Why do people use women's married names in their family tree?

[Jebber]

I stick to birth surnames, and if I don't know the birth surname I leave the surname field blank.

If someone who is a blood relation marries more than once I add a new marriage. If they have an illegitimate child, in effect I create a new marriage but I put 'Not married' in the marriage date field.

If someone who is not a blood relation is married to spouses other than blood relations, or has illegitimate children by someone who is not a blood relation, I don't create a new marriage, but I do include information about the previous or subsequent marriages in the notes about that person - name, date of marriage, names and birth years of any children etc.

That is exactly what I do, it keeps the records perfectly clear and uncluttered.

I also include details of the parentage of the spouse in their notes unless subsequent research shows there is another connection through intermarriage within the family.

Jebber

[Forfarian]

Something that bugs me is the insistence on knowing whether a mature lady is 'Miss' or 'Mrs'.

In almost every European language except English, the term corresponding to 'Miss' is used only for a young unmarried woman.

I think we have to take the blinkers off, and try not to see this in a modern 'feminist'  way.

I find that remark rather offensive. You are presumably a man and have never experienced this sort of inquisition when trying to make a purchase or arrange an appointment or book a hotel.

In the period we research, a woman's position in society was often defined by her man, so switching from Miss to Mrs often brought some status, or at least a sense of position.

Yes, that is so. The fact that it was so does not mean that it was right or just. You might as well say that in the period we research little boys were forced to climb chimneys and little girls to crawl under dangerous machinery in factories, so it's acceptable to make them do that in the here and now.

The title Miss may also have shown whether a young woman was marriageable, without having to ask the question.

That was the case in polite nineteenth century society in England. It doesn't give anyone the right to pry into the marital status of a mature lady in the 21st century, especially when speakers of languages other than English can apparently manage their affairs quite adequately without doing so.

Many of us may remember one of Dick Emery's (1970 drag) characters who always answered 'Miss' when addressed as Mrs, following it with the catch-phrase 'oooh, you are awful, but I like you' ?

I remember that. I also remember cringing with embarrassment every time I saw him in that role, even when I was quite a young child. It was an utterly ghastly, repulsive and extremely cruel caricature.

[clairec666]

On my tree I put the woman's surname in brackets unless I know for sure it is her maiden name - e.g. if John Smith married Mary, I would enter her as Mary (Smith), if I worked out that John Smith married Mary Jones but Mary was a widow, I would enter her as Mary (Jones). It makes it easy to spot who needs researching further.

I like that approach, using brackets to indicate that you still haven't found the original maiden name. I tried something similar using uppercase, but wasn't consistent and got myself totally confused !

In your example, presumably if you then discovered that her maiden name was Brown you'd record her as simply Mary Brown* (without any brackets). So if you'd recorded John Smith's wife was Mary Smith (no brackets) that would indicate that Smith was her maiden name as well as her married name ?


*But wouldn't you then lose your record of any intermediate name, such as your Mary (Jones) ?

Yes, if John Smith married Mary Smith I would record her as Mary Smith with no brackets. If Mary Brown married William Jones and then John Smith, I would mention it in her "notes" section so it isn't lost, along with names of children from that marriage (which might be useful in future if they're named on her will, for example, but I don't add them to my tree since they're not really related).

Anyhow, I've got far fewer "surnames in brackets" thanks to the GRO index

[Andrew Tarr]

In the period we research, a woman's position in society was often defined by her man, so switching from Miss to Mrs often brought some status, or at least a sense of position.

Yes, that is so. The fact that it was so does not mean that it was right or just. You might as well say that in the period we research little boys were forced to climb chimneys and little girls to crawl under dangerous machinery in factories, so it's acceptable to make them do that in the here and now. 

I don't think I have suggested that anything was 'right or just', or the opposite for that matter.  I don't research the past making value judgments about how our ancestors behaved - that was how they did, it was 'convention' at the time, and I'm sure we have all learnt from it.  Please don't presume or attribute feelings or intentions, based purely on your own viewpoint.  After all, we started out discussing names in family trees, not present-day difficulties when filling in forms?

[Forfarian]

We did indeed.

[Sloe Gin]

Something that bugs me is the insistence on knowing whether a mature lady is 'Miss' or 'Mrs'....

 .... Only in English is one ever asked for personal details like, 'Are you or have you ever been married?', before one can make an appointment or order an item in a shop.

That's not what's being asked though.  They are asking which title you wish to be known by.  Any woman can opt for being Miss, Mrs or Ms.  They're all versions of 'Mistress' really.

I don't think one can make an assumption from a preferred title.  I've known quite a few divorced women who have reverted to being "Miss Maidenname", and plenty of married women continue to use their single names. 

[ReadyDale]

I don't think I have suggested that anything was 'right or just', or the opposite for that matter.  I don't research the past making value judgments about how our ancestors behaved - that was how they did, it was 'convention' at the time, and I'm sure we have all learnt from it.

I agree. Someone more wise the me once wrote "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". We should not judge, just note the differences and learn from history. After all, who are we to judge? Whilst not old, I have been on this world long enough to see things that were (at the time) taken as normal, come to be regarded as odd, repugnant or even illegal in some cases. And have therefore often wondered which conventions we regard as quite acceptable today, will be equally "out of favour" a few decades.
To the original point of the thread, I record women by their recorded birth name, as that tends to be more consistent. If you opt for a married name, then as has been pointed out, you have women who revert to maiden names (for whatever reason - divorce, separation, desertion, widowhood, because they want to, etc), some who don't, etc, etc. Also, if you refer to the married name, do you always pick the first one, the last one, the one that relates to your tree, even if it was (say) the second marriage of three. This can all produce inconsistency and make match up with related trees tricky.
But each to their own i guess.

[Rosinish]

Without sounding anything other than 'sensible'....

I agree with everyone who uses women's maiden names in their tree.

Her maiden name is never likely to change (unless adopted or similar)

We have all come across people who have remarried but in my eyes it's part & parcel of the fun of genealogy.

I love crosswords but often have to refer to a dictionary & I see this as a similar thing to genealogy.

We do our research, we hit brick walls & yes we sometimes have to look for help, in my case that would be my genealogy dictionary (Rootschat) 

Annie

[Billyblue]

"My genealogy dictionary (Rootschat)"
Love it!
I must remember that term for when I am expounding the value of Rootschat to others.

      
Dawn M