Taming names (alternate spelling, people with 4 middle names, Anglicized, etc.)

[xejn]

I read the thread here: http://www.reuniontalk.com/showthread.php?t=403&page=1&pp=10&highlight=names+spelling which was a bit helpful, but I'm still having trouble with names (first, middle(s) and last).

Let's start with the easey one, nick-names: I'm putting them in the main First & Middle name field with quotes. The main reasons are: 1) this is the name the person went by in life and 2) the one living people are likely to remember them by. I do have one person with two nick names (Anglicized and non-Anglicized versions), but that's the least of my name troubles.

First and Middle names:
A) 3/4 of my tree comes from a country where documents from before sometime in 1910–1930 (actually, I think the swtich happened closer to WWII, when Italian dropped out of favor as both the language of Offical business and the well-off, when Italian bombs started dropping on people's houses; and documents back to a certain period ca 1930 were Anglicized retroactively) use Italian versions of names (while not part of Italy, Italian was still in use as the language for official business—a legacy from when the country's stewards were knights from many countries and Italian was the Knights' unifying language), but after 1910–1930 official documents are Anglicized. This group also tends to also have multiple middle names (4 is the record so far).

Currently, I have Anglicized (also happens to be the last used) first name, Anglicized middle name (thankfully they paired down to just one middle name), then in brackets [] their non-Anglicized name (first and middle(s)), then of course nick-name(s) in quotes. This makes for a very long list of names which wrecks havok on charts and I fear will look like a complicated mess to other people.

B) I have a few U.S. born people from the other 1/4 of my tree that have different spelling pre- and post- 1900. An example is Rezin which seemed to be widely used before 1900 and spelled Reason after 1900.

To tame the above, I am considering (and looking for what others think of this and/or other suggestions):

1. Using only the last used version of the person's First and Middle name.

So my Grandfather who is currently listed as:
Joseph [Guiseppe Felice Gerardo Salvatore Nazareno] “Joe” “Guise”,
would become simply:
Joseph “Joe” “Guise”
(he did not use any middle name at all in the US).

Rezin would be listed as Reason (the last version he used).

2. Creating a Fact Field for
a. First & Middle pre-Anglicized (or First & Middle Original Spelling—I'n not happy with either name): for Guiseppe Felice Gerardo Salvatore Nazareno
b. First & Middle Alt. Spelling: for Rezin

I can then turn the new fields on when wanted and show them in a custom view.


Surnames: This is another issue—one that effects all sides of my tree. At one point I was putting all versions used and multiple spelling in the Last Name field, but this created a complex mess.

I am currently putting only the most commonly used/last version of the surname in the Last Name field and then putting alternates in my research notes with sources. I'm finging this less than perfect.

I am considering putting the most commonly used/last version of the surname in the Last Name field and then create a fact field for Alternate Spelling(s) Surname. This way, I can print them when I do a report to take along for research, or included them in charts and reports at will, while keeping things cleaner in the Last Name field for charts and reports. As with the above, I can also show the new field in a custom view. If I do this, I may continue to add them to my research notes as well so I can better track their use.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Cheers,

Michael

[marnen]

Your idea of using facts for alternate names is a very good one. That's what I've been doing for the few I have.

Oh, and note the correct spelling of "Giuseppe".

[Deena]

I have a problem like yours with my ancestors who were born elsewhere and emigrated to the US.

They have names in the original language that were transliterated in many ways and then anglicized in a number of other ways.

They also seem to have had nicknames unrelated to either their foreign or angicized name!

What I did was created a NOTE field. In it, I list every instance of their name in documents with a date and then I reference the source.

For example:

12 Dec 1909, Tamara Deena SHTEYN (Russian) 1
1 Jan 1912, Tamar STEIN (German) 2
3 Feb 1912, Lena STONE 3
15 Aug 1920, Lena KOLTOFF 4

The numbers are "sources" in my example. I note the language of origin of the document in parenthesis when it is not English.

I like this much better than using FACTS because in the facts you can only have one entry per box and I like it all in one place.

[MabryBenson]

I did a book on the Schlaudroffs from a small German town, and there were/are many spellings. (I put a list in the introduction of all the spellings I had come across.) I finally settled on a spelling and used that throughout the file, so that everyone appeared in the index under the same last-name-spelling, as it seemed more important to have all the Johanns together, not scattered among different spellings.

