Updating Finnish Surnames in Wiki
I have been working on Finnish genealogy for many years, and have been taught by my relatives, including a genealogist cousin in Finland and others on other genealogical sites, that the proper nomenclature for surnames is both patronymic name and farm name/family name as the last name. It seems that most individuals I've interacted with on this site agree with this, as that's how almost ALL Finnish individuals have been entered.
However, there has been one individual going against this, stating that he has been taught that it's only patronymic, and deleting both names and alternate names with farm/family names involved. Interactions with him show he is only concerned about the names, rather than the full profile or any other Finnish research.
It seems as the Finnish Wiki page has conflicting thoughts on this.
My concern about having only patronymic is the incorrect merges that occur. I have literally spent hundreds of hours on correcting incorrect merges because newcomers to the site think that there is only one "Matti Juhonpoika" or "Matt Johansson" in all of Finland, and start merging them all together, ending up with one Matti with tens of wives...then start on other individuals. This has happened more times than I'd like to count, and is a huge headache to sort out.
Including the farm name/family name in the last name field, in addition to the patronymic, helps the name stand out, helps to possibly alleviate incorrect merges, and helps those of us trying to correct incorrect merges trace where everything went awry, including making it easier to determine whose children belong to whom.
In addition, in order to respect the Finnish culture, the name should be in Finnish, not Swedish. Adding the Swedish name to the alternative names is highly encouraged, if not required, for proper research. The Swedish name is not their given name, nor should it be the main name.
Could this be something the Finnish genealogical community could all align with on this site? I don't believe it's an unreasonable ask, not to mention is something the majority of researchers having been using - both across FamilySearch, as well as other genealogical sites.
項留言
-
Thanks for your comments about your concerns with naming Finns in the FamilySearch Tree. I am sure it is a problem for many people.
I am going to ask if @Heidi Kuosmanen could give us her thoughts on this issue.
0 -
Problems of recorded names and ethnicity:
As one who myself have ancestors from Finland in the late 1600 - early 1800's, there is the problem of not knowing whether the individuals were ethnic Swedes or ethnic Finns, when church book are in Swedish in certain parishes and in Finnish in other parishes.
My point is it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell how people self-identified from the church book as it was written by the priests in either one or the other language, that the common people had no control over.
You mention "in order to respect Finnish culture" -> Swedish is still an official language in Finland and 300.000 finns still speak Swedish as a mothers tongue (a very distinct dialect) and identifies as ethnically Swedes that are Finns (nationally).
Scandinavians (ethnically meant) have settled modern Finland from the west and what we today call Finns settled from the east (from Karelia/Estonia) during the last ca. 2000 years (and probably even more for both groups?). In the viking/medieval age what the peoples of Scandinavian named "Finns" actually denotes Sami people, not modern ethnic Finns. Ethnic Scandinavian on the western shores of the Gulf of Bothnia probably go 2000 years back in time as modern Finnish actually retains some words loaned from the Proto-germanic language, so there is provable contact 2000 years ago.
In those day "land divided and sea united". It took ages to move over land, whereas going by ship was fast.
Today people see masses of land borders with oceans surrounding it as properly being one nation. In former times it was reverse. If you looked over the sea towards a landmass, it was likely the one feeling closest to you. Those living inland were far away travel wise. [Where sea united in former times: Wales/Cornwall-Bretagne; Ulster-Scotland, Denmark-England, West side of Gulf of Bothnia-East Side of Gulf of Bothnia]
------------------
Names used differently than now:
Factually your "de jure" name was what the priest wrote into the church book when you were born, and that was most often in older times only a first name.
The "de facto" name in the community was what other people called you - could be a patronym, a topographical, occupational or have been a nickname, that you yourself either agreed with or not.
That is why one can see variations between church books (what the priest meant your name was) and the census (where people were asked about what their name was).
Common people in Scandinavia & Finland DID NOT HAVE SURNAMES back then. It is a German custom introduced by Scandinavian Kings and Nobles of German origin. [I will mention the exception of eastern-finnish clan-surnames in the end]
Common people were identified from among each other with patronymics, toponymics and nicknames, but these are not surnames (as the idea of a surname is that it is inherited to the next generation -> what in Danish is called "Slægtsnavn", Swedish "Släktnamn", any Finns can correct me if "Sukunimi" is the correct word in this context).
