Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Maiden or Married Names , they both should be shown or searchable.

I am thinking maybe when listing a female married person , that there is a place to show maiden name also. And when searching it will pick up both names..
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Lundgren (Search Engineer) July 09, 2019 22:41
    Assuming this is for a US culture:

    For now, you will have to enter either the single maiden name or a married surname.

    For other cultures you need to do it differently as they do things differently.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • 4
    I believe the best genealogical practice for females is to always/only use their maiden name (imagine the situation for a female married more than once) - if the maiden name is not known the surname should be left blank.

    The married name can be entered in the Other Information section as an alternative name - selecting the choice of "Married Name" - and if married more than once can have multiple Alternative/Married names. I understand that the "search" is geared up to use the both the entered name and all Alternate names.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • First, welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

    Record the maiden name (unless it has been changed by the courts, such as through an adoption) in the Vitals section. That is a genealogical practice that is widely used (not just with FamilySearch). Record the married name(s) as alternate Married name(s) in the Other section.

    All names, that are listed as Alternate names, are used/searched by the Find search routines, including the Find similar people in the Tools section on a person's details page.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • 1
    Just to illustrate what others have said above, here is the detail page for Hannah Anne Merrill (her maiden name):



    Her maiden name is listed in the Vitals section and her married name as an alternate name. You can specify that the alternate name is a birth name, an also known as name, a married name, or a nickname.

    I can search for her maiden name and get this:



    or I can search for her married name and get this:



    Notice that the ID numbers are the same, showing that these are indeed the same record and same person.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Unfortunately, searches at https://www.familysearch.org/search/ still require the married name to be entered in a separate search, as alternate names entered in Family Tree are not recognised there.

    I have argued in other posts for further links between the two programs - after all, the search routine picks-up on the fact that a source has already been attached to an ID of a person in Family Tree, so https://www.familysearch.org/search/ searches CAN be programmed to produce results that include details inputted in FT. Surely it is not impossible these could include the Alternate Names users have added.
    • view 12 more comments
    • Lundgren (Search Engineer) July 11, 2019 02:51
      Adrian,

      User submitted genealogies are searched only as a teaser at the bottom of the historic records search.

      They are directly searchable under the genealogies section. (There is also a teaser at the bottom of the genealogies search for historic records.)

      But the search results from historic records are not mixed with those from user submitted genealogies. (User corrections of historic records are searchable, but they remain only historic records.)
    • A "teaser". Right - that makes sense, it probably explains the behaviour that I see. I shall try to think of it that way in the future.

      It may not be a bad idea, by the way, even though most of the time I wouldn't go near them. My understanding is that during the extraction programs for the IGI, the resulting IGI contained both genuine indexes and genealogies. To reduce duplication, events in both were removed from the genuine index part, so the only record for them is in the genealogies. I was using those genealogies extensively during my Devon research and cross checking against the Bishops' Transcripts.

      Conversely I suspect that many of the mythical events that I can find no evidence for, have come out of the genealogies.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Juli

    You have understood my comments correctly. The process is already being rolled-out so we can effectively add an alternate name to a FamilySearch record, albeit that is not directly connected to what appears in Family Tree.

    My argument for a searcrh of this kind has been based on examples such as my ancestor John HARROD. It took me many years to find his baptism as it had been recorded with his father's surname (he was illegitimate) of WALL.

    On reflection, the ability to transfer data from Family Tree to FamilySearch was perhaps not the best of my suggestions (although I would not describe it in quite your terms!) but I do believe having an alternate name available (whether this reflects on a transcription error or on an issue similar to my example) will be very helpful in finding those elusive events involving our ancestors / relatives.
    • view 4 more comments
    • Lundgren (Search Engineer) July 11, 2019 21:44
      The flip being switched isn't really that arbitrary.

      We have records that have been created over many years. Some of them cannot be edited because all of the records are not stored in the same format. The more modern formats are editable, the older ones are not. Converting the format takes time.

      Other records may have legal encumbrances on them preventing us from making changes to the indexed data.

      If it was a simple problem, it would have been solved years ago.
    • "Some of them cannot be edited because all of the records are not stored in the same format. ... Converting the format takes time"
      Ah - OK - never thought of that one, although since some collections are portmanteau collections (there I go borrowing words again...) it's perhaps not surprising in retrospect if there are internal inconsistencies.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned