There's been a lot of discussion about folks changing women's CLN to their husband's last name either without sources or without otherwise being involved in the profile.
I tend to leave CLN as LNAB because it makes it much easier to figure out who I'm dealing with when entering large amounts of data with very similar, repetitive names and intermarriage between similar families across generations. I do understand the point that people would like a married name to show up in search results.
The concept of "Current Last Name" for someone no longer living doesn't make much sense to me. I.e., it isn't uncommon to come across a woman who was married twice or three times during her lifetime. If documenting all 4 of her last names aids in searching, then let's document LNAB and 3 additional last names. What I find objectionable is the hierarchy of "Current Last Name" vs. other last names. If a woman's 1st, 2nd or third husband was late in life, it is, to me, more confusing than helpful to display her final last name as her most important last name.
My proposal would be to display LNAB by default and do away with the CLN field, putting all adopted last names into the "Other Last Names" field. Don't try to capture all of these last names in the 'title' with the "aka" but rather have it display something like this for Sarah, LNAB Smith::
Sarah Newt Smith
Other Names: Sarah Hawkins, Sarah Johnson, Sarah Derider
Nicknames: Polly, Newt.
Presuming we can document all of those names. It could also include multiple spellings, i.e.
Other names: Sarah Hawkins, Sarah Hawkin, Sarah Hakin, Sarah Johnson, Sarah Derider.
There are, I am sure, issues with this, but I do not think the current method of documenting and displaying names and the hierarchy of names in a profile is working well.
Thanks - Gary