Family Historian User Group

In my searches I have come across two different spellings of a surname - Kerly appears on a marriage certificate, Curley on a birth certificate. I wonder what the list would recommend as the best way to record this, and which one to use in FH?
Many thanks in anticipation

ID:2276

If I come across two different surname spellings (happens with Axtell spelled as Axtel, Axcel etc.) I use the birth name as the primary surname which I gather is the common method. I also do this when the given names change over time (or when middle names are used as first names). I put the down other names used as additional names with a note to say where it was used such as marriage. In the marriage (or other event) the source usually records the different name which provides a cross reference.

You can add any number of names to a person. You can change the order of names too since the first one is the primary one. Use the little curved up/down arrows that appear in the All tab of the individual property window or the record window when you click on a 'Name'.

HTH

Very interesting topic.

My GG Grandfather Stephen Wellbelove has been recorded variously (amongst others):

Chr:  Welbelove
Mar:  Wellbeluft
Bur:  Wellbelove

There are various other variations for relatives down the centuries; some transcription errors, others because relatives couldn't read or write.

I have recorded everybody under Wellbelove for simplification, but was wondering whether to create all records as Wellbelove and enter events as they were recorded, e.g Welbelove for birth, Wellbeluft for marriage, etc.

Alan
[smile]

My opinion is that the spelling of names isn't particularly important. Most of our ancestors before the latter half of the 19th century couldn't read and write and so the way their name was spelt was down to the interpretation of the church minister, registration clerk, census taker, etc. For example, it really doesn't make much difference whether someone is recorded as Cooke or Cook. So I standardise to one spelling, usually the one that is used today, but will make a note (usually in the note field of the event or within a source) as to how it was actually spelt at the time.

This is just my way of doing things and I'm not claiming this is the 'right' way to do it.

We usually like to record people with the spelling they are baptised or registered with, and any other as an alternative name. But where you have a whole family with everyone registered under a different name (yes, we have several examples) they get difficult to identify, so we tend to compromise, usually as Nick says, on the name used by living descendants. It ain't an exact science... do whatever suits you.

We've also developed the habit of putting the name as found on any particular source (where different) in the text or notes on the source reference, which is useful when you come back to it later and wonder where you got that particular version of the name from.

(All this doesn't just apply to surnames of course)