Why does he surname of [[Belden-36|Daniel Belden (1648-1731)]] not match the historical records associated with him

Question

I believe the person is who is indicated by the historical records attached to him.  But somewhere along the family line, the spelling of the surname changed and this was carried back up the tree.

Comments

WikiTree policy is that the spelling on the profile reflect the spelling in use when the person was alive. Work with the profile managers to correct it and the “modern” spelling can go in the alternate field.

Answer 1

I don't understand the question.  Most of the historical documents use Belden for Daniel.  As different Town Clerks through the 1700s used creative spelling the surname was often misspelt Belding or Beldin but it was corrected by Rev Jonathan Belden in CT at the request of the Town Clerk of New Haven (if memory serves).  I will need to look over my notes to find the exact source of this solidification of the surname.  I will add it in a new answer when I had the chance to find it.

Comments

I raised the question because the memorial in Deerfield to Daniel uses the spelling "Belding"

---

I agree it is very confusing with later markers and transcribers using "Belding" but the gravestone for his infant son (and him?) in the Old Burying Ground of Old Deerfield uses Beldin (FindAGrave).  Daniel's birth record in Wethersfield found in the Barbour Collection reads: Belden, Daniell, son of Will[iam] & Tamisin, b Nov. 20, 1646. Yet if you turn the page back to the beginning of the Belden listings you will find Belden, Beldeng, Belding, Beldings as the heading.  In order to verify the actual spelling it would be necessary to see the original which may not be possible.

It is very difficult to find actually records of the time online and the surname was often Belding on gravestones in Wethersfield starting sometime around 1700 and continuing through the 1770s.  Even then at least one line kept Belding. 

Just to add more confusion my Great Grandfather was born Belden but his gravestone is Beldin.  I believe he got angry with his family and changed to "in" to distant himself from the family.  (note: I am a descendent of both William and John Belden sons of Richard Belden)

---

Thank you for adding this information.  It helps in clarifying things a bit.

Answer 2

Here are two sources for the family solidifying on Belden as the spelling of the surname pre-Revolutionary War.  I apologize for remembering the wrong person who spearheaded the solidification.  It was Rev. Joshua Belden b. 1724 (currently doesn't have a profile). I personally and as a Belden (father was born Belden) feel that the Belden spelling should be honored for this line.  

1. Stiles, Henry Reed. Families of Ancient Wethersfield Connecticut; Consisting of the History of Ancient Wethersfield, Comprising the Present Towns of Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, and Newington; and of Glastonbury Prior to Its Incorporation in 1693, from Date of Earliest Settlement Until the Present Time, with Extensive Genealogies and Genealogical Notes on Their Families. Vol II. (1904). pg 82

2.Hinman, Royal Ralph. A Catalogue of the Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut: With the Time of Their Arrival in the Country and Colony, Their Standing in Society, Place of Residence, Condition in Life, where From, Business, &c., as Far as is Found on Record. United States, Case, Tiffany, 1852. pg. 182.