Consensus on using Maiden Names

What is the general consensus on using maiden names instead of husband's last name? I have found it to be less complicated when I use the maiden names only. I have found several ancestors who have married two women with the same first name and it goes confusing and messy when you have to straighten them all out. Several collaborators are doing this as well. What are the pros & cons? Thanks.

Post deleted by Private User on Dec 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I have found it a disaster not to use BOTH maiden and married name when known. I am currently unwinding Anne Taylor of Virginia married to Miles Cary from Anne Taylor of Virginia married to Edward Eastham.

Set your preferences to the your preferential display of maiden names and all pedigree reporting issues are solved. But let *me* see my ancestresses married to the right men, please.

I refer of course only to the Anglo American tree (approx 1600-current time).

It's a disaster either way. Women with more than one husband end up looking like Mary Smith Jones Taylor Samuels (Williams), and we already have the problem of women being listed as their father-in-laws' daughters instead of daughter-in-laws. Listing the married name makes that worse. There is no good solution except for bad mergers to stop merging.

Agree with Erica. We need both pieces of information.

What really needs to happen is a tutorial on names and merging for the naive.

Erin, I hear you about the multiple marriages: it's not well covered.

However every single American ancestress of mine has gone by her MARRIED name in the documentation I can find.

Using your method, I would be born out of thin air. Won't work.

Social Security death notices are by the woman's married name. Most of the documentation for my American female ancestors is by their married name, e.g., Census. Researchers need both names and matching algorithms need both names.

Erica thanks for the tip. I do agree with Erica on the multiple marriages for the women being difficult. It's also odd when the connection between your parents disappears totally because they are divorced, it's as if they were never married. Thanks for the input.

A long time ago in the geni Forum I proposed a "Name Timeline" feature, that would track name and title changes for both men and women (when known)- regardless of the reason for the name change.

But for now all we have are two Last name (family name) fields. I use the Maiden Name field for name at birth, and the last name field for the last known legal name. When I'm not sure, then I use the Last Name field to simply list all known married names in the order of the marriages, like this:
Mary Webster Emery

In any case, I feel strongly that EVERY piece of know name information should be recorded in every appropriate field. Not recording the husband's name would be dangerous business unless EVERYONE did it that way (which they don't). That would also be throwing away information that might otherwise be crucial to making a positive identification. I'm constantly fighting a battle on, for example, the following profiles for three completely different people:

Mary Webster Emery (Shatswell)
Mary Webster (Emery)
Mary Emery (Webster)

I must have untangled those at least a hundred times. I've found each of them, at one time or another, listed interchangeably as Mary Webster or Mary Emery. To make it worse, those three are not the only Mary Websters or Mary Emerys who lived during that same time period, and most of them were married to, or were a daughter of a John Webster or Emery. You could never be sure which is which very easily because some Geni users only use the last name in one or both fields, while others only use the maiden name field. ARGHHH!!

I'm going to keep using every damned field that Geni gives me whenever I can.

Post deleted by Judi / Judith Elaine Mc Kee on Mar 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Post deleted by Judi / Judith Elaine Mc Kee on Mar 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM

And current actual Geni example for building my own tree. I just ran across a Taylor married to a Lawson. Well, I'm a Lawson - and the lady was unknown to me and my family tree. So now because someone was thoughtful enough to be COMPLETE in their information, *I* have a better genealogical and historical clue to my own background.

Thank you, people who believe that more data is better.

The real problem is when people put maiden name in the wrong place (i.e., not the maiden name field). If they could just learn that ....

AMEN

AMEN

I really dislike the maiden name thingy... Prefer to list the given name at birth, nice for looking up birth records, which more often than not list parents name... a confirming factor. Then in the display name add the husbands name, or husbands names, which is already obvious when one looks at the tree itself.

and putting in a maiden name for a man is really out there! But it is being done all the time here.

Sally,

My point is that in tracing my ancestors, unfortunately there is often *only* the married name. (The wife's parents are unknown.)

So when entering a database, put all the known information -- the convention for American women was usually for a woman to take her husband's last name -- including maiden name in the maiden name field.

Then you can adjust your *own* viewing preferences to display maiden name only if you want, as in a traditional pedigree report.

Oh, and Sally -- use display names as little as possible. They get really really messed up in merges and I think they are *responsible* for a lot of the merge errors I see.

When a woman's birth/maiden name is unknown, I put "<unknown>" in that field in case it gets merged with another profile that has the married last name in both fields.

When a woman's birth/maiden name is unknown, I put "<unknown>" in that field in case it gets merged with another profile that has the married last name in both fields.

I've stopped using Display names because that's also a HUGE problem when merging.

Someone named Joan Plantagenet, Princess of England without a display name can easily get merged with a Joan de Beaumont, Princess of England who's display name is "Joan, Princess of England."

Then, you have to go in and remove husbands and children because someone finished a stack or two because they weren't sure what to do after the mishap.

See? We're figuring it out.

The tree is a whole lot better than it was six months ago.

humn... ok... guess I better go back and change some of them. I did not know you could make a setting to show maiden names only.... learning all the time.

Post deleted by J on Jul 2, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Post deleted by J on Jul 2, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Maiden name is only used for women. Men do not have madian names. I think a woman should use both. Her side is just as important as his side. Sometimes more important. I have an identity of my own. A family of my own . When I got married I did not suddenly become a Mc Carthy and forget my side. There are two sides to every family and never forget it.

"Nowadays" men take on their wives names, their husband's names, and women take on their husband's names or their wives' names, or add a hyphen, move their birth surname to their middle name, etc. It really gets confusing, so I believe in adding "just" the birth names to the name fields. All the other spaces (About Me, Documents, and Nickname fields) can be used for "alternative" information.

Indeed! And Geni needs to add more fields to the database to reflect these realities -- including the naming conventions from other languages and other historical periods.

But adding fields to databases unfortunately takes a while. And what happens, in a database, is if you force wrong data into a "right" name is called, technically, "ferkaktah."

It means just what like what it sounds like.

Maiden name has a specific meaning in English that does not translate.

Mimi,

And the problem with your method is then I can't do genealogy with documentation. I thought we needed geni to be a documentation program?