Surname differences

[pinefamily]

Like most have already said, I use the name as it is today, and is the most common variant of the name. I always record any variations in records when I find them, as notes for the individual concerned.
But really, at the end of the day, you can record the name as you see fit, as long as you know your system of recording.

[Rosinish]

I have found a Holder/Holden/Holding, five generations back. All the same person, as I've established through comparing siblings, ages, spouse, place etc, but I'm none the wiser as to which is likely to be the correct name. Is the most recent record most likely to be correct, or is it just anybody's guess?

All would be correct according to who had written the docs. at the time as further back people were illiterate i.e. their names would come in variants depending on where they lived, their accents, how common/uncommon the name was in the area....too many to mention.

No hard & fast rule for how you record the name.
If you choose a particular spelling for 'continuity' you can add what their surname was on any docs. by yr...e.g..

Mellon...
DC 1947 Mallon
MC 1904 Mellin
1911 census Millan
BC 1880 Mellon

Those are a few examples of one of my surnames (not correct dates) i.e. I just add notes for whichever event.

Annie

[WirralWoman]

I'm new to the forum and am pleased to see I'm not alone when it comes to dealing with surname variations! I will persevere, and just keep a note of everything; thanks.

[brigidmac]

i want different Macdermid descendants to find me so occaissionally slip a siblimg ot 2 in with alternate spelling on my trees
1 australian branch have mostly dropped the a so are McDermids    and one Married a McDiarmid so DNA matches to that family will have McDiarmid blood

my father was very insistant about the Mac spelling despite his birth cert not having the a
his sister had been registered 3 years earlier by the same registar who got it right with MacD

Im annoyed his name is  mispelt on a 1938 record of students who boarded at a house called Mendips in Liverpool ..its now a national Trust House decorated as it would have been at the time .

[Treetotal]

In one of my lines the name Capes varies across records as Capes, Copes, Caper, Capen and Caps.
I stick with Capes which appears on BMDs but make a note of the variation in census returns.
The same goes for the Bucknall line that has the varying spellings of Bucknall, Bucknal Bucknel, Bucknell and Bucknole.
Carol

[Mart 'n' Al]

I have Loughboroughs in the Durham area but at some point one or more of them moved down the coast to Hull, and a misspelling at some point made two or more of the Hull branch of the family being Loughbrough. This misspelling seems to have survived, but it actually helps track the later movements of the Hull branch.

Martin

[Gadget]

Out of all the surnames that I have in my tree, the only one that hasn't varied is Jones, and even that eventually goes to the patronymic.

As others have said, it depended on who wrote the surname in the records, and how it was pronounced.

For example, one of my surnames is Mates. This only settled to that spelling in about 1820, Before that it was variously Mate, Meate, Meates, Meteah,  Meadow, Meath, Medes...... The line moved to North Wales in mid 1700s from Cheshire and, before that, from Ireland.

Gadget

added - this has encouraged me to go back and try to find out more!

[IJDisney]

I usually take three options.
1. The one they appear with at birth or marriage (depending on what info I have) since that usually covers the individuals and their parent(s) name.
2. I also look at all the variations in the name used throughout that individual's life and pick the most consistent one, even if it means siblings/cousins appear with different variants.
3. If I'm lucky I might find a signature, and that spelling will take precedence over no.2, but not always no.1

If I include a variant it appears in brackets or with a '/' or 'otherwise' on my tree. It just depends on what seems reasonable.

For example my Newman family descend from a man called Yeaman/Yeuman, whose father was called Yuman. It seems unlikely that he was originally called Newman, so I go with the name he appears with, not with the name his descendants had.

I do the same with another family called Pike, whose father appears as Pyke and grandfather as Picke, and greatgrandfather as Pike again. It might look messy when you have six siblings all with various spellings, but it illustrate how family research is rarely a neat and tidy process (much to the annoyance of search engine results!)

If I just use the name I think it was meant to be (or the name it developed into) someone coming later who might want to double check my details will be looking for someone under the wrong name.

[Josephine]

When it's just an issue of spelling variations, I pick the one that either was used most often or that relatives would recognize as belonging to our folks.

For example, my great-grandmother's maiden surname was spelled Pryde on all her documentation, so that's the spelling I use, even though if I go farther back in time I'll also find instances of it being spelled as Pride.

But there's always an exception (or two). One of my family surnames was changed in specific ways and then used that way henceforth by specific branches. For example, my great-grandfather finally settled on a specific spelling of his surname, and it's almost 100% guaranteed that anyone whose surname is spelled that way will be related to me. So for that surname, the different branches are assigned their own particular spellings.

When I'm transcribing records, of course, the transcripts reflect the way the names were spelled in the actual documents.

Regards,
Josephine