What to do about variant spellings of surnames; how to find "actual", acceptable spelling

Question

I have several ancestors with variant surname spellings and no idea what the actual surname was.  I'm just looking at a Suggestion to that effect.  I've seen at least 3 spellings of her maiden name.  Which is "correct" and what do I do with the others?

Comments

This is a good and interesting exchange and I'm leaving the question open for a bit. And, adding my own comments to comments already made.  I'm a professional librarian, not a professional genealogist but I've been researching ALL my families for about 50 years.  One of my ONSs is because that family surname has, reportedly, 42 to 52 variants.  I have no origins yet and within my own immediate family and a family cemetery there are 3 spellings; go figure.  And, now I've adopted quite a few profiles....

I'm a rule follower, as much as possible, in all things, because rules simplify things, in most cases.  What if there were no road rules?  Chaos.  While I don't subscribe to the notion that people are inherently evil, I do know that we're selfish and thoughtless; so rules are necessary.  I like the LNAB rule, so birth or baptism surname; not always available.  But that should be individual by individual so grandfather in Germany might have spelled it differently.

As far as contemporary surnames, don't bet on them not being changed either legally or not; a friend changed hers just because she wanted to.

As far as suggestions, I hadn't thought about the fact that they're called suggestions but I will in the future.  I just "fixed" one where the marriage of the parents were in questions and still is but the son's marriage record shows the names of the parents so they're his parents.  I doubt I'll figure out the multiple "marriages" of his mother.

"Official" documents, more preferred documents, are full of mistakes and, yes, whoever filled them out apparently never asked about spelling.  I do collect signatures when I can find them and I do go by the sound of names rather than spelling.

Finally, I have built databases so I'm well aware of changing key data elements and we should not be casual or cavalier about doing it.  It can have very bad consequences.  

The person named in the question; her surname became Wormuth, with variants, one of my ONSs.  Her maiden name, Fheling, also has variants, this spelling in question but that's her father's name in the record as well.

It's maddening sometimes.

---

Name spelling variations:  May be many reasons.

1. Until about 1900 there was no uniform spelling. i.e. you could have 12 children and 14 spelling for the name.

2. Become aquainted with the local customs. A cousin once gave me information (name-Wojciech) referring to a specif branch. I later noticed he used another name(Adelbert) when he referred to the same branch. I questioned him about it. He said it was the same name. When referring to local issues, they use the local language for the name. But when referring to legal matters they use the latin spelling of the name. And the spelling between local/latin can be quite different and not resemble one another.

3. An individual persons stylized handwritting. Checking land records I thought I had found another spelling variation. Kulas/Keulas. upon further checking, I found out that the land AGENT had a fancy penmanship which had his capital K's ending with a curryque at the end of it. What I took as a Ke was no more than a fancy K ending in a curryque. Henceforth I now always try to get a sample of a persons signature to alert me to possible stylized handwrittings.

4. Tho a person may be literate in his native language, when they immigrated, they may not be literate in their aqdoptive language and often the customs agent may have spelt the name as best he could when registering the new immigrant.

5. Careless translations/entries. In the same entry I once found two different spellings for the same last name. so beware, you may have many hair pulling experiences as you delve deeper into your family name. Every wonder why professors are often bald?   augh-- which one do I use---.

Answer 1

Name found on earliest source should be the LNAB.  Last Name in source is Current Name.  All other variations should be included in Other Last Name, separated by commas.

If you get a suggestion for Unique name and you have the spelling in a source, mark it as False, since it is sourced.  The suggestion is to try to help with spelling mistakes.

Comments

"Name found on earliest source should be the LNAB". Even if the officer who wrote down this earliest source, the birth record, was semi-illiterate and could not spell properly any word at all in the act? See my comment under J. Patolay answer.

---

Nope.  That is not how I roll.  I look at the spelling of all the documents of all the immediate family members and see if there is any consensus on how the surname is spelled.

---

Of course, Tommy. That's simply common sense.

---

Unfortunately, I don't see much common sense being used when profiles are being created by looking at a single source when multiple sources are available.

Answer 2

Well, first of all, discard all notions of "correct spelling" for names. In most languages and countries, there really is no such thing before the mid-20th century.

Next, do your best to ignore WT's mythical concept of the One True Last Name At Birth. Yes, if all else is equal, then "earlier" makes a good tiebreaker, but how often is all else equal? Also, don't let WT's extra hoops to jump through "guilt" you out of changing a choice that turns out not to be the best choice. (Or, do most of your research and "rough drafts" elsewhere, For example, FS's tree is very forgiving of name editing.)

