How can I name Mary (Smith) Smith?

Question

Hi all!  I am going through the 82,000 Smith profiles and for the women, I am changing their last name at death to the Current Last Name.  Most Smith women have a different maiden name from their last name at death, which is usually their married name.

I am encountering a significant number of Smith women that married Smith men.  In search lists and the family list, their names are listed as FirstName Smith.  This is the same as unmarried Smith women.

Is there an acceptable way to indicate that a Smith woman married a Smith man so that her name is listed as FirstName (Smith) Smith?  I have seen one profile where the CurrentLastName was typed -Smith and the name displays as Mary (Smith) -Smith. Is there a prefered method to indicate when a maiden name and last name at death are the same because a woman married a man with the same surname?

I understand why the search lists and such display Firstname (LastNameAtBirth) CurrentLastName for different surnames, but how can we indicate when the surnames are the same?  We certainly don't want to list Richard (Smith) Smith, so how can I indicate that these really are separate surnames?   Thanks for any suggestions.  I want to do this by the book, so maybe we need to standardize this in the naming instructions.

Comments

I have this problem also with a Bennett who married a Bennett

---

I just made sure the CLN (Current Last Name) was the married name.  

Be aware, in not all societies did the wife take her husband's name. I do not know to what societies this applies/applied, but there are those here who diferentiate.

---

Hi Tom, Thanks for your comment!

I figure most Smith women took their husband's surname, but if not, the family "in the know" can easily change the name the Current Last Name to whatever is accurate.  You can't please everybody all of the time, but I have received many thanks for changing the Current Last Name to the last name at death.

My problem is that the maiden name and the last name at death are two different surnames that happen to be spelled the same way, Smith.  So in all the lists, Mary (Smith) Smith shows up as Mary Smith, indicating that she never married.

I would like some standard way to indicate that someone named Smith married a person named Smith.  Or as Anne B mentioned, a Bennett that married a Bennett.  This is a fairly common occurence in early America, so I think a standard practice is a good idea.

---

Your idea of -Smith for the Current Last Name would apply, but might mess up a search....

I encountered the "born-with and married name's the same: in at least two of my ancestors families, Pettibone and Chilcote, several times.  There weren't that many families around.

---

Since the two last names are the same. Searching Smith is still going to turn up your person, even if you make the current last name -Smith, or nee Smith, or m.Smith or whatever you choose to use.

However putting something extra in the last name field will create a page "-Smith Genealogy" when you search just the surname. So potentially we could be adding a lot of unneccessary pages to wikitree.

---

Yeah, I get the additional geneaology pages.  I forgot about that.  Potentially, that would mean every surname here times two.  

So maybe I just have to live with it?  Perhaps Mary (Smith) Smith will  have to continue as Mary Smith?  I wish there was a place holder character like a space or a dash that would mark the entry as different even though it is spelled the same.  We need a magic disappearing character!

---

Kitty, I'm not sure what the problem is. Mary (Smith) Smith is accurate for a woman born Smith who married a Smith.   She won't be confused as unmarried if she's attached to a spouse with a marriage date. And if you're still concerned she might, simply add the source data that confirms she was a Smith at birth.  For example, her marriage record probably states and Henry Smith married Mary Smith. Quote (and cite) the source.

And then of course if you find her father, John Smith, that will add even more weight.

-- Jillaine Smith
daughter of John Smith;
wife of Philip Bogdonoff
but still Jillaine Smith [no Bogdonoff] ;-)

---

You are correct, Jillaine, but you missed the problem.  

The individual profiles are fine because they have the details you mention.  That's all good.  My concern is the way a woman's name appears on search lists and genealogy lists where those additional details are not available.

If you search for Kitty Smith, you will see in the list Kitty (Cooper) Smith.  If I had married a man named Cooper, my name would be displayed as Kitty Cooper, when it should be displayed as Kitty (Cooper) Cooper.

This is not a huge problem for Kitty or Jillaine Smith, but  try searching for Mary Smith and you will see that it would be nice to know which ones married Smith men and which ones were unmarried, without needing to open each profile to check.  I would find it very helpful see her name on the list as Mary (Smith) Smith.  

---

Well... I can't help but think this has more to do with how wikitree does or does not display names of women in so many different situations. 

In my mind, there should never be a display of only the fields Mary Marriedname. (I am not talking about quoting documentation in the narrative but in how the system chooses which name fields to display where.)

When the married name is used, it should always be Mary (Birthname) Marriedname. 

But we all know that there is a diversity of opinion here on this topic. 

The fact that any of us should have to be put in a position to consider something like "-Smith" in order to get around this design choice is, frankly, embarrassing.

 

PS: I realize adopted women create a wholly different challenge that no one formula will fully address. 

Answer 1

You just gave me the idea of adding Murphy to the other last name line for Kate Murphy Murphy.

Comments

That is a good idea, Maureen.  However, Kate's name on a search list still appears as Catherine C Murphy, not Catherine C (Murphy) Murphy or Catherine C Murphy Murphy.  This is not a big problem for Catherine C Murphy.  I was able to find your Kate Murphy Murphy on the third profile I opened.

It is a bigger problem with Firstname (Smith) Smith, or Firstname (Brown) Brown.

---

Oh, well.  I tried.

---

It was a good idea, Maureen!  Thanks for the effort!

Answer 2

The one and only duplicate surname I've had to process was a Jane Doe who married a John Doe.  I remember thinking both, "gee, how convienent to have not had to change her name" and "but man, why would she even go out on a first date with a guy who shared her surname".   I left it as Jane Doe and didn't worry about whether or not she stuck out as Jane (Doe) Doe...because during the course of her lifetime she obviously wasn't concerned with whether or not other people noticed that she never changed her surname - although she married and had children. She also, apparently, didn't care if people who didn't know her well enough to know that the married a man with the same last name thought she had a pack of illigitimate children toting their mother's maiden name. If she could deal with those potential stigmas over a hundred years ago, I figure that with all the odd-ball family and name configurations that want to pass for "normal" today this is so far down the list of oddities that it falls under my "who cares" header.