Family Historian User Group

I am unsure of the most appropriate way to recognise that a surname has different spellings in different source documents, and I'm unsure how to decide which is the 'correct' one!  A specific example is a family with the surname Kraul, Craul and Crawl depending on which document I look at.  Is there an approved way of dealing with this?

Many thanks,
Mike

ID:3769

I tend to pick the spelling used for Birth/Baptism. Where there are variations I use the Text from Source field to record it and in addition where there is a major change to the spelling I add a note to the event so that it appears in the main body of reports.

Unless your ancestors were well educated they probably did not know how to spell their surname, so most documents will be what ever the Official thought they said.

My Dorset Bowditch's can be Bowdage or Bowdatch and a few other variations.

I agree with Jane... We generally record individuals with their birth/baptism name if we can find it, then in Text from Source if it's different, and (and it's a matter of judgement) as an alternative name if we think it really is one, rather than just a misinterpretation (or mis-transcription... many, even 'original' sources are themselves transcriptions by for example an enumerator or parish clerk). But we have a few families where the name is spelt differently evey time you see it, and sometimes make a judgement about what to use as the whole family's surname so at least you can find them in the records window. My favourite example is the Wiles, Wilds, Wildes, Wyles, Whiles, Whyles, Whildes, etc, etc, from Hertfordshire.

But there are no rules, only conventions. Do whatever suits what you're trying to achieve. A lot of people use the modern spellings for ancestors who probably wouldn't have used it themselves. Another example from Hertfordshire, originally Wallis, but almost all of them are written Wallace afer about 1880 to the present, but their ancestors probably wouldn't have approved. We like to record people's names (and places come to that) as they would have been understood at the time with notes, etc to explain it.

I tend to standardise on a single spelling but record the actual spelling used in the document within the source or as a local note to the event. As Jane says the spelling used is largely irrelevant for records before the mid to late 19th century as you're almost certainly not seeing how the family spelt their name, just what the person writing it decided to write.

I use always use the spelling that is used today and record any differences in notes etc.

Probably stating the obvious, but choose an approach that you can easily remember then be consistent in it's use, particularly in the 'primary' surname as it displays in the records window.

Same is true where, for example, you are entering a spouse where you don't yet know the maiden/surname, and anywhere else where you are making a judgement on the best way of entering data.

You can end up 'orribly confused otherwise - speaking from experience when I first started! At least if your consistent in your approach and later decide to change it, it usually makes it easier to change, and possibly automate part of the process.

David

I wouldn’t disagree with any of the advice you’ve been given already.

However, if you are going to pass the collated data on to other genealogists, it is standard practice to transcribe data exactly as it is written. Don’t make interpretations or correct what you think are mistakes on original source documents. Let the end user of the data do that

That's probably good practice when transcribing (as in Text From Source, Note, etc.), but deciding which is a person's Name as opposed to Alternative Name or Name Used, or whatever, with multiple sources all with different spellings, is a matter of interpretation rather than transcription.

As I said in my previous post Chris, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out one scenario where there is a clear convention among genealogists. It may not apply to most of us but it is there.

The problem is that the internet has made it very easy to publish fantastic looking family tree information, irrespective of surety. It's then very difficult for 'second users' to know what is hard fact and what is wild interpretation. It is also difficult to go back to original data sources.

If you are doing genealogy for your own family purposes I agree that it's a totally different ball game. In my own personal research I make sure that I only use one surname variant as the main name, so that it makes it easier to sort out the 'needle in a haystack' problems, establish family connections and weed out duplicates. I find there is usually one name variant that stands out as the one most commonly used in my family or the local area or, if you are lucky, in a one name study. The key issue for me is the ability to easily compare my records with the bulk of other surname information that's available - specifically for the era and place that I am looking at. This means that, if my family's surname has evolved over time, I reflect that in my database but I don't change the primary surname for spelling mistakes or transcription errors.

It's horses for courses.