Name changes, before and at marriages

[LynneB]

I have been researching my family history on and off for five years. In that time, I have recorded women by their maiden names and, when merging information on FTM, have ignored their married names.

However, I have a couple of female relatives who were given one name at birth and married with a different name. For instance, one of my great-grandmothers was born out of wedlock and is listed on her birth certificate as Jessie Rice (her mother's maiden name). By the time Jessie married, her mother was living in a de facto relationship with a man (who may be Jessie's father) and it is his name on the marriage certificate where she is listed as Jessie Matthews. She is buried as Jessie Loder, her married name.

Her brother also went from Ernest Rice to Ernest Matthews.

It seems obvious to me now that I should probably include all names in my recording of information -- but one learns by experience!

With 2000+ names on my family tree, I am now wondering whether I should go back and give all the married women both their maiden and married names. What do other family historians do?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

In FTM I add a different name fact and record the source for that new name fact. Thus in my tree for your example I'd see the individual would have two names the source for the first would be her birth the source for the second would be her marriage. I'd then choose which one to mark as the preferred fact and that is then the one that is displayed by the program. However I'd still have the records showing she had other names and most importantly because I'd recorded the sources that would tell me WHY I'd recorded other names.

If at a later date I found her on extra records I'd record that new source against the name record. If the balance of evidence then suggested she was more commonly known by a different name all I'd need to do is to change the preferred fact. I'd still retain all the information I'd collected and the where I'd collected it from.

This is a classic example of where recording sources has helped me enormously work out later inconsistencies. As I can refer back to any prior source the check. Sometimes that means revising what I thought the handwriting said in the light of new evidence. Something I could never do if I hadn't recorded the source.

 

[LynneB]

This is a classic example of where recording sources has helped me enormously work out later inconsistencies. As I can refer back to any prior source the check. Sometimes that means revising what I thought the handwriting said in the light of new evidence. Something I could never do if I hadn't recorded the source.

Ah, yes, I learnt very early to always record where I found information, otherwise I'd come back a few weeks (or even days) later and wonder where I'd found it!

What I've been doing when merging info on FTM, like census data after the marriage, is just adding the census resource to the wife's maiden name instead of having a separate entry with her married name.

Today I had an incident of a woman who married a 2nd cousin, twice removed, with one surname which, incidentally, was spelt incorrectly (she couldn't sign her name and perhaps couldn't read it to check it). When I finally found her on the census prior to her marriage, I found the correct (?) spelling but she was listed with a different surname as "daughter-in-law" (actually step-daughter), having her mother's previous married name. I kept digging and found she had a different name at birth, her mother's maiden name -- it was she who triggered my thinking about the way I record names!

Looks like I'm going to be spending some time tidying the record of my female relatives and moving the attached resource to the correct fact!

Do you record all variations of a name? I've recorded only one name, Henry Edward James Bowley, but I've seen all these for the same person today:
Henry E J Bowley
Henry Edward J Bowley
Henry E James Bowley
Henry Bowley
H E J Bowley

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I don't get precious about variations in a name. I know of some people who are dogmatic about recording different spellings and each and every variant. However to me that ignores the fact that you elude to in your response that most of our ancestors didn't know how to spell, or even read/write and to be honest probably never actually saw the register other than examples where they had to sign an X. What people have to remember is that historically names were written as they sounded to the recorder, there simply wasn't the same sort of notion of the "correct" spelling. Being obsessed with spelling is an incredibly modern thing having really surfaced in the 20th century, and I say that as a Bisset with one T and NOT two!!!

What I've been doing when merging info on FTM, like census data after the marriage, is just adding the census resource to the wife's maiden name instead of having a separate entry with her married name.

With FTM you don't need to add married names to females there is an option to display married names in the index so you can find married females with their married or maiden names. So you should always record a female with their maiden name and never their married name.

I have never in my tree ever recorded a female with her married name to me that is just simply wrong. All the reporting correctly identifies her from her marriage date and knows to use married name after marriage date. So to me its simply wrong to ever record a female with her married name.

My practice where I don't know the maiden name is to record it as ?, I've seen others use (married surname) which kind of works but screws up some of the reporting. What I detest is where a female with an unknown maiden name is recorded with her married name as if that's her only identity. This has me screaming at the screen watching Who Do You Think You Are? when it shows their trees and repeatedly has the female with her married surname when that's NOT her name at all.

 

[LynneB]

So I was on the right track and don't need to go back and visit hundreds of women to record their married names! I record my unknown maiden names with married names in brackets; since I rarely use reports it hasn't been a problem. Unknown first names I record as "unknown".

I assume then, that you just attach census, death, etc. to the maiden name -- or do you tell FTM not to store that information against the name and only against the fact?

All my blood relatives surnames are recorded in capitals, spouses and their parents/siblings are recorded in lower case (Margaret BROWN and Tom Smith; children from the union are recorded with capitals)

What I detest is where a female with an unknown maiden name is recorded with her married name as if that's her only identity. This has me screaming at the screen watching Who Do You Think You Are? when it shows their trees and repeatedly has the female with her married surname when that's NOT her name at all.

