Genealogy Chat

No real biggy, mainly a presentational issue, but I was wondering what others tend to do. I've noticed that two of the surnames in my tree slightly change in records the further back you go (ie Quantrill changes to Quantrell, and Rutland changes to Rudland). These don't appear to be isolated transcription errors, but a general change across the board. I'm just wondering really how to best present this on my tree - do I change the surname at the first point I notice the difference, or do I stick with the original surname and simply make a note to search for both spellings as I take the research back ?

Had the same thing Simon, with Donati in the past being Donatti, and even Donate! I have added them all as the name is known now, Donati, and made a note on all the older ones that they were transcribed differently, or were generally accepted as that spelling. Steph

Hi Simon, I have the same with Brittan becoming Britton, and Avery being written as Every. I think you have to be true to the records you are using and spell it as it has been recorded, for the sake of anyone using your research at a later date. You could write the modern version in brackets and put a footnote on the tree to explain. Rosemary(Essex)

I do mine as they appear in the records, i.e. Tonks becomes Tunks becomes Tunkes becomes Tunckes!

hubbys name is manterfield ,but further back its mandyfeld,mannerfield,manderville and mannyville and several more variations its really confusing hes recorded them as they were written on the info susie

I'm glad it's not just me being driven mad by this problem! I have Brockhurst - Brockhouse - Brockas and Bethell - Bethel - Bythell - Bithell I did try recording them as each person spelled their own name until I realised that the same person changed the spelling over and over again, and that a lot of them were illiterate anyway. In the end I've just entered everyone with the most common spellings, Brockhurst and Bethell. It's a nightmare searching websites for every spelling though! The other one that gets on my nerves is when no one can spell their birthplace for the census. Took me ages to find out that "Chattal" was Little Chatwell, and I'm still trying to work out where "Fomer" might be. [rant over!]

Well I haven't had any derivations of SMITH lol On my motehrs side though, I've found Atkins/Atkinson/Adkins... I think it was mainly due to the poor level of literacy >= 19th century, many people couldnt wire their own names, so when the were recorded it was down to the clergyman/census taker to guess at the spelling... and accents must also have played a role I imagine. Of course this still continues to a certain extent... have just found my Grandfathers death from 1979 recorded as William Swane, whereas it should have been Swain. Oh and I also had subsequent census entries list a place of birth for a relly as Carrington Beds, whereas it was Cardington Beds. grrr

The thing is we do not realise how lucky we are with education and with a few exceptions we can read and write. Back in the old days it was mainly phonetic and the clergyman and census taker wrote down how he thought the spelling would be. Added to this of course was a local dialect which may have made there job difficult and sometimes our research impossible. However I do agree you need to record what is written down and add notes Pat

I've tended to include names in my family as they appear on the birth certificates. William Foster's sons became Forster. They were registered by his illiterate wife, so how would she know whether or not it was spelt correctly? Similarly How became Howe. Jan