How do you handle name variations?

[Liberty]

I've got Silvesters in my tree - only a collateral line, but they're amazingly difficult to trace, partly because it's a more common surname than I would have guessed, but also because they can't make up their mind whether to spell it with an 'i' or a 'y'.

These variable spellings are a headache, both for searching and entering in your own records. My 3g GM was christened as Chastney and married as Chesney; the wider family used (or had used on them) all combinations of 'A or E', 'T or not' up to and including Chasteney. Her sister married Samuel Risebro, whose family appear as anything from Risbro to Riseborough (Sam himself was christened as Risebrow) and I suspect that some of the old church records for Raspberry refer to this lot!

Could/should we have a place on the forum for 'alternative forms of name'? In the early days of building my family tree I was stumped by the Chesney/Chastney thing till a kind man pointed me to the christening record. I would guess there are plenty of names out there with well-established variants (rather than errors in transcription).

 

[Britjan]

These variable spellings are a headache, for searching and entering in your own records. Could/should we have a place on the forum for 'alternative forms of name'? .

A place to note the variable spelling in first names and short forms would be useful as well. The juxtaposing of first and second names and adopting a new name would be impossible to document but I am always surprised at just how much variation in the spelling of first names of three syllables there can be.

 

[peter]

Could/should we have a place on the forum for 'alternative forms of name'? In the early days of building my family tree I was stumped by the Chesney/Chastney thing till a kind man pointed me to the christening record. I would guess there are plenty of names out there with well-established variants (rather than errors in transcription).

It really wouldn't be appropriate to have that sort of index on the forum as there are literally hundreds of thousands of possibilities. In the old days the simplest solution to this sort of challenge was to search on the FamilySearch site, because you'd automatically get results for alternative spellings, which you could then use at other sites - but I'm not sure that it's as easy to do at the new FamilySearch site.

For surnames it's well worth trying the Index of Incorrect Surnames on the LostCousins site - it's a much under-used resource. Of course, some of the alternatives relate to transcription errors or errors by enumerators, but then vicars often made similar mistakes (particularly when dealing with unfamiliar accents - which is why my surname is usually spelled Carver in pre-19th century Suffolk parish registers).

 

[Liberty]

It really wouldn't be appropriate to have that sort of index on the forum as there are literally hundreds of thousands of possibilities. ...

For surnames it's well worth trying the Index of Incorrect Surnames on the LostCousins site - it's a much under-used resource. ).

I take your point about the huge number of incorrect surnames. However, what causes me the headache is not simply what is incorrect but the' slight' variation such as when one sibling opted to spell his name Chesney while another went for Chastney. Who can say that either is incorrect? The LC Index would show a correction if I decided that brother John was going down on my list as Chesney (as his brother George spelt it) , even though he himslef consistently spelt it Chastney. If I allow John to spell his name the way he likes (as seems only civil), it doesn't appear on the index.

 

[Britjan]

For surnames it's well worth trying the Index of Incorrect Surnames on the LostCousins site - it's a much under-used resource.

When I went back to refresh my memory on this resource I was reminded that although I try to be vigilant in adding to the incorrect surname and the maiden name list for every census the look ups depends on the 1881 census so it's really important to always add corrections etc. for anybody on that census.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

However, what causes me the headache is not simply what is incorrect but the' slight' variation such as when one sibling opted to spell his name Chesney while another went for Chastney.

Therein lies your problem!! It is almost certain that one sibling did not OPT to spell his name Chesney whilst the other WENT FOR Chastney. Invariably it was how the clerk writing the document thought the name sounded at the time. You have to remember that spelling of names or places wasn't standardised until usually the late 1800s/early 1900s. Most old documents have huge variants of spellings and the problem gets worse the further back in time you go.

"Correct" spelling is an extremely modern obsession. It is difficult but we really should try not to think in terms of modern values when thinking of the actions of our ancestors, not just in this spelling topic but all manner of life decisions where our modern life view is just not how they would have thought.