Denmark is the first country in the North to get a name law:
In 1526 all nobles were required to use a surname (from the German model) and some Danish nobles resisted that. Christen Thomesen refused until his death in 1659 to use his required noble surname of "Sehested", to signal that he was of proud Danish nobility and not being German.
Struensee (a german) introduced a name law for Slesvig-Holsten in 1771, that surnames were required.
Rest of Denmark got its name law in 1828 and the use of surnames were EXTREMELY unpopular. So where the King had wanted to force people to take on a surname (so you could actually distinguish against people), most people decided to use a patronym as their surname, which meant that 80% of the whole population had a -sen surname, some used double -sen names and all out confusion ensued, where nobody knew what to call people.
I have seen parishes in Northern Jutland where true patronymics are used into the 1880's - where the local priests actually supported the locals NOT to write a surname into the church book.
In Sweden originally only German immigrants used surnames and Swedish nobles were forced in 1626 to use surnames. In the mid 1700's more people in the towns (burghers = merchants and craftsmen) had taken up the use of surnames, but we have to go to mid-1800's before people in rural areas started using surnames and we have to go the start of the 1900's before the use of surnames were common all over Sweden.
It is first in 1963 that people in Sweden were forced to take a surname and the use a patronyms were forbidden - which is extremely late!
Finland actually got a law of forced surname already in 1921!!
In eastern Finland you did have the use of "clan" surnames in the areas under orthodox influence (especially in Savolax & Karelia) from the middle ages onwards! But that is NOT a custom that goes for all ethnic Finns.
How to solves this:
Whenever you have a Finnish ancestor you use the following.
First name (Swedish and/or Finnish variant)
Patronymic (Swedish and/or Finnish variant)
Toponymic (given chronologically if they move from place to place).
Nicknames & Occupational names.
If actually east-finnish clan-surnames, these can be used (but beware that these can also be adopted names, not given at birth).
And this goes for all of Scandinavia/Finnish genealogy : Always write the woman's birth name -> remember that in a patronymic system women do NOT change names when married, as you don't get a new father.
The changes of women's name when married is new (and probably german influence as well). In Denmark for instance the automatic change to a woman's name first became a law in 1961, but women could still keep her name if she declared the wish to do so, before the marriage took place].
But generally: If you want to do any Scandinavian genealogy then you simply have to keep all the above in mind.
Genealogical search engines are based for modern international audiences, but I totally agree that searching for Finnish names are very tricky, when the search machines will "force" one name as the surnames; where the search engine should ideally have boxes for first name, patronymic, toponymic, occupational name, nicknames and "släktnamn" (real surnames).
0 -
One comment here. I am a native Finn and a professional researcher in Finland.
Finland is very difficult when it comes to the naming practice because it is different than in Scandinavian or Continental Europe. Also some Finnish researchers are some what divided what comes how names should be used. I try to stay on the middle.
Finland had two main naming practices.
In the eastern Finland common people did have surnames, real family names. My family name, Kuosmanen, is one of those.
In the western Finland common people did not have surnames. Instead they were known after the farm where they lived and that name changed every time when they moved. These people were identified also with their patronymic. Patronymic was not a name either, it was an attribute which was used with the first name.
If person did have the real surname, like in the east or as merchants, craftsmen, soldiers or nobility, surname should be used as a last name and patronymic should not be used. However if patronymic is recorded with surname, that name variation should be added as an alternate name.
If person did not have a real surname, patronymic should be used.
Every other name variations should be added as alternate names because those names were used at some place. Like if person was identified with farm name in some records, every farm name should be used separately and the source should be added accordingly. But because some researchers if Finland use farm name as a person's last name, it can be done, but it is not preferred way. However if person lived on several farms during lifetime and was known with several farm names, those names should not ever be used in same name. Preferred way is to use first name and patronymic name and then add all those farm names as residence locations with those years when person lived on any farm. Also if you want to use farm name as a surname how do you decide which farm name to use, birth farm maybe? On these cases it might cause confusion if father had one farm name and then his children are recorded with several other farm names.
