* Is including married names advised?

[Gary_G]

I've started to clean up a French project to import to FH7 from R9. In the RM9 database. I have large number of people for whom the data includes the their married name as an alternative name. This is an artifact of having imported many records from MyHeritage. I'm now considering removing the married name entries to "un-clutter" the database, as I've never quite found them to be useful. [If I have specific document that identifies the person by only their married name, then I might need to retain the associated married name entry.]

Has anyone any advice about how useful the married name alternates would be in FH7?

[tatewise]

The surname of the 1st partner is readily available via the INDI.~SPOU[1]>NAME:SURNAME shortcut.
Multiple partners are available by using SPOU[2] and SPOU[3] etc.
So many users do not specifically record married names.
Anyway, would you record them all for multiple partners?

[AdrianBruce]

If someone is married twice (or more) then I do record the married names as Alternate Names. I started to do this because I work with charts most of the time - originally, the charts showed only the Primary Name and therefore I didn't record the married names.

One pair of my 5G grandparents had the fairly distinctive names of Samuel Pickstock and Margaret Gandy. But one day I looked at my pedigree chart and couldn't see them... Consternation! Until I realised that they were in the diagram as Samuel Pickstock and Margaret Hughes - Margaret had married twice and had the name Gandy when she married Samuel. I'd remembered "Gandy" so was confused by the omission.

I therefore did two things - firstly for women who married more than once, I entered their married name(s), and secondly, I altered the chart's Text Scheme to include

Code: Select all

a.k.a. %INDI.NAME[2+]:ADORNED_FULL% 

The latter shows up every time there is an Alternate name (which isn't limited to women married more than once, of course).

Furthermore, of course(?), given the (mostly but not exclusively) American pattern of women acquiring names after marriage that preserve their previous surname as a middle name, there's no way that can be concocted from reference to the partner, given that it might - or might not - happen and in a form that isn't always predictable. In such cases, one must record married names as Alternates.

And yes, I do rather wish I recorded all married names as Alternates, for consistency's sake.

[Gary_G]

Thanks fellows.

I'm never quite sure whether the ladies in France regularly used their maiden surname or their husband's surname. So; I think that I may have to look at the whole set of records for a woman to see whether recording an alternative surname is actually supported by the records.

[dewilkinson]

I always record the married name as an alternative name. This is for two reasons, firstly, we did this when we were using TMG so they were imported in, and secondly, if I recall correctly there were instances (some time ago) when I missed people in queries and reports. As Mike says you have to use SPOU(2) etc, so I view recording married names as a simple option. Like many aspects of FH, it is what suits you best.

[Gary_G]

dewilkinson;

My hesitancy is due to not knowing during which periods it was common in France for a women to take he husband's surname. However; when I have hard evidence of her using her husband's name as her legal surname, then I'm planning to add it in.