Should I use Burdge or Burdg?

Question

I need help with deciding a last name for an early Burdge (Burdg) ancestors.  I have found a John Burdg Burdg (Burdg-39) who I believe is Jonathan Burdge born in England and should be part of the New_Netherland_Settlers project.  Burdg-39 is the parent of one Sarah Burdg-38 whose data (married Abel Weeks) corroborates with my information.  Everything else is different from the information I have and the data for Burdg-39 is unsourced. I would  like to preserve the lowest possible number for this Burdge, but cannot just edit this profile as I feel the last name at birth is incorrect.   According to my great-great uncle, Howard G. Burdge, "Burdge (Burdg) and Allied Families", Burdge was spelled with an "e" at the end.  Later, different branches of the family dropped the "e".  It is my feeling that the name at birth for John Burdg Burdg (Burdg 39) should be changed to Burdge and then the descendants would have Burdge or Burdg, depending what their family uses.  I guess this would mean creating a new profile but the number would be higher?

Comments

I've requested Trusted List access from Burdg-39's manager.  If that comes through reasonably, I'll add to the New_Netherland settlers.

Answer 1

Well it appears as Burdge in the Genealogies of New Jersey Families, for what it's worth.

And it's appearing in Brouwer research as Burdge http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brouwergenealogydata/p236.htm#i134662 But that's much later than New Netherland.

The Annals Hempstead book has it a multitude of ways, like Borge. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008618237

Since it was an English name, and given the above examples, it's probably safe to go with Burdge with Burdg as an aka.

Comments

Thanks for your help Carrie.  I have also noted from Burdge and Allied Families by Howard G. Burdge, that in the Hempstead census in 1673, Jonathan Burdge is John Borde.  Borde/Burdge is not listed in the group that founded Hempstead.