[Normand Frenette]

It seems to me that the one thing we want to avoid as genealogists is re-writing history by retroactively assigning "modern" spellings to ancestors. This is particularly acute when individuals have moved from one jurisdiction to another or even when they stayed put but the jurisdiction changed. [I once gave a helping hand to a colleague with ancestors in Alsace. Alsace is now French territory, so all of the Heinrichs and Johans in his genealogy had been miraculously transformed into Henri and Jean, even though the individuals thus designated would never have recognized their "new" identity.]

But what do we do about the individuals who accept name changes or have them imposed upon them by the friendly immigration officer?

I'm sure that there are many ways of dealing with the issue while still respecting historical realities. My solution has been to assign two (or more) names to the individual who goes through the changes. For example, I have several families that began life as Frenet or Frenette but changed to Fernett after immigration to the U.S. In that case, the individual who experiences the change of name or spelling will show two names thusly: Nicolas (Nicholas) Frenet (Fernett). The children carry the single name Fernett. This tells the reader that Nicolas was the bearer of the name changes for the rest of the progeny, although this particular example is interesting because some of the children adopted the name Fernett and others adopted the name Frenette. But it is important to be able to show that they are all related, even with different names, and where and when the changes took place.

[marnen]

It seems to me that the one thing we want to avoid as genealogists is re-writing history by retroactively assigning "modern" spellings to ancestors.
You're absolutely right. I try to record names in either the spelling most likely to be correct (if I can determine that), or else the spelling I first received. But what happens if we're dealing with (say) medieval England, where the concept of one correct spelling did not exist, so a man might be Riccharde Smyth on one page of a document and Rychard Smitthe on another? In these cases, I would say one has to normalize to one spelling, perhaps mentioning significant variants in notes. This is what encyclopedias tend to do.

[fmlyhntr]

How do people handle Marie Kirstine Bloch was how she was christened, but she married under the name Kirstine Marie Bloch--then the children's christening records have the mother's name as Marie or Kirstine or a combination of both names? This is an example--I actually have this happen a lot in my Danish and Alsatian research. (Yes, it is the same woman).

Christina

[steven willott]

I wish I had an answer. I'm actually looking for a suggestion on a similar situation I have.

The girl was born in the U.S. to Hungarian immigrants. Her Magyar name was Ilonka (though only went by Helen among the English-speaking people here) and was called Ilonka formally by the Magyar-speaking community in and around St. Louis, unless a close friend or family member, then by the diminutive Ilona.

First wrench: Hungarians typically use last name first. So, Ilonka was formally Kecskes Ilonka and informally Kecskes Ilona.

Wrench #2: Her dad, Andrew (Andras in Magyar) died when she was only about 3 and then her mom remarried. Step-dad's last name was Szucs, also a Hungarian name. Ilonka was never actually adopted by Szucs Joszef (Joseph Szucs), but went to school telling everyone that her new name was Szucs Ilonka. She's listed on passenger lists as such when she traveled with mom to Hungary and back.

Wrench #3: As Joseph Szucs became more and more involved in business dealings with non-Magyar-speaking people around St. Louis and parts of Illinois, the name changed (at least in use) to various spellings such as Szucs, Szuch, Such, Seuch, Sisk, and Siska. Helen's last name in her marriage certificate and later documents was listed as Sisk or Siska.

Wrench #4: Helen's middle name was Helen, her first name was actually Mary, but she went by Helen.

Sounds like a gal with a lot of aliases, doesn't it? Any suggestions other than to pick one spelling and name and then just put all this in notes?

[marnen]

Was her name legally Helen or Ilona? I think I'd use her legal name as the primary and mark the others as aliases. In this case, that would probably mean entering her as Ilona (or possibly Helen) Kecskes. (BTW, Ilona would have been her formal name and Ilonka the diminutive AFAIK. I think you got it backwards. Also note the usual Hungarian spellings of András and József.)

[steven willott]

Was her name legally Helen or Ilona? I think I'd use her legal name as the primary and mark the others as aliases. In this case, that would probably mean entering her as Ilona (or possibly Helen) Kecskes. (BTW, Ilona would have been her formal name and Ilonka the diminutive AFAIK. I think you got it backwards. Also note the usual Hungarian spellings of András and József.)


You are correct on the accents. I got hasty and didn't put them in the message. Thanks. She was born in 1909 and, to my knowledge, had no birth certificate. So as far as legal name, I'm not sure where to go. I guess that's a whole new request for advice. Thanks for the help with the Magyar diminutive/formal forms. I like the alias idea. Where would you put that sort of thing?

[marnen]

Aliases can go in a fact field. Reunion even comes with the "Alias/AKA" fact predefined.

In general, any discrete unit of non-dated information should go in a fact field unless it's a simple true/false (use a flag) or it's long (use notes).