From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Thu Mar 2 12:47:54 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k22Jlsjb025651; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:47:54 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k22Jlren016360 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:47:54 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k22HI6FI020032 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:18:06 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k22HI6Me020031 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:18:06 -0500 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k22GkSFI019910 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:46:28 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k22JG5Ff009866 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:16:05 -0700 X-Envelope-From: listpig@earthlink.net Thu Mar 2 12:16:05 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k22JG5jb009857 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:16:05 -0700 Received: from smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net (smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k22JG2MG003051 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:16:04 -0700 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=tBvSI1CTcoBSA7I1UaVyaFOi9EBlTrnZpHpE6Iz0p2aBADjwRsbA4Al2y6myR7Qr; h=Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [24.14.194.54] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FEtHK-0008ME-2X; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:15:58 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:15:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Data Entry Convention for Illegitimate Surname From: Listpig To: David Warncken , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ROOTS-L] Data Entry Convention for Illegitimate Surname Thread-Index: AcY+LbsX+cCl96ogEdqckwANk0pHdA== In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060302214659.01ad2710@bigpond.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: db202341c41578ced780f4a490ca69563f9fea00a6dd62bc1ea0038d271d9d28073305189624c049350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 24.14.194.54 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com I'm a firm believer that birth names should be recorded as what they were: if you go looking for X's birth certificate (or if you could do so, if they're not from the right time and place for that to be possible), what would you find it under? Subsequent changes should be recorded as just that: changes. On the other hand, worth exploring are the common law marriage laws of the time and place: just because they never went to a judge or a church, were they considered married anyway? If so, how many years did it take for that to occur? And on the census records: that can be interesting---was it the censustaker's *assumption* that this was "Mr. And Mrs. Smith and all the little Smiths", or were the kids really presented to him as Joe Smith, Sally Smith, etc.? I'm not sure you can tell unless perhaps they're listed as Ed Smith (head), Molly Withers, and all the Smith children. If Momma's presented as having his surname, the rest may all be assumption as well, or it could be the common law aspect defining them as married by that point. --pig On 3/2/06 05:07, "David Warncken" wrote: > I would like to know whether there is a convention for recording the > surname of illegitimate children. > > Let us imagine Mr FATHER and the widow MOTHER lived together in > England in the 1800s but they never formally married. However they > had and raised several children together. > > The birth of each child was registered with the surname MOTHER. Each > child was baptized with the name MOTHER but the father's name was not > entered into the parish register. > > However in later life the children assumed and used the surname > HUSBAND. This included census records when the children were still > live with their parents. > > So should I record the each child's surname as MOTHER because that is > the name used for its birth registration and baptism? > Or should I record the surname as FATHER because that is the name > that was used after that? > > The program I use for recording my family history is flexible enough > to accept either. > > David. >