The other common one is illegitimacy and the idea that it was a "scandal" when not that long ago it was common to wait to see if the potential wife was fertile before deciding to marry as children were your pension. (NB. Don't fall into the trap of modern thought "oh but it could have been the man that was infertile", they just didn't think that way )

 

[Liberty]

Therein lies your problem!! It is almost certain that one sibling did not OPT to spell his name Chesney whilst the other WENT FOR Chastney. Invariably it was how the clerk writing the document thought the name sounded at the time. You have to remember that spelling of names or places wasn't standardised until usually the late 1800s/early 1900s. Most old documents have huge variants of spellings and the problem gets worse the further back in time you go.

Well, Alexander, I was thinking specifically about entries on LC pages when responding to Peter's point about the Index of Incorrect Names, i.e into census times. And it does look as if by 1881, certainly by 1911, some of one family have opted for one spelling (or pronunciation), and others for another. Or at least, clerks have consistently heard the name one way for one part of the family, and another way for another. I don't think a notion that I am applying 'modern values' has much to do with it.

I do have a problem, for example, in trying to determine if Herbert Riseborough (b Sheringham 1865) who married my relative Mary Ann Cooper in 1886, was related to Herbert Risebro (b Sheringham 1873) who was descended from my Chesney/Chastney relative who married Samuel Risebro. And it is very tedious picking your way through the various spellings. I am very glad of the Soundex option of FreeReg, I can tell you.

And the search is only the half of it; what variant of the name should I use on my tree? Do I put everybody down as Chastney or Risebro, or do I have some under Chesney and Riseborough? And how to cross-reference?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I wasn't specifically targetting yourself I was making a more general issue that ALL of us from time to time tend to think "how our ancestors must have felt" but apply modern day values. It's one of the things that bug me about Who do you think you are? They are forever saying outlandish things along the lines of "oh that must mean...". Which probably explains things to the audience but is a bad line to take as you end up assuming stuff. The telly participants are of course being led to what the researchers have already found. Hence the first match on ancestry is always the right one as they suggest what to enter into the search box.

Anyway. Yes what to do about spellings. One options is to tag as a name everyone with the standardised surname then also record the name EXACTLY as it appears in the records, remembering to source the alternate name. You then get the best of both worlds you get an easy to use index yet have properly sourced name records in your database. Indeed it wouldn't be unusual to have someone with 5-6 different name records with different spellings and different sources yet have the one "preferred" name fact that is used in your indexes.

If you follow that idea you have auto-generated your cross-references, as you have all the alternate names with the source attached so you know where you saw that name.

 

[Liberty]

Anyway. Yes what to do about spellings. One options is to tag as a name everyone with the standardised surname then also record the name EXACTLY as it appears in the records, remembering to source the alternate name. You then get the best of both worlds you get an easy to use index yet have properly sourced name records in your database. Indeed it wouldn't be unusual to have someone with 5-6 different name records with different spellings and different sources yet have the one "preferred" name fact that is used in your indexes.

Thanks for the suggestions, Alexander. I do already note the variant spellings that have been applied to an individual in the course of his life (including stunning mis-spellings like Loaf for Love in a census). My niggle continues to be the divergence within the family. I said above that my GGG GM was christened as Chastney - so were her siblings except the ones down as Chasney (we're talking end of the 18th, beginning 19th century). However, some of her brothers and their families 'became' Chestney in the course of the next century or so. (I am assuming that by the 1911 census the names were pretty much fixed) Which spelling should they be listed under?

This reminds me of my classes in cataloguing in library school, about 35 years ago, when the rule was that the entry for authors should be the fullest version of their name that they ever used as an author. Even then, it was flagged up that you would get situations where e.g. books by Che Guevara would/should be entered under Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna. In this case, does priority go to the earliest form, the last form, the most common form, the one that fits with my direct line...? Aaargh!

 

[Tim]

I use a fairly simple approach to this issue. If you have data from say 1911 onwards, that is probably the name they would be using today. So I would use that name for them going back in time, until you find the point of divergence.

I have also just started using this technique in my tree to record variations of surnames, with the preferred name first,
e.g. Ambrose Ambros
The advantage of this is that when I search on this person, it tries both spellings at the same time. I have about 5 spellings for one surname.

