Question

With the Dutch, is the LNAB the version of the surname (if any) as written by the baptizing dominie?

Comments

I can't speak for Dutch Roots, but for New Netherland we use the father's surname recorded in the baptism record if that surname is a family name (not a patronymic name). If the father's name in the record is a patronymic name, we look to other records to identify a last name that was actually used for the baptized child.

Answer 1

In the Netherlands civil registry was introduced in 1811 and from then on surnames became mandatory by law. So all LNABs for post-1810 births must be set to the surname recorded in the birth certificates in the civil registers. Any post-1810 baptism data (hardly available anyway) is to be considered unfit for LNAB use.

Pre-1811 we rely on baptism records, using the surname if present, or else the father's first name (patronymic).

This of course raises the question of which method to use for migrating ancestors. I seem to remember that initially the New Netherland Settlers project used the "Dutch" method, but some time ago switched to the one described above by Ellen, making it harder for the Dutch to find pre-migrating generations...

Comments

Like finding Jan Pieterse Haring before he went fishy (Haring = Herring)

---

Before Carrie implemented the LNAB convention that is currently used by New Netherland, we were sometimes giving people last names that were not found in any records or published genealogies for the person, but were essentially invented by WikiTree based on an educated guess at the patronym for a child of the father named in the baptism record.  The current convention means that we no longer invent LNABs for people.

---

Helen, this is caused by WikiTree having a mandatory LastNameAtBirth, forcing users to assign one, even if that means falsifying history. Falsifying by assigning a patronymic (that can arbitrarily be constructed in several ways) or by assigning a name that is only used later in life, certainly not At Birth,

That means choosing either method is arbitrary, possibly not reflecting real history. 

But I don't mean to restart that old LNAB discussion. Let's just say "A rose by any other name ..."

---

With you completely on that sentiment, Jan.

My oldest ancestors on one side of the family did not use or have a last name/family name.   Mandating one (or using a patronym in its place) defies history and reason.    There should have been created an option for None.    And Unknown or Blank would not be a substitute for that.   Since it likely would be Known that there wasn't one before the family adopted one, whether after 1811 by law, or in my case, in the 1600s for whatever may have triggered the adoption of a surname.

---

@Pieter: Try not to think of "Last Name at Birth" as a term of profound significance. Think of it as the name of a data field (a mandatory data field, as it happens) in the WikiTree database. For people who were known by a given name and a patronymic, it makes sense to put the patronymic in the "Last Name at Birth" data field.