From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Thu Mar 2 17:18:43 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 k230Ihjb024310; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:18:43 -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 k230IPGO023430 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:18:25 -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 k22LmaFI020594 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:48:36 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k22Lmaui020593 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:48:36 -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 k22JnRFI020344 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:49:28 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k22MJ5st009277 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:19:05 -0700 X-Envelope-From: d.warncken@bigpond.com Thu Mar 2 15:19:05 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 k22MJ5jb009268 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:19:05 -0700 Received: from omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com (omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com [144.140.93.156]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k22MJ3uD025448 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:19:04 -0700 Received: from IBM-8F95B04FE63.bigpond.com ([60.228.53.113]) by omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20060302221858.ELHD10380.omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com@IBM-8F95B04FE63.bigpond.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:18:58 +0000 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20060303091325.01abf008@bigpond.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:16:12 +1100 To: Listpig From: David Warncken Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Data Entry Convention for Illegitimate Surname Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060302214659.01ad2710@bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at omta04sl.mx.bigpond.com from [60.228.53.113] using ID d.warncken at Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:18:58 +0000 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 Hi Pig, Instinctively I agree that in these circumstances the birth (mother's) name should be entered as the surname. However an alternative case can be argued for entering the father's name because that is the children chose to be known by in later life. But then I suppose that it no different to a person changing his or name by deed poll these days. With regard to the census entries (and using your example names), no assumptions were made in the 1851 census because the household was entered looked like: Ed Smith, Head, Wid, 60 -- Tailor Joe Smith, Son, 7 Sally Smith, dau, 5 Mary Smith, dau, 3 Tim Smith, son, 1 Molly Withers, Servant, Wid, 40 -- House Servant Thank you for sharing your thoughts. David. At 06:15 AM 3/03/2006, Listpig wrote: >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