 

[Liberty]

I have also just started using this technique in my tree to record variations of surnames, with the preferred name first,
e.g. Ambrose Ambros
The advantage of this is that when I search on this person, it tries both spellings at the same time. I have about 5 spellings for one surname.

Sounds a good idea, Tim. What happens if you look to see if e.g Herbert Riseborough is in your tree? Will you pick him up if he is down as Risebro?

 

[Liberty]

I use a fairly simple approach to this issue. If you have data from say 1911 onwards, that is probably the name they would be using today. So I would use that name for them going back in time, until you find the point of divergence.

Sometimes it's hard to say when the divergence occurs. Regrettably nobody seems to have made a New Year Resolution to spell their name this way from now on. They seem to have been all over the shop prior to late 18th century, then spent the next 70 or 80 years narrowing down their options, before finally getting fixed around the end of the 19th century. (Yes, I know it wasn't really like that) At times it's a relief to return to the Coopers and Wests and Smiths, where nobody seems to have had much doubt how to spell them.

 

[trebor]

At times it's a relief to return to the Coopers and Wests and Smiths, where nobody seems to have had much doubt how to spell them.

What about Cowper and Smyth etc

 

[Tim]

Sounds a good idea, Tim. What happens if you look to see if e.g Herbert Riseborough is in your tree? Will you pick him up if he is down as Risebro?

Yes.

 

[Liberty]

What about Cowper and Smyth etc

Perhaps I should have said that within my ancestral community, all clerks seemed solidly/stolidly to stick to the standard spelling. Possibly my xG GF was saying "That's Smith with a 'Y'" but if so he was ignored.

 

[cfbandit]

My husband's family are quite particular about how their name is spelt - Phillipps with two Ls and two Ps at the end, right down to an angry letter we have back from the 1880s about the directory spelling his name Philips instead.

But in my family? Needham is spelled Needham, Nedham, Neadham, Needaham, Needeha, Nedeha, Needam, and probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head. I'm lucky they stayed in place for roughly 300 years or so. Their hometown also gets spelled all sorts of different ways, and it wasn't until the 1911 census that it seems it was universally spelled as Queniborough, Leics. Before that there was Quenboro, Queenborough, Queenboro, Quennibough, Quenniburugh, etc.

 

[Liberty]

My husband's family are quite particular about how their name is spelt - Phillipps with two Ls and two Ps at the end, right down to an angry letter we have back from the 1880s about the directory spelling his name Philips instead.

That's very interesting, cfbandit, in that it shows that at least one family had definitely fixed on a spelling (an unconventional one) by that date. I wonder if my Orsborn relatives complained to the authorities when they appeared as Osborn in the 1881 census? Except, they wouldn't have seen it, of course, nor any voters' lists, etc.
Maybe the people who appeared by name in directories (the gentry, those with a profession or trade, the middle and upper classes in general) had fixed spellings for their names significantly earlier than the working classes (ag labs, miners, fishermen) who had not much cause to have their name written down - and were much less likely to read and write before universal education was introduced.

 

[Tim]

Sounds like a fair assumption.

 

[cfbandit]

Maybe the people who appeared by name in directories (the gentry, those with a profession or trade, the middle and upper classes in general) had fixed spellings for their names significantly earlier than the working classes (ag labs, miners, fishermen) who had not much cause to have their name written down - and were much less likely to read and write before universal education was introduced.

That would make sense. Hubs' family owned a stone quarry in Germany and were high level artisans, and did the same when they moved the US. My family went down the line from being lawyers to peasant farmers within the 300+ years they lived in Leics, and when they moved to Nottinghamshire, they were coal miners. No reason to really worry about spelling if you're name isn't really important, I guess. The two Needhams I have who were Baptist ministers seem to be the only ones who were intent on spelling it consistently.

 

[peter]

I don't suppose census enumerators in the 19th century worried too much about name spellings because the names were only there as a way of identifying the records (eg in case of duplication or omission). Nobody then could have imagined the uses that the historic censuses would be put to in the 20th century.