Well known Finnish name researcher Sirkka Paikkala has suggested that on those cases where family lived on the same farm at least three generations, then farm name be considered to be like family name and can be used as such.
What comes to the first name, not always the name on the birth record was really used, for example some times names were written in Latin form.
People who lived in the middle, east and south east where Finnish speaking. Only some nobility or clergy where Swedish speaking. Those people where known with their real Finnish names and not with those Swedish names which where used in records. Only problem is that with early Finns we can only guess what their Finnish names were because several Finnish names can have same Swedish translation.
Many people who lived in south or west Finland where Swedish speaking as there are many in nowadays. But still most peasants who lived more inland mainly in Ostrobothnia area were Finnish speaking.
For these reasons it is fine if someone wants to use Finnish names for those persons who lived before records were recorded in Finnish language. But in these cases it is vital to add all different name variation in Swedish as alternate names.
Lastly when you use FamilySearch you can not say that I am doing in some way because it is done that way on some other genealogical program. Every genealogical program is different and their functions are different. Some programs allow you to add only one name, while FamilySearch allows and really wants that you add separately all name variations. Also you can choose the language which the name is written. It was not like this on previous times. Some time ago also in FamilySearch you could add only one name and that made people to add all known names into one field, but not anymore. Also there is only one genealogical program on the whole world which allows you to add patronymic name into a separate field as it should be added and that program is the only fully Finnish one.
I am discussing little bit of this subject in one of my this year's Rootstech video, if you want to watch. https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/challenges-in-finnish-family-history-research
0 -
So we are basically in agreement; Heidi.
Though it would say that what is used in Western Finland is not at all different from what you see in Denmark (and all of Scandinavia used patronymics) -> but especially with names following the farm, so changing name when changing farm is also seen some places in Denmark - on Falster for instance!
My Finnish ancestry from the area north of Oulu (primarily Pudasjärvi & Kuivaniemi) and have been generally given patronymics in Swedish and farm names in Finnish by the priests in the church books. Sometimes the names are all latinised, (which you also see in Denmark depending on the whims of the priest).
[Some of these (by me) supposed farm names could be actual surnames; I just don't know enough to make that assessment; but I do see some changing names over time, so that must be a change of farm names].
So for me it is probably impossible to know whether my ancestry were ethnic Swedish or ethnic Finns, since the first names and patronymics are written in Swedish and even though the topographic names are in Finnish, the name follows the farm, not the ethnicity/language-use of the current inhabitants.
This is why I objected to an "automatic signing" of ethnicity to Finnish and the changing of name from Swedish to Finnish.
The location (Pudasjärvi especially) makes it very likely my ancestors were ethnic finns; but you would be surprised how much people moved in former times. Location in itself is no proof, just increased likelihood.
So I will just conclude that only certain people (and certain places like eastern Finland) had surnames up until modern times.
I agree with Heidi you should use the patronymic as a surname substitute, if you don't have an actual real surname; but then use it as it appears in the official historical documents!
Any automatic translation to Finnish patronymics is based on a modern assumption.
0 -
My relatives in western Finland (Alavus and Seinajoki regions) have ALWAYS used the full Finnish name in the genealogy - patronymic, followed by farm name (in some cases, multiple - separated by a comma). This is echoed across FamilySearch entries (noted in the change history) as well as on other genealogical sites (including Geni, which does not have a separate field for patroynmic). So, I politely disagree in that western Finlanders only used patronymics.
And yes, agree that they didn't not have "surnames", which is why I referenced "farm names". This is a common practice, and should not be ignored. Typically, commas are used in between the farm names to ensure each are documented; this helps with determining where the individual lived, who they were married to, etc.
Here's where the real issue lies; there are individuals who insist on changing names in my family tree to:
- Remove the family/farm name, leaving the patroynmic
- Remove the patronymic, leaving the family/farm name
- Add the patronymic to the first name field
- Change the name to Swedish
I cannot have all these names coexist! These individuals can be rather vindicitive, deleting the alternative names that include vital information.
As I stated, I have corrected HUNDREDS of merges from individuals who do not read the farm/family name, and then we get a "Matti Juhonpoika/Johansson" merged with many "Kaisa/Catherine Matintytär Mattsson". This takes HOURS to figure out/unmerge, and is such a headache.
