Jack Lane wrote:
> I would never NOT record a maiden name, if I know it.
> I would simply put it with her GIVEN names, and show her married name as
the
> SUR name.
> GIVEN = "Mary Louise (Lou) Smith"
> SURNAME = "Brown"
> FULLNAME = "Mary Louise (Lou) Smith Brown" (would appear on all reports &
> lists).
I always record a maiden name for women. I never record
their married names. Seems redundant to me. If I don't know a female's
maiden name, I record blanks in square brackets so that's what prints
on reports. It seems to me that recording a woman's maiden name as
part of her given names is incorrect. My two daughters' surnames are
now "Bayle". If they get married and IF they take their husband's names,
then that will change. But "Bayle" will never be one of their given names,
unless they decide to do that, as my mother did.
My paternal grandmother is recorded as Edmire Philomene Lahaise,
because as best I've been able to determine that was her name at birth
and that she was baptized with as a catholic. I have alternate names
for her such as Myra Lahaise (a nickname) and alternate spellings because
she was called Myra by her friends and because sometimes the "h" in
Lahaise was capitalized. None of the alternate names for her
is Myra Bayle, even though she married my Grandfather Geo. F. Bayle.
As a final reason I don't record married names as givens is that there
are societys in which women did not take their husband's Surname
when they got married. It seems to me to be more correct to record
a woman's married name as an alternate name. A seperate altertnate
name for each marriage.
jr
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
