Is there an agreed protocol on Fitz Randolph surnames?

Question

There seems to be inconsistent treatment of the Fitz Randolph line, some treating it like a Fitz_Randolph/Fitzrandolph compound surname and others as a Fitz middle name + Randolph surname. Is there an agreed protocol/policy on what is best practice? What has the current clean-up effort adopted? I have a vested interest ;)

Thomas Fitz Randolph

Comments

I was wondering what the majority of Fitz Randolph descendants are using as a tag… I did the same thing you did. I assumed that hyphenated wouldn't work even though I found a lot of references to that spelling as well.

Answer 1

This info is from the European Aristocrats Project:

a. PREFIXES IN LAST NAME AT BIRTH FIELD:

1. Names like St John: "St" is a prefix which stays with the surname; that is, "St John" goes in the LNAB field, and St is not dropped nor separated out into the prefix field. Do not put a period after the St and do not spell out the word Saint. 2. The common ‘de’, ‘du’, ‘le’, ‘la’, ‘de la’, ‘von’, ‘van’ before a surname does not go in the LNAB field; it goes with the surname in the Current Last Name field while the surname, ONE word, goes in the LNAB. Example: Last name at birth: "Villefort", Current Last Name: "de Villefort". The exception to this is de Vere. Members of this family should have both words in the LNAB field. 3. Names that include ‘Fitz’: Fitz- names should be written with mid-caps, that is, a capital letter for the father's name. For example, write FitzAlan, FitzGeoffrey, FitzGerald, etc. This is the same pattern as used in names with Mac-: MacMurray, MacDonald, etc. Do not include a space.

 

Comments

The Fitz Randolph usage is a bit different from the FitzGerald's. Since in America, the tradition has been for the sons to take Fitz as a middle name, using Randolph as the surname, and optional for daughters to use the Fitz. (Exceptions, of course, with a few FitzRandolphs and some men dropping the Fitz.) Applying FitzRandolph to the whole family line would create names that wouldn't be consistent with public records. Within wikitree so far, the usage appears to be to try to apply Fitz_Randolph in early America, but it seems to break down, and I suspect there are for now more Fitz Randolphs recorded as Randolph than as Fitz_Randolph. Was a decision made on this by the arborist effort to clean up the various Fitz Randolph profiles started last year, which looks to still have a lot of work to do!

---

I do have a small quibble with the EuroAristo guidelines quotes there.  It is, "...ONE word, goes in the LNAB."  I have some Bavarian connections, so this exception immediately came to mind, I'm sure there are others.  It is "das Fürstenhaus Thurn und Taxis"  (the princely house of Thurn and Taxis).  This is a regionally well-known, and still extant, aristocratic family in Bavaria.  The first prince was Eugen Alexander Franz Fürst von Thurn und Taxis (baptized 11 January 1652).  I am quite certain that his LNAB should read "Thurn und Taxis," obviously not one word.

The naming standard just needs some minor editing to take exceptions like this one into account.

---

This is very interesting information. Could you supply us with some evidence we could examine on this naming convention? I have never heard of such a thing being divided by gender lines and I would like to know more, as it will affect how I do my future research.

Thanks so much!

Laurie Luscombe

---

Hi Laurie,

The link in the previous comment is to the Wikipedia page for the first prince of this house.  The link to the house in general is here.  As I said, the family is still alive and well and based in Regensburg.  I suppose it is possible that they are unique in having a family name that is more than one word.  I can't think of another one off the top of my head, but I would be surprised to learn that the House of Thurn und Taxis is unique in that respect.

---

Laurie,

The gender-based naming convention for males taking Fitz as their middle name may actually be limited to my own family branch over the past three generations. The usage of the Fitz is widely variable with some families having dropped it--which one family did already in the early 1700s-- a few making it directly part of their surname as FitzRandolph; and a number keeping it as the only or a second middle name. Because there was no clear practice, people's names got recorded every which way. I recently contributed to the [[Fitz_Randolph-352 | Inez Verlette Fitz Randolph]] profile mentioned in a post below, and the Fitz is never mentioned in any official records we could find, yet she is referred to as Fitz Randolph in her obituary. So many families clearly identify with it, even though it may not always get recorded that way.

---

So what is the consensus here? Do we use every different spelling as a separate tag? Is there a way for the administration to tie all the different tags together into one family? I hate do use up so many tags for one line.

---

Geoff,

I think what makes sense is to use whatever variant is supported by documentation in that family, and if it is not 'Fitz Randolph' then add 'Fitz Randolph' in the 'Other Last Names' Field. That way the person will still show up in any searches on the Fitz Randolph family.