The rest all depends on the specifics. If the choice is between different spellings of the same sounds, you can choose the one you encounter most frequently, or the one you find easiest to parse, or the one that the person was known to have used. If the choice is between actually-different names, then WT's "closest to birth" rule of thumb can come in handy, but you may end up having to toss a coin about which name goes where.

Given the utter mess that is WT's name display rules, I generally don't use any of the non-required name fields, and even in FamilySearch, I don't enter variant spellings as alternate names. They aren't, really. In a world where most people were illiterate, it was the sound of a name that mattered.

Comments

Wow - what a wonderful breath of fresh air, J.  Thank you so much for this answer.

---

Well said, J. 

To add to the pile of arguments against the LNAB fundmentalists, I would add that very very often, the civil officer or priest or whoever was in charge of filling the birth or baptism record had no idea of the right spelling if any, or did not care, that the present family members had no more, because they wre illiterate. That in many records the same officer uses different spelling across the act, and the father or other family members  signing the act used yet another spelling, and you can have the father using a spelling, and the grandfather another one etc.

Other examples : under the French Revolution, birth records were passed from priests authority to semi-illiterate folks. When a birth record has as many spelling mistakes as words in the act, when even the month and day of the week are not spelled properly, how can you trust the spelling of the name?

Proposals have been made to get rid of the LNAB. But LNAB fundamentalists are here to stay. In my opinion, one  underlying reason might be deep anchored in the US culture, rooted in the Bible : a pervasive faith in the "holiness" of names.

---

I appreciate the candid feedback and the points raised about WikiTree's approach to handling names - even if they are hypercritical. You make some valid arguments about the historical context of naming and the challenges it presents. It's true that spelling variations were common in the past, and that modern notions of standardized names might not accurately reflect historical realities.

However, as a collaborative platform, WikiTree has to strike a balance between consistency and accuracy in documenting family history. The LNAB might not always align perfectly with historical practices, but it does provide a framework for us to organize and connect individuals within the shared tree.

Considering the complexities of historical naming conventions, it's understandable that making choices about names can be difficult. So it's essential for genealogists to exercise their judgment, taking into account various factors when determining the most appropriate representation of a person's name. This may involve a lot of discussion, and even lead to the adoption of standardized naming practices. Are they perfect? Not at all. But do they work to accomplish our shared mission? Of course it does - or we wouldn't be here.

---

Hypercritical? Certainly guilty as charged, regarding naming at least. Candid feedback? Is that supposed to be addressed to me also? For that one, I plead non-guilty (out of a 15 years long professional experience in vocabularies and naming schemes)

But seriously Steven, please tell me if you took the time to look at the quoted proposal : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Beyond_LNAB ?

---

J, I agree with you completely!

I would take this a step further with how WikiTree has to invent last names for people who did use them.

---

Candid feedback? Is that supposed to be addressed to me also? For that one, I plead non-guilty (out of a 15 years long professional experience in vocabularies and naming schemes) 

Candid feedback is honest, direct, and specific without sugarcoating or euphemisms - I think that fits your comment well.

But seriously Steven, please tell me if you took the time to look at the quoted proposal : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Beyond_LNAB ?

I have indeed (last year, and just skimmed through it again). I just don't see WikiTree being able to support this change.

Changing a database's primary key, especially after many years of operation and with millions of records entered, can have significant consequences, and it's generally considered a complex and risky undertaking. Some of the potential consequences include:

1. Data integrity issues: Changing the primary key could lead to data integrity problems, including orphaned or disconnected records. Existing relationships and references between records might be disrupted, causing inconsistencies and errors in the data.
2. Impact on applications: Many applications and systems have been built based on the existing primary key. Changing it could break the functionality of these applications, leading to errors or malfunctions.
3. Performance concerns: The existing queries and indexes have been optimized for the current primary key. Changing it could negatively impact the database's performance, leading to slower response times and increased resource usage.
4. Migration challenges: Converting the existing data to use the new primary key would be a complex and resource-intensive process. Ensuring a seamless transition while preserving data integrity could be challenging.
5. Data conversion errors: During the migration process, data conversion errors are likely to occur, leading to inaccuracies and loss of data. Validating and reconciling data during migration would be crucial and time-consuming.
6. Backward compatibility: If the database interacts with external systems or APIs (which it does for Ads as an example), changing the primary key would require changes to those interfaces as well. Ensuring backward compatibility would be a significant concern.
7. Testing and validation: Rigorous testing and validation would be necessary to identify and rectify any issues introduced during the primary key change. This testing process would be time-consuming and resource-intensive.
8. User training: If the changes affect how users interact with the system, proper training and communication would be essential to avoid confusion and ensure a smooth transition.
9. Business disruption: The process of changing the primary key and dealing with potential issues could result in temporary downtime or reduced system availability, impacting business operations.
10. Cost and resources: Changing the primary key would require considerable time, effort, and resources, including database administrators, developers, and testing teams, of which we have very few.

