Heelo DJ, Good to see your input. I agree that they all lead to John when translated, but the original post was seeking to find the proper form of the untranslated name, and that is why I say they are different, because they were treated differently. My research doesn't go back quite as far as yours, and I don't recall the time frame for the original post. Interesting data on Hans in the 1600s, but you mostly seem to come to the same conclusion as I have, that Johannes was treated differently than Johan. It would also seem that Hans is mostly the 1600s equivalent to Johannes in the manner in which it was used, that being that no Honorary name was given and it was both the Honorary and Ruf name. Which of course makes sense, at least to me, as I would be inclined to match Hans as a nickname/abbreviation for Johannes rather than Johan, if there was reason to suspect that Hans was a nickname rather than an actual given name. Brian On Sat, April 26, 2008 3:16 pm, djwdjw@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Brian, > > I'll get involved in this one, also. > > I would believe that all depends on a time period for our search. Agreed, > Hans, Johann and Johannes all translate into English as John but I have > found that in the earlier days of most (not all) of the Church Registers > which I have attempted to read that Hans is the more oft version of John, > certainly in the 1600s and rarely is the gentleman listed with an > additional first name. > > (I've never considered the Germanic naming as first and second names, only > multiple first names with one being the Honorary name and one being the > Familiar/Ruf name---you can get into other areas away from Baden and find > a string of six or seven baptismal names given to a child and you assume > the first given name is the Honorary and then try you to figure out from > additional Rite entries which would be the Ruf name.) >