male surnames change

[Jane M]

My roots go back to a section of Germany where surnames may come from farm names. When a man moved onto a farm, he would change his name to that of the farm name and if he married the widow he took her surname or that of the farm. So my surname comes from a female that is not a blood relative. How do I enter this info in Reunion? Here's an example:

John Smith (Smith is the farm name) marries Elizabeth Brown.
John dies.
Bob Williams marries widow Elizabeth Smith and takes the Smith name.
Elizabeth Smith dies.
Bob Smith remarries Lucy Jones.
Bob and Lucy are my blood line and the Smith name is the farm name but now my surname.

I want the info when entered to look like this:

John Smith marries Elizabeth Brown
Bob Williams marries Elizabeth Smith (this is what the marriage document says).
Bob Smith marries Lucy Jones (and this is what the marriage document says).

But if I start with the correct fact that John Smith marries Elizabeth Brown then Reunion won't let me show that Bob Williams marries Elizabeth Smith (Reunion wants Brown) or that Bob Smith (Reunion wants Williams) marries Lucy Jones. And no matter what names I change it is never correct because the wrong surname is married to the wrong surname. I have tried lots of different ways but nothing works.

And it gets even more complicated in some of my lines when the kids have the farm name, the Dad has his surname and the Mom has her surname. So any help would be appreciated and thanks for your input.

Jane

[Peter Cook]

You say (Reunion wants Brown) or (Reunion wants Williams)
As you have found, these are only "suggestions", and you can overtype them with what ever you want.
What you have to decide is whether to (consistently) record the birth surname, or the marriage surname, and then cover the other in either of the Prefix/Suffix Title fields; or in the detail of a source citation; or as an added "Alias" fact field.

[Donald W. Moore]

As Mr. Cook suggests, you have to decide what name to go with. Standard genealogy practice in a situation like this, at least among professionals, is to use the name that most of the evidence supports and document any other names as alias or AKAs. That's what you would have to if writing a narrative genealogy so as not to confuse the reader.

[Roberta]

My roots go back to a section of Germany where surnames may come from farm names. When a man moved onto a farm, he would change his name to that of the farm name and if he married the widow he took her surname or that of the farm. So my surname comes from a female that is not a blood relative. How do I enter this info in Reunion? Here's an example:

John Smith (Smith is the farm name) marries Elizabeth Brown.
John dies.
Bob Williams marries widow Elizabeth Smith and takes the Smith name.
Elizabeth Smith dies.
Bob Smith remarries Lucy Jones.
Bob and Lucy are my blood line and the Smith name is the farm name but now my surname.

I want the info when entered to look like this:

John Smith marries Elizabeth Brown
Bob Williams marries Elizabeth Smith (this is what the marriage document says).
Bob Smith marries Lucy Jones (and this is what the marriage document says).

But if I start with the correct fact that John Smith marries Elizabeth Brown then Reunion won't let me show that Bob Williams marries Elizabeth Smith (Reunion wants Brown) or that Bob Smith (Reunion wants Williams) marries Lucy Jones. And no matter what names I change it is never correct because the wrong surname is married to the wrong surname. I have tried lots of different ways but nothing works.

And it gets even more complicated in some of my lines when the kids have the farm name, the Dad has his surname and the Mom has her surname. So any help would be appreciated and thanks for your input.

Jane

The same problem exists in Norway. I simply string the farm names together in the last name field for both the women and the men. The first name is the farm where they were born and the last is the farm where they died. There may be others in between. And then using the residences field, I identify when they lived on each farm.

[Jane M]

You say
As you have found, these are only "suggestions", and you can overtype them with what ever you want.
What you have to decide is whether to (consistently) record the birth surname, or the marriage surname, and then cover the other in either of the Prefix/Suffix Title fields; or in the detail of a source citation; or as an added "Alias" fact field.

Thank you for your input and it looks like I just need to try something and see how it works then go from there. Again thank you for your helpful suggestions. I think being consistent is the key so I will keep that in mind.

Jane

[Jane M]

As Mr. Cook suggests, you have to decide what name to go with. Standard genealogy practice in a situation like this, at least among professionals, is to use the name that most of the evidence supports and document any other names as alias or AKAs. That's what you would have to if writing a narrative genealogy so as not to confuse the reader.

Thank you for your help. I like the idea of going with the name that most of the evidence supports and that will probably be the married name. Guess I'll get started and see how it goes. Again, thank you for your input.

Jane

[Jane M]

The same problem exists in Norway. I simply string the farm names together in the last name field for both the women and the men. The first name is the farm where they were born and the last is the farm where they died. There may be others in between. And then using the residences field, I identify when they lived on each farm.

Sounds like you have a system that works for you so I will have to experiment and see what works for me. Thank you for your input and guess I better just get started. Thanks.

Jane