Can we align on one common nomenclature? A last name that include patronymic, followed by family name/farm names, all in Finnish? With alternative names including the Swedish variation, the multiple "surnames", etc.? I feel this offers middle ground to those that insist on one or the other (see the bulletpoints), and also allows merging to more easily occur. We cannot ignore the fact that the family tree constantly has new users, those that are untrained and make uneducated decisions.
I just want some resolution. This has caused me much anguish, frustration, and tears, to see the hard work of many, many researchers disappear. I know @Gordon Collett, @MaureenE123, @Gail Swihart Watson all echo my concerns - as Gail pointed out, there is so much history embedded in those farm names, that they should not be ignored.
0 -
I don't think we will ever get to one common nomenclature because history was never that simple. To illustrate from the Norwegian relatives of my wife. Take just the small community of Stord whose current population is less than 20,000 and was far smaller in the mid-1850s.
In Norway up until some naming laws were passed about 1929, there were four different types of last names:
Patronymics - father's name appended with -son/-søn/-sen or -dotter/datter (depending on whether you were using Norwegian or were a priest using Danish) which would change each generation. Used by the poorer classes, tradesmen, and non-landowers.
Fixed patronymics - a last ending in -sen used for both men and women that used to be a patronymic but froze at one point and became permanent down the generations. Used by the middle class such as merchants.
Farm name - a last name which was one's current farm residence if one owned the farm. Not generally used by renters but could be. Changed every time one moved but since these people owned their property, they did not move very often.
Family names - last names with functioned as standard last names do today in the US and what many people refer to as surnames. A name that went down through the family for generations. Used by the wealthy or upper class. (Note that Family Tree does not have a field labeled Surname, just the one labeled Last Name.)
You could take one year of the Stord parish register from the 1850s, maybe a hundred births or so, and find all four types of names:
Hans Jakobsson - a fisherman. His father was Jakob and his sons and daughters will be Hanssons and Hansdatters
George Andersen - the son of a store keeper in the one town in the municipality. His father's last name was Andersen, all of his children, both boys and girls, will be Andersens.
Jon Olsson Høyland - owner of Høyland farm. His sons and daughters are all Høylands. One of his sons marries a daughter on the Vikanes farm which she inherits so that son moves there and takes the name Vikanes. One of his daughters marries a man from the Økland farm. But he moves to Høyland and takes over part of the farm so she remains a Høyland. (I'll just mention that parish registers of Stord in the late 1700s recorded fathers with first names and last names which were farm names and did not include patronymics.)
Albrikt Akselsson Hagerup is the local magistrate. His family has been Hagerups for centuries and always will be. If his daughter falls in love with a local farmer and marries him, moving to the Økland farm, she be seen in every record after that as Ingeborg Albriktsdatter Økland born Hagerup.
Each of these names tells you a whole story regarding the person's life and social status and is critical information to include in their name just like it is included in the records, the real records, not the indexed records that drop not only name information but also residence information and other important information about the person.
In any event, if just couple of pages of parish records shows a variety of nomenclature, we can't expect any type of made-up "standard" to be sufficient for centuries of records or to express the individuality of each of our ancestors. Getting to know a bit of history, really becoming familiar with records, working to create a picture of our ancestors' lives and trying to determine how a person would have introduced himself or herself if we met then on the street is part of family history and part of properly recording names. That is why I like the flexibility of current First Name / Last Name structure of Family Tree along with ability to enter just as many alternate names as needed.
1 -
FamilySearch has a single worldwide family tree. We can not speak of "my tree". If we select one of our ancestor who lived in 1600's or 1700's and look the descendants of that ancestor we can found thousands of living people. All those thousands of people have their own opinions. For that reason we should be careful not to say that something is "always" or "never" and "in everywhere" done in specific way, because that is not true. Like wise we should not say that only patronymic name was used or insist that a farm name should always be added to the name. People and their situations were different back then as it is today. There is no single way to add names. We should do our best in research to know how every person was identified. I know that it is hard but we should not copy the names and other information directly from some other genealogical programs or books without checking the original historical records.
