Genealogy Chat

Reposted from Suggestions - as suggested!

I have a female relative in my tree, when she was born she was registered with her mothers surname, the mother subsequently married and took the surname of her husband.

The daughter was always known by the Step Fathers surname so I must presume there was an official surname change, this is substantiated when the daughter married using her Step Fathers surname.

The questions I ask are:

1 How do I prove that there was an official surname change

and

2 How do I enter this onto my GR Tree

TIA....

It depends when this was but I do not think there was a need to make it offical The child just took the step fathers name. Unless you are talking about someone born in recent years


jax

You can call yourself by any name you like unless for fraudulent purposes. Very unlikely to have done this through any official channels.
Re. your tree, I would always use the birth name myself and just make a note.
Jan

"Official" name changes were non-existent until quite recently. It was very common for children to be called by a stepfather's surname, and then use that surname themselves as adults.

What I do for all the name-shifters in my tree (and I have a load of them) is enter them twice.

For example, my Hill grx2 grparents have 5 children named Hill, and 2 children named Monck. The Monck children are really the same people as two of the Hill children, but married under the surname Monck.

I just leave them there as Hill, because someone someday might search trees for them under that name.

I put their descendants under their Monck name.

Then, when one of the Hill/Monck people married someone named Coke, I put their children in the tree as Coke.

However, Mr Coke then changed his name to McCock. So the Monck child is shown as having two husbands, Coke and McCock.

Hill/Monck and Coke/McCock had three children, registered as Coke. But before long, their father was calling them McCock, and that is what one died as, as a teenager, and the other two married as.

So the three Coke/Monck children are also in the tree as McCock, children of Coke/Monck!

I'm the only one who has to worry about figuring it all out, and my main concern is to make these people findable on tree searches.

I can't predict what name someone might search for them by, since, e.g., the McCock descendants have no idea their name is supposed to be Coke.

One child of the original Hill couple has descendants who thought their Hill ancestor was a Miss Montmorency, so I should probably put that in too ...

other JC -- if "Smith/Jones" is the surname you have for your mum in your tree, keep in mind that she won't appear in search results for anyone who searches for Smith or Jones.

When I search trees for surname

smith/jones

I get results for forename jones, surname smith. ;-)


... when I search for forename john, surname smith/jones, I get a blank screen ...


If you aren't wanting to be findable on tree searches, that works, but if you are, multiple entries for one person works better!

Thanks for your thoughts and contributions - the person was born in 1955.

I will keep to the "as registered" with a note so as to assist with searches.

If this person is still living should you have her in your tree without her permission?

jax

Jax

Are you suggesting that all living persons included within a tree permission should be requested? surely not ... it's not practical.

It's true though, Robert.

The terms and conditions of the site prohibit putting living person details in one's tree w/o permission. Practicality isn't the criterion when it comes to privacy. The default is non-disclosure, not disclosure.

I tend to think that for one's own parent / child, if they are the person one is searching for, well, that is kind of one's own personal info, in a sense. Your parent's info is on your own birth certificate, and your info is on your child's birth certificate ...

Random distant relations is another sort of fish. I wouldn't be putting them on my own tree w/o permission.

JaneyCanuck

In the case I raised the person is my Step Cousin, if there is such a thing.

I bow to your knowledge of the T&Cs, I would however suggest that not far off 100% of Members must be in contravention of this.

Just had a quick Search - unable to find full T&C - but I guess I ticked the box when I applied for an account so they must be somewhere accessible.

hi robert

just becouse she married in her step fathers surname doesnt mean she changed her name officially .

my brother took his stepfathers name all threw his life from first going to school to joining the army . he did not do it officially till he was in his forties.

so she might not have done it


hope this helps d

An example of this is women changing their surname on marriage. There is nothing official about this, it's simply a matter of choice. I used my birth name for a few years after marrying then changed it as I was fed up of explaining myself! Many women use two names, private and professional, doctors being a good example.
My husband's grandmother had 3 'husbands' (2 official, one not!) and used whichever of her 4 names took her fancy!!
Jan

It's hidden under "Privacy Tips" in the dropdown "Help" menu at the top, and nowhere else, it seems.

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/content.page/help_privacy_tips

"**You must have permission** to include any living individual's details and photos in your family tree."

(emphasis in original)

I believe this would come under "data protection" in the UK. Trees on this site are electronically stored data, etc.

My question would really be why someone would want to put a step-cousin in a family tree at a site where the information can be found by total strangers, let alone without asking permission.

For info, my tree at this site has no living people in it. (I'm in it but not as a name and not with birth details, i.e. just as the nominal first person, nor are my parents' names in my tree, nor are my siblings in my tree at all.)


If one wants to use this site to store family tree info for one's own use, the problem of third-party searches can be got round simply by putting all the person's names on one line in the tree box, for instance:

given name: (blank)
middle name: (blank)
surname: Gladys May Smith Jones

And then conceal living relatives, so that anyone given access to the tree does not see that person. (I don't know whether there is still stand-in information for living persons in trees, i.e. whether Smith and Jones would show as having a child but with the child's info concealed. I would hope that is not so.)

I RECENTLY FOUNND A BIRTH IN 1945
IN UNMARRIED MOTHERS NAME SHE LATER MARRIED,,THEN THE BIRTH WAS
RE REGISTERED IN 1960 UNDER FATHERS NAME,
THIS WAS ONLY DONE AS SHE NEEDED HER CERT TO MARRY SHE NEVER KNEW SHE WAS ILLIGITIMATE