This comment made me smile -- I'm like that with spelling and punctuation (not with names; I understand how they've evolved) but I'm becoming more relaxed as I grow older! I think it's the English (as a second or subsequent language) teacher in me!

 

[Alexander Bisset]

With a census I typically attach the source to 3 or 4 facts against an individual. These are name fact, birth fact, census fact and occupation fact if given. As in my mind the census info provides evidence for all those facts. I repeat this for every person in the household.

 

[LynneB]

With a census I typically attach the source to 3 or 4 facts against an individual. These are name fact, birth fact, census fact and occupation fact if given. As in my mind the census info provides evidence for all those facts. I repeat this for every person in the household.

Yes, that's exactly what I do!

 

[Bob Spiers]

I always knew I was a troglodyte when it came to Genealogy and like to follow the KISS method(Keep it simple stupid). For instance I only record females under their maiden (birth) name and in all cases (both sexes and irrespective whether first names or surnames) record for index purpose one spelling variation - the one that has most consistently survived down the line. I only vary from this where there is good reason to show two spelling variations.

A good example of this is my Westbury line where there is a clear evidence to support that at some point the family names was recorded as both Wedgbury & Westbury. Both variations survived until (in my own line) they finally remained as Westbury.

I use my Tribal Pages -which permits copious narrative space for each individual – to show anomalies of whatever nature. I will say (e.g.) Elizabeth seems to have reverted to Eliza over time or (e.g.) the surname went through some half a dozen variations through different Censuses (naming each) and I have settled on the most consistent. Or (e.g.) Thomas Henry Adams seems to have gained another initial in the xx Census being shown as Thomas H.J. Adams.

The Narratives (for they go beyond Gedcom style Notes) covers everything I have learned about the individual, good, bad or indifferent and often leads me to write Stories (under a separate heading). I draw attention to the Stories on the Ancestor’s page to allow interested family members to read the fuller account.

As for finding individuals should I perhaps forget the maiden name of a female ancestor who married into bloodline (as I do often) it is no small matter to trace her via her married name by selecting her husband. If he too is forgotten, then I latch on the common denominator bloodline surname, and progress forwards or backwards from there. It sounds complicated but it take seconds to locate anyone in any data base. Works for me at any rate.

 

[Tim]

I've seen others use (married surname) which kind of works but screws up some of the reporting.

This is what I do, it works very well. You can tell at a glance both who she was married to and that you don't know the maiden name.
It also lists all people starting with a bracket first and all in one place.

Not sure what reporting this screws up though?

 

[canadianbeth]

I have this problem with my Dad and his two sisters, all of whom were illegitimate. They were registered at birth with their mother's name of Joyce but it seems that after they emigrated to Canada, at different times even, they decided to use a different name, which may or may not have been that of their father, who is listed as unknown on birth registrations. My Dad was even registered as Jack, but I have seen references to him later as John, but just in England. When my aunt emigrated she used his name on the ship's form as next of kin and called him John Joyce. He was *never* John here in Canada. Just Jack. I have waffled for years about what name to put in my FTM. Currently, it is Jack (Joyce) Roberts. References I have seen here in Canada had both my aunts stating their names were Roberts when they married.

Someone on another thread mentioned the "shaky leaf" on Ancestry and FTM; there are none such for my Dad's family.

 

[Tim]

You know that Jack is a traditional nickname for John? You could Google it.

 

[canadianbeth]

I do know that people named John are often called Jack as a nickname, but my Dad was registered as Jack. No one in Canada called him John and even his army records from the war have him listed as Jack, as does his gravestone.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I do know that people named John are often called Jack as a nickname, but my Dad was registered as Jack

The Jack /John substitution has featured quite a few time in my Tree as I expect it has in others, although mainly as you say as a variation nickname which is quite common in England. The incident that more closely matches your own dilemma (except wholly in the UK) occurred when I was asked to search for an Uncle Jack by a cousin as someone she knew as a child but who had since disappeared off the scene. (I have posted about the search before as a fascinating trail of hunt the thimble and trying to decipher mis-transcriptions for both he and his wife).

Before starting the search I had to find him and sure enough the only person that matched was birth registered as John Henry xxx born 1904: it had to be him. The only Census he appeared in as a child showed him as Jack and he married as Jack. He was a father as Jack and later in life I learned there was even a Power of Attorney showing him as Jack. So to anyone who knew him, and perhaps even to Jack himself, he was JACK. However I have to say that at death he was again shown as John Henry. In my Tree he is recorded as John (Jack) Henry.

 

[peter]

I do know that people named John are often called Jack as a nickname, but my Dad was registered as Jack. No one in Canada called him John and even his army records from the war have him listed as Jack, as does his gravestone.

Sometimes even close family won't remember that an apparent nickname is the real name. For example, one of my great uncles was registered at birth as Fred, but on the 1911 Census his own father put him down as Frederick.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

There are lots of common variations that people may not be aware of Patrick/Peter, Jane/Jean, Elizabeth/Isabel/Isobel/Bessie/etc. There's a website that deals with mainly Scottish names that aims to show all known variants. These will of course usually apply outside Scotland too.