Yes Jenny, that is what I do - see my second response to David, where I elaborated a little more.
Cheers, Jan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenny M Benson Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2008 9:09:PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Mr & Mrs (was Standardization) Jan Roberts wrote >my late first husband was born (say) John George SMITH, but by the time >I met him he had legally changed his name to Fred James BROWN. I >became Mrs Jan BROWN when we married. Our daughter is Mary BROWN. So, >although his parents are listed as Bill SMITH and Jane BROWN (he >actually took his mother's maiden name when he changed) and the >children from his first marriage carry the name SMITH in my database I >have recorded John George SMITH as an AKA - and I used an Event to >describe the reason and date for the name change. Otherwise my >daughter would show as Mary SMITH, which she has never been. You are not correct in your last sentence! If you wish to show your husband and children all with the surname Brown, that's fine, and you'd do just as you have done. However, if you wished to show your husband as Smith, because that was the name he was born with, and use Brown as an AKA, yet still show your children as Browns, you would simply change the "suggested" surname of Smith to Brown when you entered your children's names. For various reasons I have instances in my Family File where the legitimate children of a married couple do not have exactly the same surname as the main one for their father. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