Every genealogical program has its own characteristics. We should not say that because something is done in some way in other program, then it must be done similarly in FamilySearch. Naming is one of those characteristics. In FamilySearch we should add all different name variations found in historical records as different names. Adding commas or other characters which do not belong to the name is not the proper way.
If person was marked with the farm name, patronymic, or some other additional identifier added to his/her first name in any historical record, then those names can and should be used also in FamilySearch. We should not invent any names or any other information. I have never seen in any historical record that several farm names have been used to identify some person at the same time. Of course if some has found such case, I am more that happy to know about that. Like Gordon mentioned just above, I also like very much the ability to enter just as many alternate names as needed.
Person who lived in Finland in Finnish speaking area, his or her name found in historical record written in Swedish can be translated to Finnish if the Swedish name is added also as an additional name. There is a quite certain way to know if the area was Finnish speaking; if the farm names were written in Finnish then people of that are most likely were Finnish speaking.
I have also unmerged hundreds of bad merges done by users who were looking only names. Name is still not the place where to add other information. Adding identifiers to the name which were actually not used, is a wrong way. We should learn and then teach other users to use place names for determining where the individual lived in any given time. We should teach other users to look every given information and not just names before we do any merges. FamilySearch users have different levels of knowledge. We should be patient and kind to other FamilySearch users while they are learning, even they do mistakes. I can acknowledge that I have also done mistakes and bad merges when I was learning.
When we add information into FamilySearch Family Tree we should always add also the source from where the information like name can be found.
1 -
Heidi.
I found this in "Dansk Navneskik (1899)" where a young farmworker in vest Jutland was known by all in the community as:
"Mads Knattrup Jestrup Søndergaard Østergaard Vestergaard Christensen."
All the bold names are the places he had worked!
Source (original page 28): https://slaegtsbibliotek.dk/900770.pdf
Otherwise I can just add to Gordon Collets great post about the usage in Norway with some info about Denmark.
The big survey done in the late 1890's for "Dansk Navneskik" makes for remarkable reading:
They state (shockingly for our modern sensibilities) the fact, that in many parishes around Denmark NOBODY knew other peoples baptismal names (except maybe an old school-teacher)! We are not talking 1600-1700 hundreds we are talking 1890's!
Even officials can't find people (or only with huge difficulty) and letters arrive to the wrong people, if baptismal are used and not the name everyone in the community know them by!
"Fra mange Steder haves der Vidnesbyrd om, at end
ikke de nærmeste Naboer kende en Mands fulde Døbenavn.
Ofte er en ældre Skolelærer den eneste, der har sikker Rede
paa Egnens dobbelte System af Efternavne. Flere af vore
Meddelere udtale, at den fremmede, der opsøger en Person
efter hans Døbenavn, har store Vanskeligheder ved at
finde ham (Silkeborg, Himmerland, Vendsyssel). Andre
klage over, at Brevene gaa til de urette Personer, naar der kun
staar Døbenavne paa dem (Aarhus, Djursland, Færøerne)."
Source (original page 13): https://slaegtsbibliotek.dk/900770.pdf
How you used other names than your first name (which for a long time was the ONLY baptismal name):
"Her skal endnu gøres Rede for Tilnavnets daglige
Plads og Brug. Tilnavnet er i Folkets Mund kun knyttet
til Fornavnet, som jo i ældre Tid var det eneste Døbenavn.
Navne som „Hansen Tølløse“, „Andersen Rosendal“ og „Høg
Hansen“ tilhøre udelukkende den moderne Bykultur.
Over hele Danmark træffer man som det hyppigste eller
i hvert Fald som det mest anerkendte, at Tilnavnet sættes
umiddelbart efter Fornavnet: Jens Due. Man holder
efter Fædrenes Skik ikke meget af flere Fornavne; skulle
de bruges, vil man udelade Tilnavnet og blot sige „Jens
Kristian“ (nødig „Jens Kristian Due“)".
Source (original page 31): https://slaegtsbibliotek.dk/900770.pdf
NB: But in many places children (and sometimes until they married) had the added name BEFORE the baptismal first name [for instance Rosendal-Morten] - this is regarded as the older model by the scholars.
The variation in use of names, beside the first name, within Denmark is simply enormous!
