I have referred to the other spellings in the note field. I almost missed one census because of the variation in the name from what I had known (my maiden name.) I have one family that was known by the German spelling, but as soon as my ancestor got to this country, in the first deed record, he spelled similarly to the variation that I am used to. What I did was enter the early records with the German spelling, then made a note that the name change occurred with a certain generation. As far as spelling goes, I have one probate record which has my maiden name spelled three different ways when the name was listed at the end of the probate. I took the one that was my maiden name. I always copied the record in the Sources as it was written. Pat At 09:07 PM 6/26/2005, singhals wrote: >bladon wrote: > >>Hello >>What is the convention for names which have many variants? >>For example, I have one family name which uses the following variants >>within the same generations (WILBRAHAM, WILBRAM, WILBOURNE, WILBURN, >>WILBORN etc) >>One ancestor was baptised as WILBOURNE, then was called WILBRAHAM on his >>marriage. His children were a mixture of WILBOURNE and WILBRAHAM on >>baptism, and on some census were called WILBRAHAM and on others >>WILBOURNE. (I've done extensive research and they are definitely the >>same people). >>The confusion between the names has led to duplication in ordinance work, >>and I am not sure how to deal with future submissions or how to record >>this family on PAF. (Do I choose one main name to use then make a note >>that they have also been recorded under different variants?) >>Any help appreciated. >>Valerie > >The Rule I was taught back in the 1970s was, use the most-common >variant. So if there are more records for SMITHEY than for SMITHY, use >SMITHEY. Unfortunately, one of my surnames is Harmison and the most >common variant is Harrison, and I thought "not!" (g) > > Other than that -- > >I guess it depends on what your *real* problem is. > >Since Spelling was a _game_ before Social Security in the US, if it >sounds-like or can be made to sound-like, it's good enough seems to have >been the general attitude. And of course, in Britain, you've got the >various local accents which in some time periods I hear were virtually >unintelligible five hours from home. > >So, if your problem is, how do I show it on the charts, I've opted for >KISS -- I got tired of trying to remember how ol' Lafe spelt his last name >on his marriage bond, or how his brother spelt it on HIS, or how their >sister's husband spelt it in a letter to one of 'em, and I picked the >spelling I preferred for aesthetic reasons and used it throughout. There >IS a note explaining that the record was found under SpellingA or >SpellingD, but *I* can find things. The charts looked better when each >generation had its own spelling and they were certainly educational, but I >couldn't find anything. > >OTOH, if your problem is, how do I match my records against the IIGI -- I >don't see that you've got all that much control over what someone else has >already done. Run all the variants against each couple and take the date >that matches, regardless of how they're shown in your records. As I >understand it, once there's a date in those fields, they'll be ignored >later on. > >Cheryl > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/