Genealogy Chat

I have come across a number of instances in my tree where a child's mother remarries and the child takes on the surname of the stepfather, which she then uses when she marries.
On the tree do you enter the surname she was registered with at birth and use the "known as" to reflect the surname she got from her stepfather.
I am not sure what the correct approach is

I log people with their birth name and then add notes as you suggest to reflect a change of surname.

I have one person with her birth registered as surname W, raised by her natural father and using his surname S in census
When she married she used her birth surname W and then became Mrs P.


Gwyn

I think it's whatever you are comfortable with. Personally I would put the name the child was registered under. It makes it clear what name the birth info would be found under. Then rather than hyphernate it include the new surname in brackets. So long as you understand what you mean by it, then that's fine. Just a thought as to how you could present it.

Anyone looking at my tree would see some annotations after certain surnames. This just lets me know who provided info I haven't found myself. I know what it means and that is all that counts.

J

I do the same as Gwyn-i.e. enter people with their birth name and add any name change in the Notes section (usually in capital letters). I think it's like JustJill said - depends on what you are comfy with and of course once you've decided upon how it is necessary to be consistent!