Tom

Answer 2

In the profile of ancestor Edward Fitz Randolph:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fitz_Randolph-42

Under the section "Surname note", I found this, which says in part:

"As a rule of thumb to facilitate searching and identifying family members, we suggest adopting the surname 'Fitz Randolph' for the wikitree 'Last Name at Birth' field when it appears to have been used by all family members as part of their surname. This is especially evident if other middle names are used before the 'Fitz'. When the 'Fitz' does not appear consistently in recorded names of some members of the family or has been dropped altogether, then it may be appropriate to consider using the surname 'Randolph', but noting 'Fitz Randolph' in the 'Other Last Name(s)' field of the person's wiki profile."

However, I don't think that others have consistently followed that advice. For example, William Fitz Randolph:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Randolph-843

This is under the last name "Randolph". I added the aka "Fitz Randolph". I think this should be listed LNAB as "Fitz Randolph", in part because of:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jonsaunders&id=I82364

Which I would like to start adding descendants, which seem to use "Fitz Randolph". Ascendants seem to use "Fitz Randolph" as well.

Looks like more cleanup work needs to be done.

 

Comments

Thanks Eric. The 'surname note' on the migrant Edward Fitz Randolph record has been reviewed and revised several times, so can be considered a consensus wording. I have been inserting the 'Surname note' in FR profiles when I contribute to them. What is key, I think, is adding examples at the end of the 'surname note' that show how the name is found in records (noting whether it appears to be an original versus transcribed version), which should either demonstrate it was used consistently one way or another -- and that is the form that should be adopted-- or demonstrate that it was used in many different ways, in which case it would be reasonable to adopt the 'Fitz Randolph' LNAB, especially if it is evident that the family in which the person was born treated the Fitz like part of the surname in that all of the family members use it as a quasi middle name. I haven't done this very last part of recording examples very consistently, but will do so once I have my own core tree entered (have worked back only 4 generations so far!). In general, given the variation in how people used the name and how the same person got recorded in different ways, it would seem reasonable to use the 'Fitz Randolph' LNAB when in doubt to facilitate searching. Great to see some help on the Fitz Randolph's!

---

Hi Thomas,

While this is not conclusive evidence, and is more of a hint, I entered [[Fitz_Randolph-352 | Inez Verlette Fitz Randolph]], partially based on this info:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jonsaunders&id=I82364

But partially based on known family information. (The tree above, is correct according to the info that I know.) The fact that she has a separate middle name, and not "Fitz", plus the tree uploaded at rootsweb shows FITZ RANDOLPH clearly in all caps, makes me think that these profiles should really be marked LNAB "Fitz Randolph".

The tree at rootsweb as further references to the original source material. I would think that those sources can be consulted to hopefully clear up any issues.

---

Totally agree! I suggest we work on the Inez profile together to develop a 'best practice' example. No need to continue posting here -- we can exchange by email or post directly on her profile page.

Answer 3

Hi Thomas - Do you go by Tom? I am a newbie on WikiTree, so can't respond with authority about the name protocol. Personally, because of the number of resources I have seen on my line and collateral lines, I would think we FitzRandolph researchers should all consider Fitz Randolph the same name as FitzRandolph. I have also seen it with an uncapped "R" which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and Fitz Randall in its various forms. I certainly don't think it appropriate to consider Fitz a middle name unless their is clear evidence that it really was a middle name. However, because there are people who don't take very much care when researching, and they don't understand the background behind the "Fitz+name" convention, I think they may erroneously assume it a middle name. In my mind it would kind of be like separating MacDonald and making the middle name Mac. I know I have had FitzRandolph and Fitz Randolph in my own tree interchangably, but I really probably shouldn't do that. I'm glad you posted because I will be more careful about standardizing the name to FitzRandolph (without the space) so that people don't mistakenly take Fitz as a middle name.

You probably already know all of this, but I would like to hear your thoughts, because this is your own surname.

Cheers,

Laurie Pattison Luscombe

Rochester, Michigan

Comments

Hi Laurie,

I think the Fitz Randolph/FitzRandolph's all identify themselves--often strongly--as coming from the same family even if they have adopted different variants of the name, including dropping the Fitz (e.g. the US Senators Theodore Fitz Randolph and William Jennings Randolph). We obviously need to respect the choice made by each family or individual based on the evidence of how their names were recorded either in official records (but which often are decided by the person recording the names, e.g. census enumerators) or unofficially. That's why I try to use the 'Surname note' in Fitz Randolph profiles -- to give the rationale for whatever choice makes sense as the LNAB -- supported with any available evidence, and open to discussion. When it isn't Fitz Randolph, then a 'Fitz Randolph' can be added as an Other names: it tends to look messy, but it will certainly facilitate searching. I practice and would advocate using 'Fitz Randolph' as the LNAB whenever possible unless there is clear evidence that the family in which the person was born used a different variant. I would prefer 'Fitz Randolph' over 'FitzRandolph' only because it appears to be more commonly used, including in the Fitz Randolph genealogies.In my own case, I used 'Randolph' as LNAB and Fitz as my middle name because in my father's family, his sister and mother did not use the Fitz. It's complicated!

Tom