It's worth considering that WikiTree's current naming scheme, albeit not perfect, has provided a framework for managing diverse family histories.

Rather than completely overhauling the naming scheme with new fields as you have proposed, it might be more feasible to explore smaller incremental improvements to accommodate a broader range of naming conventions while preserving the integrity of the current system. Implementing multilingual interfaces or allowing optional fields for how names are displayed could be potential steps in the right direction.

---

NOT using the spelling per the earliest documents is allowed.  Especially if the family was known to spell it differently from the way it was recorded - even if the family was supposedly more illiterate than the cleric doing the recording.  If Joseph Farthington spelt his name as Farthington, yet half his 12 children had births registered as Fartington, and half the rest as Farthingdon, with only three having his own spelling of Farthington, should those nine children have last names at birth different from their family norm?  LNAB fundies would say "yes" -- but the RULES for LNAB would say "no".

-

Last Name at Birth

This field could also be called Proper Last Name, Surname, or Maiden Name.

It is generally a family name but it could be a patronymic or whatever other standard is conventional for the person's time and place.

It is usually the formal name as it appears in official documents at the time of birth. However, it may not be exactly what appears in a birth record if:

• There was a spelling mistake or error in the document, or if the family name was more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth (see the spelling conventions section above).
• The person was adopted as an infant and they never used their birth name.

---

LNAB fundies would say "yes"

I am not sure who these 'LNAB fundies' are - maybe I am one? - but I think Melanie has clearly laid out why the answer in her example is clearly "no" - and I agree with this.

But it gets even trickier when you start working with diacritics, spelling variations, and migration (my own case is Volčík, Volcik and Wolcik). Father was born and used Volčík, his son was born Volcik (no diacritics) and assumed Wolcik after migration as a child. Subsequent children all used Wolcik.

Am I in the wrong for using these variations for the same family? Does that make me a 'fundie'? If so, I will accept it - because using Volčík for all of the children / generations is 100% inaccurate...

---

Thanks Melanie for this. I must say I had not re-read this page recently, and the section you highlight is (good) news to me. Guilty as charged, once again today.

---

Steven -- What you say "Father was born and used Volčík, his son was born Volcik (no diacritics) and assumed Wolcik after migration as a child. Subsequent children all used Wolcik." is not being a fundie.
Someone who insists that what is written on a record - no matter how incorrect it is - should be the name used is a fundie.  Documentation over fact of life.  If my name had been incorrectly recorded as Poul, instead of Paul, that would not make me a Poul.  It would make the Poul an error to be ignored.

---

Misspelling still occurs today, even when the involved parties are literate.  I have immediate family members living today with incorrect surname spelling on birth certificate and other government documents due to typographic errors of the government officials, although other documents for the same persons have correct surname spelling.  

Historically this gets to be tricky as many names were phonetically based, so the spelling of the surname wasn't considered important as long as it was useful to uniquely identify a person.  I tend to set the LNAB to whatever spelling the parent used if the parent is identified when the profile is created.  If the parent is identified after the child profile was created, then I still link the parent and child but note the other spelling of the name as other known last name.

---

Steven, all points taken. And thanks for the explanation of "candid" which is a faux-ami for French people (which I should know!)

---

As a personal note : my daily issue with my Breton ancestors is the use or not of "Le". In Brezhoneg, all family names use the article. In French documents, it's often up to the scribe to decide if it shoud be written or not. My grandfather was the only one among 13 children to have the "Le" not written. Hence I'm a "Vatant" whereas cousins are "Le Vatant".

---

...is not being a fundie.

Got it! Thanks!

Perhaps we need to put more stress on accuracy, verification, and interpretation of sources. (Making a few notes for an Academy course I am working on).