Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Surname dilemma - opinions please!
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Mandy in Wiltshire | Report | 21 Feb 2008 16:28 |
I have a birth certificate from 1873 where the mother and father are not married and father is not named, but his surname is used as one of the child's forenames (Emma Jane Smith Brown). The birth is on the BMDs under Brown. |
|||
|
ErikaH | Report | 21 Feb 2008 16:37 |
I would enter her on the tree as Smith, but put the additional details in the 'notes'....... |
|||
|
Mandy in Wiltshire | Report | 21 Feb 2008 16:40 |
Thanks, Reg. That's the way I was heading; I've had a few unmarried mothers who later got married, but this is the first time that I've had the parents marrying each other. I only found her birth registered under Brown after a lot of lateral thinking! |
|||
|
Mandy in Wiltshire | Report | 21 Feb 2008 16:50 |
Hi Michael |
|||
|
MaryfromItaly | Report | 21 Feb 2008 18:47 |
I have the same situation on my tree - I always use the birth name, and mention in the notes when and why it was dropped. |
|||
|
Sue in Somerset | Report | 21 Feb 2008 20:16 |
I think technically the later marriage legitimised the child. |
|||
|
Mandy in Wiltshire | Report | 21 Feb 2008 20:19 |
Thanks Mary and Sue. I think it's coming down in favour of using her birth name! |