Walt, The times I have wanted both maiden and married names available without my computer have been at court houses and cemeteries. I find that merely printing a report that shows both maiden and married names is useful as I do searches where the married name of a woman is surely used (death, cemetery, SSDI, wills, etc.). Admittedly, this means there has to be some preparation of the list for a research trip or quest. Of course there is not much problem finding them if our computer is handy, but at the court house or cemetery, I can carry that list created for the people expect to find there, or even have a printout in a notebook on my shelf for all of them. Is that an idea that could be considered a help for you?
Another option would be to treat the maiden names as we both do for AKA names (parenthesis). Of course, we could not likely jam in both AKA and maiden names in parenthesis within the same field (space in reports will become a problem also), but frankly I do not find all that often when I need reminders of both at the same time so I pick the one for parenthesis that I will likely need the most. For example, my mother was Elizabeth, and I can easily recall that she was Betty or her maiden name so I don't need either in her primary record name. If someone else needs to know that specific data I just tell them (again, that rarely happens either). However, for people in my file who have name details that I tend to forget I can use the parenthesis method almost entirely. I think the problem comes when we try to get everything we may some day use available all at once all the time. Just like electronics, the more load we put on the machine to do more different tasks all the time requires that each task is not likely to be done as well as asking for the gearing up for the most obvious and most common need ... then just get a separate functionary for the other tasks. These new fax/phone/photocopy machines are a current example of how they do all three tasks, but none of them very well. Data input can be the same, I think. Now we could also throw in the multiple married names, etc. but some place we need to be a bit more willing to refer to the records where we can solve almost all of our queries related to this name stuff? I had fun with an ancestor who married a cousin after her first husband died and the men had the same surname. I just have to recall (now, after some hassle in researching it out) that Barbara married two men with the same surname and the children of each husband had the same surname, etc. If someone wants the details they will be interested enough to read the detailed explanation and documentation that I can provide to them. I am not cluttering up my record for her with all of that stuff mentioned in any one field name (I do have it in her notes). These discussions always reinforce my habit of making backups at least monthly and after any time when I have made a few important changes in data with a file. Boy, do I value my CD burner for that (My monthly backups are on one CD that goes to my bank safety deposit box in substitute for last month's genealogy files CD to be reformatted a month later ... I keep the old one for one month for some reason .. I tend to wear both belt and suspenders, etc. ). Frankly, I think I see that some folks really do not want to include personal thinking in any of their data recording and expect some computer program to accommodate every possible unique and rare detail for them in one flip of some switch. I recall how elated I was when (about 1970) I could move from the shoe boxes with 3x5 cards to something with an amazing 64 MB memory that could not only record, but sort my simple vital data on a 5.25 floppy. I think some of these folks have no admiration for what they have available with the modern computer genealogy resource. I recall how teen agers had little tolerance for the inability of their parents also... ha (mine are all now over 40 and periodically apologize for that misconception period in their life... thankfully I managed to make the same apology to my parents fairly early in my youth). Loran On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:09:30 -0600 Walt Conner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do this also and have no problem with it. My problem is > married/maiden names, locating the correct person. > > Walt Conner > > >- why not just place the abbreviated form of the name in brackets > after > > his full name i.e. Eben Elben (Eb) Barnett? > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
