What should this proflie's surname be?

Question

I have kind of a unique situation. A boy was born in Sweden on 26 Dec 1881. His name was Carl Enoch. He was the son of Anders Pehrsson and Johanna Lovisa Petersdotter but Anders and Johanna were not married. In 1881, Anders announced his intentions to leave Sweden and establish a new life in the United States.

So, his family and her family decided to provide the couple with the use of a bedroom for the weekend in the hope that they would conceive a child that would be Anders' heir in case he didn't survive the trip.

He sailed for the US and ended up in Soudan, Minnesota. In 1885, Johanna left Sweden to join him, and in October, after she arrived with their son Carl, they were married in Duluth.

I want to create a profile for Carl, but what should his surname be? If Anders and Johanna had been married in Sweden, his surname would be Andersson. When Anders arrived in America, he became Andrew Pearson.

So, should Carl be an Andersson? Or a Pearson? Or a Peterson?

Anders and Johanna are my maternal great-grandparents.

Answer 1

Hi Paul,

I'm not an expert on this but I think you would still use the patronymic naming convention even if the parents weren't married. Have a look here:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Patronymics_in_Sweden

Hopefully other members with experience in this area can provide further assistance.

An interesting story though!

Comments

Yes, that's the beauty of the patronymic system when it comes to children born out of wedlock with a known father - you have a Last Name at Birth for the child without too much headscratching. Since the patronymic system was still in more than 50% use, name him Andersson.

---

I should perhaps have phrased it like this: Patronymics did not depend on marriage, they depended on whether there was a known father.

Then patronymics were on their slow way out through the course of the 19th century. The last old spinsters with -dotter names died about 1950. With patronymics on the way out, naming in Sweden can be pretty confusing in the second half of the 19th century. We have to follow the sources or, when sources do not mention Last Names we have to make educated estimates / decisions.

---

Eva wrote "estimates / decisions", and I think it's important to realize that often it is precisely about decisions, and not about discovering what the actual "true" LNAB is, because there is no such thing.

Answer 2

From what you say I first thought it would be best to set LNAB to Pearson. It is clearly the only surname he has had. (It's important to realize that patronymics are not surnames. We sometimes have to treat them as if they were surnames, though, for example to fit the model for Wikitree.) And the reason for him to have that surname is present directly at his birth, namely a father with that name.

In the birth record when he is born 26 Dec [not Sep] 1881 he is "Carl Enoch" with mother "Johanna Lovisa Pettersdotter", no father given (Spannarp CI:3).
In the household examination records he is also just "Carl Enoch" with no mention of any father.

If that was everything there is no record of him being Anders's son in Sweden. If you say that he should be "Andersson" just because the family knew he was Anders's son you could instead argue that he should be "Pearson" because the family knew that his father now had the *surname* "Pearson" (over in America).

But actually there *is* a record in Sweden of him with the Andersson patronymic.
When mother and son move out from the parish it is as "Og[ifta; unmarried] Johanna Lovisa Petersd[otte]r" and her son "Carl Enock Anderss[on]". (Spannarp B:1 p. 42)
So there is some rationale for using that after all.

Comments

I wish I could find a death record, but my searches have been futile. I suspect that, if I found one, his surname would be Pearson. But I've found nothing on newspapers.com, genealogybank.com, MN death records, or FindAGrave.

I think I'll hold off on creating his profile until I've exhausted any possibility of identifying his surname.

I'm inclined to think that, because he was born in Sweden, his surname should be Andersson, but I'm almost certain that he would have been known as a Pearson in America.

Sorry about the Sep birthdate. I confused my birth month with his.

---

I don't understand what kind of possibility you are thinking of. The facts are as they are. Why is not the "Andersson" in the record I provided you with enough?

---

If he had died in Sweden, there would be no question. But he died in the United States. In the final analysis, I guess it doesn't matter much. If I use Andersson, I can make Pearson an Other Last Name.

Perhaps I'm picking nits. It's what I do.

I would like to find the date of his death, if possible. So, I'm going to have to schedule a visit to the FamilySearch library locally.

---

Whatever name he had in the US should not affect the name he was listed as in the Swedish records.  It doesn't matter if he was Pearson at death or not.  My great-grandfather died in Australia as Williamson, but he was born in Sweden as Waldemarsson.

---

You're correct, Melanie. After I posted my last, I got to thinking about it. What does LNAB mean? It's not LNA death. So, I will use Andersson. I'm hoping to drop by the FamilySearch library today after my doctor's appt to see if I can find a death record for Carl.

Update: I dropped by the library but found nothing.

---

Paul - you might find this one interesting.  

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1050742/where-did-axel-august-harald-get-the-name-ahlsen-from

---

Melanie, that was an understatement. (It took me two days to read through all of that.)