maiden or (which) married name?

Question

There once was a woman named Catherine Deighton -- a Magna Carta gateway ancestor and part of the Puritan Great Migration -- who had three or more children by EACH of three husbands.  (Her second husband was the Governor of Massachusetts.)

So... What surname should show at the top of her profile?  The traditional rule for well-trained genealogists is "Always use the maiden name," to avoid confusion in cases like this.  But a lot of wikitreers don't follow this rule, which can lead to confusion and disagreements, especially when trained genealogists come over here and try to get used to the wikitree system.

Here is another example: my ancestor Hannah Swift at http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Swift-61 .  She first married Ambrose Fish, who was the father of all of her children.  Then she married Thomas Tobey, and two of her daughters married sons of Thomas Tobey.  She is identified as "Tobey, formerly Swift" with "Fish" tagged as "aka."  This doesn't seem very elegant, and can be confusing for those who don't notice that the Tobey boys' step-mother was also their mother-in-law.  Once again, a general policy of identifying women by their maiden names avoids this type of issue.

Furthermore, in medieval England, women of higher social status often kept their maiden names (which might actually be the name of her mother, not her father).  I've seen one similar example in colonial Massachusetts, where a widow reverted to using her maiden name in a legal document.

Comments

In Spain people are given the name of the father hyphenated with the name of the mother.  This way only siblings share the same last name.  The wife keeps her birth name throughout life.  It's a good system.  Of course there are thousands of people with common names like Fernandez that marry a person with another common name like Gonzalez, which creates Fernandez-Gonzalez children, of which there are many thousands.  

This information could be helpful to people that deal with Spanish ancestors and how to handle their LNAB.  Also, I would add that this is in Spain, I don't know how it is done in Mexico or other Spanish-speaking countries.

Answer 1

Hi John,  One huge problem that I see with the maiden name thing is  this.  In our own private stand alone family trees, a few tens of women with Last Name Unknown is not a big deal. In a WikiTree, collaborative format, we would end up with thousands of Mary Unknowns and Elizabeth Unknowns that would be impossible to sort through and merge.

Similarly, when I search for Mary Smith, It is very helpful to easily see Mary (Jones) Smith and known that her maiden name was Jones, so she is not the same as Mary Smith with no husband.

Because of the expansive nature of the WikiTree, we have to narrow search results in any way possible.  Maiden names together with married surnames allow us to determine which woman we are dealing with more easily.  Admittedly, this is a problem in cultures where married women retain their maiden name.  For this reason, it is best, in my opinion, to list a woman's last name at birth as her WikiTree profile ID name; the last name she uses at death as her Current Last Name (This would be the last name on her tombstone or death certificate); and any additional surnames as her Other Last names.  

In short, I hope this issue remains as it is currently indicated in the index.  

Comments

Well put, Kitty.  I agree completely with your logic.  If a woman retains her name throughout life, her Birth name and Current name (be she living and married or deceased and her last name at death is used) would always make sense...

But...  Let me throw a curve at you... I need help with my mother (don't we all?)

She was born Banks.  At under age three her parents divorced and mother took sole custody, placed her in foster care, and headed off to the War as a member of the Red Cross.  When she returned she had a new husband.  Mother and daughter were united and new husband adopted my mom.

So her Birth name, and her biological link, would be to Banks.  But her actual father and the name she grew up with as her maiden name is Sumskis.  She never knew her bological father and no one in the family feels related to him.  Joe Sumskis was our grandfather and I want to honor his sncestry as ours.  After all, mom was formally adopted.

I can't figure out how to give my mother two fathers, and if I can't I need to make her father Joe Sumskis so his lineage will be the one the tree shows, not Milton Banks.

To make it worse, My mother married a Close, my father, qand my sister and I are the result, both maiden names are Close, but that is not her Current name anymore as she has remarried -- twice!

"Lona Evangeline Banks Sumskis Close Solem Cousins" is a bit extreme, yes?  How do I incorporate my mom's real dad, adopted dad, first husband to match up with her daughters maiden names, and her current married name?  I've given up on adding her second husband into the mix... Solem will just have to be an alias.

~BB

---

Curve indeed!  Whew.  The only name that seems problematic is mom's maiden name.  If it were me, I would stick with her genetic maiden name and her current last name and all the others in other last names.  I would also indicate the name changes in the biography section and that she was legally adopted.

If mom prefers to use her adopted father's surname as her maiden name, do so, but put a notation in the biography section that she is an adopted daughter and her biological father was named Milton Banks. Her mother and biological father were divorced when she was three years old and she has no memory of him.

I think all the names in between can go in Other Names, but you can enter the marriage and divorce dates for a more detailed explanation.  Hope this helps.