Posts
 |
| Names blurred out |
The answer is somewhat complex, but before I get into the issue of multiple birth names, it is important to understand what the "birth name" should be and where it should be entered. The birth name should be the name given at birth. Hmm. This almost sounds like a new rule to add to my list. But this rule needs to be qualified to actually work. Here is the next part of the rule: If there is no birth record available, then the "birth name" used is the name appearing on the earliest known record or source. When I say "earliest" I mean in time. So, if the only record of the person's name was on a grave marker, then that would be the earliest known record.
What if the name on the birth record is wrong? Again hmm. If it is the name that is on the earliest known record why would you conclude that it was "wrong?" What if the person changed their name? What if the person didn't like the name and didn't ever use the name? All that and more. Back to the rule: The birth name is the name given on the earliest known record. If there are subsequent names in subsequent records then they should all be listed as Alternative Names or Nicknames. What if the only name recorded is Betty or Betsy? Can we assume that the person's name was Elizabeth? No. Not unless there is a record showing that the name was recorded as Elizabeth in the earliest known document.
Now, what about all these "Birth Name" entries on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree? These entries are merely a default way of recording all the differences in all the entries made for that person over the long years since people started giving records to FamilySearch and all of its predecessors. It is up to you figure out which one was the one used in the earliest record. But what if there are no sources citing records? Then all the names may be alternate spellings or even the names of other people. If alternate names show up in records and are added as sources to the Family Tree then add the records as "Alternate Names" and designate which record or document produced the alternate names.
IN EVERY CASE, THE ONLY "BIRTH NAME" THAT SHOULD BE SHOWN OR RECORDED IS THE ONE THAT IS ENTERED IN THE "NAME" SECTION OF THE VITALS SECTION OF THE PERSON PAGE.
All other names, whatever their origin, should be recorded in the Other Information Section as Alternative Names. If you do not have a source for the alternative name then explain where you got it or that you made it up but don't call it a birth name.
What do I do with the long lists of Birth Names? I delete them as duplicates unless they are supported by a record and then I change the designation to reflect why the alternate name exists.
In every case?
ReplyDeleteFor a child who was adopted at two weeks of age and had a name change so every record from then on will be in the adoptive name?
For the rare individuals I have run across in Norwegian parish records for whom the priest's copy for their birth records and the deacon's copy of the birth record have such different spelling that both need to be recorded for the search engine to work properly?
To placate competing points of view of people with Norwegian ancestors, some of whom insist that only the patronymic form of the name, such as Ole Olsson, is the correct birth name and others who insist that when the family treated the farm name as part of the name that the birth name really was Ole Olsson Høyland, by labeling both as birth names since both parties maintain their favored version of the name was the birth name?
I always get leery when people start using terms like always, never, and every in an endeavor as messy as family history.
Well, the rule still holds. One of the names needs to be chosen as the "birth name" with an explanation that there are other variations. How do you determine if the "misspelled" name is not another baby born at the same time with parents of the same name? I do agree about including the farm name as part of the surname. Even if the two (or more) names are all the same person, for consistency, I would still choose one as the name to put in the primary name field. Until FamilySearch decides to let us add searchable alternative names to the records such as is the case on Ancestry.com, this will be a problem.
DeleteThanks!
ReplyDelete