if you do experiment let us know how you get on.

 

[Tim]

Ok, my first test.

I've noticed that when Ancestry searches for you, it adds the married name to the back of a maiden name with a space between them.

So I created a person with a surname of Bisset Spiers, and sure enough, I got results for both surnames.

So the Theory is this, if you entered the variations as surnames such as Spiers Spires Spiars Speirs into the surname box, any children would inherit the surnames as you added them. I think I would put the most common one or the one used today as the first entry.

 

[Tim]

Second test.

There doesn't appear to be a fact called SURN, but there is one called NAME.

So main surname as Bisset, 2nd name as Spiers, was a bust. Ancestry doesn't use this name in any searches.

 

[Tim]

Third test.

There is a fact called Also Known As (AKA).

So main surname as Bisset, AKA name as Spiers, was a bust. Ancestry doesn't use this name in any searches.

 

[Tim]

Fourth test (and clutching at straws now)

There is a fact called Namesake.

So main surname as Bisset, Namesake as Spiers, was a bust. Ancestry doesn't use this name in any searches.

 

[Tim]

So to recap, add all the variations of names in the surname box with a space between each one.

This way Ancestry will search every surname listed and whatever it thinks are variations of them for you.

You can arrange the surnames in some sort of order if required, most common or likely first followed by mis-transcriptions.

Not an elegant solution but it keeps all the known variations visible and gets Ancestry to search for them at the same time.

 

[Bob Spiers]

A work of art Tim, and if I come across this Bisset Spiers I will think of you. Seriously, good information and I too have observed Ancestry practice of using multi-surnames, (to show the maiden name of a spouse, plus any former marriage surnames if applicable, and the current one). I always thought they should have a comma after each one, but clearly not as per your test. So it can be used for variations also which is worth knowing....Good work!

Now for your next mission should you choose to accept..............

 

[Tim]

Now for your next mission should you choose to accept..............

I have started using this technique now, it seems to work well.



Yes, I accept

 

[Bob Spiers]

Yes, I accept

Your mission is to find the name of a third daughter? A large family mid 1800's included 3 daughters: Jemima (lovely name and would not be out of place today), Kezia (sometimes spelled Kesia) and no less nice sounding. But their third daughter -who I have no reason to doubt was equally as charming, except she was saddled with a name that was far from lovely. So what name was she given?

The only clue is all 3 sisters were given names that followed a theme. I would also mention that the given name was in time broken down to form the basis of a modern name which would then qualify as lovely. What was the modern name?

I have this family in my Tree and I truly thought I had come across an enormous name mis-corruption. It was only when I further investigated I found out the name was correct and understood why it had been bestowed.

The message will self destruct in 10 minutes.