The use of first name followed by BOTH patronymic and placename/nickname as a way of introducing yourself was something ONLY observed in the modern cities, not among the rural population.
But as they would sometimes call themselves firstname + placename/nickname OR firstname + patronym -> WE as genealogists have to get ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, if we are to trace them in the sources.
What they called themselves we will never know (unless we have letters), because what is in the church books says nobody but the priest knew -> and I don't think it was different from Denmark in rural Norway, Sweden or Finland. Nicknames ruled
In actuality it was what the community called them, because nobody cared back then, what you wanted to call yourself and if you tried to enforce your own importance you would be knocked down a peg with a new nickname -> for instance something like "VigtigPer" eller "Karl Smart" [Importance-Peder and Smart Karl, even if your names where not Peder/Per or Karl)] or even "Jeppe på Bjerget" if the locals knew Holberg's comedy.
-----------------------
Then we have workplace names - which was how all people talked to each other internally. Very fast a new arrival would get a nickname that often would stick throughout their working life among their colleagues.
Here is a list of how "malersvende" [painter journeymen] knew each other in 1935:
I like "The Coloured Cod" & "The Harem Director". Pomadedrengen [translated in meaning for those who have seen "O brother were art thou" -> "The Dapper Dan Man"].
See page 8-10: https://tidsskrift.dk/folkogkultur/article/download/65713/94643
NB: In my school years in the 80's it was still common in society -> then people started to change as these custom began more and more to be viewed negatively.
Many people would never even know their coworkers baptismal names!! My grandfather [a painter] had a close friend call "Smeden" [the smith] and I never knew his real name!
Weymans article on Nicknames among the Frederiksberg Brandvæsen [Firemen of Frederiksberg]
Source: https://kbhbrandmuseum.dk/oegenavne-blandt-brandfolkene/
0 -
Thank you Niels, so some really were recorded with all working places.
"Mads Knattrup Jestrup Søndergaard Østergaard Vestergaard Christensen."
All the bold names are the places he had worked!
In this case this name should be added to the Family Tree as an alternate name. But I doubt that he was ever called that name when he was alive. He might have been called like Mads fra Vestergaard.
In Finland it is quite impossible to know how Finnish speaking were called because their names were written mainly in Swedish form, and sometimes also in Latin, German or Russian. If person lived at that time when during their lifetime the records where changed to Finnish, we can get a clue how they might have been really know. But I must emphasize that even then we can only guess how they were really called. For example birth record name was Johannes, in Communion book his name was written in Swedish as Johan and in one Finnish communion book his name was Juho, in other Juha and in other Juhana. How we can tell which was his real name if we do not have personal family information like my great grandfather, He was called as Rikhard (Swedish name) in every record and he did not like if someone called him for example as Riku, he really was Rikhard and he was born to Finnish speaking family where everyone spoke Finnish for all known generations even the village names and church records were written in Swedish at first.
For this reason we can only record all different name variations found in historical records and hearsay nicknames as separate names. Then it will be easier to identify the person, his relationships and trace them in sources.
0 -
Heidi:
Actually this was the name he was called locally in the community -> but it would not be the name entered into any official documents (such as church books). In the church book he was probably just Mads Christensen. [They only reason we know this was because of the survey done in the late 1890 where they asked people around Denmark, what they actually called people and the customs and reason why]
You totally have a point with translating names from one language to another can cause huge problems. Some parents do actually give "foreign" names to their children. Actually quite often the "prestige version" will be the official and a familial used among family and friends [though not in Rikhard's case]. What is the prestige language can change a lot through time, so such usage have historical importance as well.
------------------------------
When countries split is gets really messy with ancestors......
The Slesvig-Holsten case: You had ethnic Germans speaking German as their mothers tongue who identified as Danish - "Ich Bin ein Däne". You had ethnic Danish farmers, who had lived there for several centuries, that decided they were German, even if Danish was their mothers tongue.
With the amount of ancestors we have no clue how they self-identified even though they were 100% one ethnicity.
