Women not taking husband's surname

No, Justing, I'm not saying that the genealogical standard did not originate because of the limitations of paper records. What I'm saying is that it is very much in use today, both on paper and in computerized genealogical software.

The main lastname in a genealogical software is still the persons first lastname we can find chronologically. Every other lastname later in life is secondary. You will never pursuaid me otherwise.

Make no mistake, I agree that my system evolved from paper, I don't agree that Geni support this system unless you write the names I do.

I find it very logical to write a persons name like this. To me, any other way is both absurd and silliness. The name at birth is in fact the only name that is constant in a persons life, every other name is just secondary.

Make no mistake, the genealogical standard is not supported in Geni unless you write the names like I do. And those that don't find the genalogical standard the natural way of writing names, need to know that we write names this way, whatever what some non-genealogists think or feel about it.

This is the way we write names, both on paper and in our genealogical software. Get used to it. Geni is just another genelogical software to us.

Justin, your examples are to me really small civilisations, except the Romans.

And being parochial is a big insult in my part of the world. I'm not taking it lightly.

The genelaogical standard of how names are written is being taught today, in several countries, even the one you are living in, Justin. Get used to it, and advocate that Geni should use the same standard as most genealogical software does.

Why should Geni.com be any different from the main software, online or offline?

Ditto Justin

Small civilizations do they don't count? I don't think you mean that.

Historians gave up using their equivalent of the genealogy standard 50 years ago because it doesn't work. It distorts the data and falsifies the information, especially when applied outside the culture it was designed for.

That doesn't make it useless. And, it doesn't mean Geni shouldn't support it. It means you can't demand that every single user follow a rule if (1) it isn't necessary and (2) it doesn't work for a particular culture. (Geni does support it -- a point that gets lost in your discussions.)

Remi wrote

"The name at birth is in fact the only name that is constant in a persons life ..."

My grandmother emigrated to America at 8 years old. She did not know how to "write out her first last name" nor did she ever care. How can you call it "the only constant" in her life? It was a historic curiosity to her.

This is the reality of emigrant cultures, and a family research challenge. It is not solved by "the genealogical method" you cite.

Erica, it's constant because it can never change. The name you get at birth will allways stay the same. While your name in marriage can change several times. I've even seen different names on a person when looking at both the churchbook for a persons funeral anf their tombstone.

Allthough your grandmother thought the name she used her 8 first years in her life was a curiosity, it still is her name at birth, and it didtn't change, while her names later in life maybe did.

It's basically historians that write the Bygdebok, a book about everyone living on a farm in a county throu time. They are still being written for counties that doesn't one, or have very old ones. They all write the persons names as their name at birth, no other name is mentioned.

So my experience differ from yours, Justin.

I will allways try to teach how names should be written in a genealogical software, because to me it works. Ofcourse Geni supports it, this software have a field called Lats name and it works very good for my use. But Geni is lacking the options to write down all names later in life.

And I don't think it is more right that some here on Geni tries to get us writing names the genealogical way to change our ways, more than you and a few others feel that I demand it of you.

Remi the truth is that my grandmother emigrated to another language and culture and her birth surname changed. So it does not do anyone, least of all her family, any good, to have that name inscribed as her birth surname. If we were to hire a professional genealogist we'd hand him a slip of paper with guesses on that original name and no doubt he'd take it to Eastern Europe and would find it wouldn't help very much in the archive search because even with professional assistance in advance, we are guessing. And chances are good there is not a lot of archival data to be had anyway because of a small event known as WWII. How, then, is "writing the name" as you suggest helping anyone at all, least of all the "family" who is the "client" of the "professional genealogist"?

The naturalized name in this case happens to be one that offers its own clues as it was also a family name and not an entirely made up one, which is a frequent immigrant experience.

The field "last name" also works perfectly for me in Geni, as I use it in its American English meaning: the last name one has. Not the current name, not the birth surname (although often they will match). But the LAST one.

Why are many of you referring to the data field as "Last Name"?
I just added 40 profiles and the field is definitely "Surname", which has no chronological implication as last name would.

and here in Holland -it's still a discussion about the woman's name-use in our country?- we talk also about 'maiden-name' what is supposed to be the name of your father and NOT you mumm.
groetjenujMu.

In the Netherlands i genealogy only dummies are discussing about the name of a woman. Experienced genealogists in the Netherlands all know that the surname of any woman in genealogy is the birthname !

Geni.com English (US)

• First Name
• Middle
• Last Name
• Suffix
• Display Name
• Birth Surname
• Also Known As

Geni.com English (UK)

• Forename
• Middle
• Surname
• Suffix
• Display Name
• Birth Surname
• Also Known As

So, depending on... :P

When it comes to the details of implementation, I come closer to agreeing with the genealogical purists, even though I think they take it to extremes sometimes. The key difference is that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.

Dummies ?? That is a bit harsh.

We still have just over 107 billion profiles to log. Let's get on with it ;-)

Thank you, Olav. You do see why I was careful to say "American English."

I am respectful of the naming conventions of cultures, languages and cultures that are not mine.

It amazes me when that courtesy is not returned.

Justin a long time ago I tried Geni profiles done "the correct way" for both my grandmothers. One turned out like this: ? The other had no record match from any of the census reports she was in fact in; any voting record; any city directory; and of course, no death record.

So again, how exactly is this good genealogy again?

You are exactly right, Erica. This is where I part company with the traditionalists. The point of genealogy is to make our family history intelligible, and secondarily to expand our knowledge.

If my adopted aunt was born Baby Girl Pierce, I'm not going to use the earliest recorded name for her. The rule that demands it ends up making nonsense of the system.

It always strikes me that the advocates of adhering strictly to the convention are people who come from stable, mono-cultural societies, the very cultures the rules were designed to serve.

It's those of us with pioneers, immigrants, and ethnic minorities who see the problems. The really cool ancestors don't fit in their box ;)

I really think we need a "tree exchange program" as part of our ongoing
Genj training. I've always wanted to work more on Tibetan genealogy for example.

Justin the grandmother I could find no record matches under the method discussed by Remi was the all American one. She was in fact in a published compilation, in LDS pedigree files, and as mentioned, several Ancestry.com excellent records. So if a genealogical method simply does not work - yet, oddly, using the fields as Geni designed them does - what does that say?

There's a comment up thread, something about Geni is Ameri-centric. My understanding is that many have worked hard for a number of years expanding that limitation to adapt to world cultures. Why a movement back the other direction?

I certainly can see how very useful for genealogists it is that European women kept their birth surname throughout their life. But if not reality in other countries, languages and cultures, why the complaint?

Correction to above: some of the countries of Europe. question mark grandmother was often described as from Europe but of course she was from a minority European culture.

Erica, what you are experiencing with your grandmother is not a name field problem ot how you should write a name in a genealogical software, but it is a lack of sources problem. You are not able to find out what her name was at birth because you either haven't found a source for it, or there doesn't exist sources for it. Lack of sources is a common thing in genealogy, and we have to do with the sources we so far have found. As I have said before, in those cases, we use the earliest name we have sources for, in your case that can very well be the name when she was 8 years old. But I would use the name at tha age, instead of a name she used after marrying someone. To me, names after marriage, belongs under Other names: Married name, which Geni lacks at the moment, but other genealogical software has it. Hopefully Geni will get to be a better software as time goes by.

And the genealogists in Europe doesn't use birth surname in the main name field because the european women kept their birth surname throughout life, but because it is a name that doesn't change through life, and therfore is constant, and that well make it very searchable compared to names later in life. It also reflects the kinship back to the parents, which we feel is important.

Remi "the method that is working for me" reflects, in name fields, BOTH the kinship to parents (birth surname) AND "last name used.". Therefore I can more easily find both sets of records, the ones at death and the ones at birth.

Since Geni gives you the ability to source / cite BOTH fields, and separately so, there is no loss in my method and an advantage (for my tree anyway) in having both fields.

"Main" or "primary" are not very relevant terms for me but "chronology" is, as it links to timeline.

Remi and I need to say one more time: in the USA there is no such thing as married name. A field named that would not find me any records.

I am surprised that Geni US has a different format to Geni OK considering both cultures speak the same language.
No wonder everyone can't agree on how to fill in the fields if the fields themselves are so inconsistent.
Or am i supposed to change language settings too when i work on different parts of the tree?

And i also , am learning that I am not from Europe

Alex I don't work in parts of the tree I am not researching / have sources on. And I am quite aware of regional differences in use of language. To me the lesson is respect the naming conventions used by the profile managers, and work together on our overlap areas.

It's been pretty standard to have US and UK different settings (keyboard driven) for quite some time in applications ...

Ofcourse americans have married names. Haven't american people changed names when they got married? Genealogically, if someone changed their name because of a marriage, they have a married name. Erica, I don't think you understand what genealogists think or do, when it comes to names.

And I'm quite sure you would find records where someone are using a married name. Here's an example: Mr. John Smith and Ms. Ann Brown get married, in their marriage record it states that their lastnames are Smith and Brown. At the first childs birth in wedlock the records states that the parents names are John Smith and Ann Smith. Ann Brown has now a married name of Ann Smith, and the lastname part of this married name is Smith. This name should then be written under the label Other names: Married name: Smith (or Ann Smith) in Ann Browns profile. My genealogical software supports this, the Geni software does not, alas the Geni software is lacking options.

Stop thinking real life in how you record the names in your genealogical software, and start thinking genealogicaly!!!

Erica, I hope you are agreeing with me that the software Geni.com is lacking optins when it comes to optional names?