Correct style for multiple married names?

Question

I have several female ancestors who were married two or more times. I enter their last married name as "Current Last Name" and previous married names under "Other Last Name(s)".

This gives the styling Jane <Married2> formerly <Maiden> aka <Married1> which seems very inelegant. The first married name also gets suppressed in short form. Am I missing something or is that just the way it is?

 

It would be better IMHO to have married names and maiden name in a chain separated by "formerly" and other last names tagged on with "aka":

Jane <Married3> formerly <Married2> formerly <Married1> formerly <Maiden> aka <Other1>.

Answer 1

You did it properly. I think there are pros and cons to your proposal. Short forms need to be short and are therefore always going to omit information, and having a long chain of formerlies could get pretty cumbersome and space-consuming, particularly when each formerly has alternative spellings, as is often the case in pre-1700 profiles.

Comments

And then there are those of us who prefer a woman be listed by her maiden name in all genealogical references...

---

Yes, it can get lengthy.  I have a woman in my tree who married 6 men including a grand uncle of mine. (He committed suicide)  But writing this post got me looking and I found a marriage record for one of them who I didn't have the first name of but I'm certain is correct since it has her known parents names correct.  So off to create his profile!

---

Villains that would be my preference also.