Depending upon what record was believed, a certain relative for in the 1870s in Illinois had one of three maiden names. The relative herself had not been married multiple times and her parents had not either. Her parents had never been married and she was adopted (informally) about the age of seven. The “maiden names” given for her ended up being:
- her birth father’s surname
- her birth mother’s surname
- her adoptive parents’ surname
Never assume all those different names are wrong. They may just be clues.
—————-
Check out our current webinars, land records class, or 25 Brick Walls webinar.
2 Responses
This is similar to what happened to my great grandmother. She was baptized as a McCarthy, her mother then married a Hassard (now her second surname), then she was adopted by the Potters, and then married a Stephens. It makes is interesting to figure out how to list her name in the family tree even though I know her proper place in it.
You should always list a woman’s surname as that which she had at birth. If the father’s surname is known, then that is her surname. If the mother later married someone, and the daughter was adopted, then that fact should be noted in the genealogy tree, but her surname from the adoptive father should NOT be assigned as her surname. When she married, that has no bearing on her actual birth surname! Judy, your great-grandmother should be entered into your genealogy tree as McCARTHY. Every genealogy program allows you to assign an adoptive father’s surname; just as it does to allow later adoptive parents’ surname. Why can’t people understand! A person’s surname IS THE SURNAME WITH WHICH SHE/HE WAS BORN! No later adoptions or marriages change that! I get so sick of seeing women’s surnames listed in genealogy trees with the surnames of their husbands. That just totally sucks and shows the lack of understanding that many, many, “researchers” have when it comes to actual surnames.
Thanks for listening to my diatribes,
George W. Durman
germannaresearch@comcast.net