When Denmark and Norway split [no longer a dual Kingdom] you had a number of ethnic Norwegian officers that stayed loyal to "King and Country". Two of them Schleppegrell and Rye are among the biggest Danish war heroes in the fight against the German 30 years later -> and they are Norwegians, with Norway now ruled by a Swedish monarch, but they fight for the Danes against Germans, in a territory both formerly under the Danish monarch as the Duke of Slesvig-Holsten...[self identification is complicated]
"Gå til Ryes Brigader" is still a saying in Denmark of dying through warfare.
General Rye has the first recorded ski jumping measurement as a young officer! Does that mean that the first ski jumping world record is Danish or Norwegian? (or both?). He measured 9,5 meter in 1808 in Eidsberg [so before the split of Denmark and Norway as dual kingdoms]. What counts? What he thought of himself (at that point in time, or later in time)?
----------------------------
The problems of entries in church books:
It is also important that the priests in earlier times had to pay for their own ink and paper and would try to save space as much as possible. They would try to save space by keeping names as short as possible (sometimes in extreme cases even only stating the fathers first name and the baptised child's first name, but it was much more common to leave the mother's name out entirely).
The priests survived on the money they received from conducting baptisms, marriages and burials (and their own Præstegård (priest-farm). Priests in lean parishes could and did die of starvation. Some parishes has "annex-parishes" so the priests could get income for two parishes.
I could easily envision the situation where a person paid handsomely for the priests services (basically always the case with the nobility) then the priest would "sacrifice" extra ink and space in the church book - full names, place and occupation; whereas when people paid the minimum they also got minimum information inked down.
------------------------------
The point of genealogy:
So any premise of using official documents to debate "what they called themselves" is a misunderstanding that people had any control over what the priests wrote down. Think of it: How many people have seen their own entry in a church book?? The church books were a state archive, it never had any open public function.
If you needed a certificate you would apply to a priest who would make it and send it to a priest in another parish, but you would never see the church book entry yourself. That name was rarely the basis for what you were called in the community - except for the baptismal first name that were said by the priests at the baptism ceremony. [Unless we do have textual evidence that priests proclaimed FULL names at the ceremony in Finland in former times?] Again how many people remember their own baptism......
We use the names in the official documents to trace people through the archives to create a time-line of ancestors as it was "de jure" - what society legally decided.
Classical genealogy: Using historical documents.
Genetic genealogy: Using genetics.
These two will probably not create the same ancestral trees in many cases!
Historical documents will give "de jure" fathers of children were genetic genealogy will give "de facto" fathers of children.
Actual lived reality can diverge from either: You can have people gossiping so that "everyone knows" that Peter is the **** child of Hans. Official documents "de jure" says it was Jørgen, while genetics say it was "de facto" Søren.
Classical genealogy always follows the "de jura" legal decision. We are not creating a "real" ancestral time-line; before we can correct it with information from genetic genealogy, that slowly gets better and better.
So when we are entering names into a database; it should in my opinion always be based on what the documents actually says - because it was historically recorded. If we have a baptism where father and mother is stated; it should never be corrected , even if we later learn from genetics that the actual biological father was another man.
Then we can privately change it all the way we want -> some might even traces families through adopted children; others might not.
0 -
I'd like to go back for the moment to the issue of commas in names mentioned earlier. Through the years, various type of symbols, codes, standards, and abbreviations have been used to record names in an attempt to deal with the limitations of paper forms with a single line for names and the early computer programs that tried to mimic them. This has been through the use of parenthesis, back slashes, capitalization and other methods. I've never heard of the use of commas to designate changing names before. Fortunately, in Family Tree we are no longer bound by past artificial attempts using various non-intuitive shorthand methods that had to be explained before you had any idea what they meant because we now have all the room in the world to correctly show names and explain what every part of the name is. We can be clear and accurate and not try to mash a ton of information into one short line. We never again will have to try to figure out what a secret code in a name means.
Honestly, which of the following two ways to record names is best?
Previous "standard:"
New ability to be legible and straightforward:
The other great thing about Family Tree is that the record hint and possible duplicate routines that have gotten very good, look all all names on the Family Tree profile when searching for other records. They will find records for every name listed above for Zippy. If every name is combined together in a way that would never be found in any record, those routines will not find any records.
1 -
Gordon - this "new ability" does look very helpful.
You can retain name combinations you actually find in the records, without piling them all together, which, as you say, would never be found in any record.
0
