RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: mickmack1942 on Sunday 29 August 21 12:45 BST (UK)
-
I have been cleaning my ancestry surmane list and came across the family name
Trusler and Trussler that has been recorded, the clergy has written both in the
course of BMD's even for the same family, upto date they are both recorded in
the civil reg index, there seems to be just as many with one S as against SS, any
way to keep things tidy what would one suggest to use, or am I just being picky
unnecessarily, just take one spelling and run with that....
Foot note..
may be only the first name, date, and location of event is most important...
-
Scotland's People indexes different spellings differently. Half of my wife's tree come from Scotland. For the most part they are MacLeods. But they are also M'Leods, or M'cLeods, or MaCleod. Each spelling has to be searched separately.
If you do a fuzzy search you will end up with Truscots as well. I would record each one as it was spelled.
Regards
Chas
-
Please remember - spelling was an art-form; not a science! ;D ;D
On the Isle of Man, the "M" or Mc" was dropped - so many Manx surnames begin with "C", "K" or "Q" ;)
-
Hi. I see your points but also the ancestry researching for distant family relatives
is not a legal requirment, so precise recording would not be required, like if looking
close family where the name probably had to be tight, so like Mr Trusler/or and or Mr
Trussler would probably have to be required,
In the past the oddity of clergy spelling due to writing what they hear, as against
the family only knowing what there name sounded like with local dialect, so one BP is with
'SS' and the next family member recorded is with a single 'S ' does it matter in family
history that far back were this family is 1700/50 , some thing to mull over possibly...
-
Hi. I see your points but also the ancestry researching for distant family relatives
is not a legal requirment, so precise recording would not be required, like if looking
close family where the name probably had to be tight, so like Mr Trusler/or and or Mr
Trussler would probably have to be required,
In the past the oddity of clergy spelling due to writing what they hear, as against
the family only knowing what there name sounded like with local dialect, so one BP is with
'SS' and the next family member recorded is with a single 'S ' does it matter in family
history that far back were this family is 1700/50 , some thing to mull over possibly...
Not necessarily, I have a marriage certificate where the groom's surname was spelt 5 different ways.
-
I concur with that issue of the spelling i also have that especially way back in the past,
not only with the spelling its the appalling hand writing even with a quill feather for a
pen, and when the PR is closed with wet ink still on the page the mess is aw full, the name
is just a blob of ink, the photography of the old records in not helping, but from my
ancestry records I will simplify thing by using two SS's , thank to all for the help..
-
Please remember - spelling was an art-form; not a science! ;D ;D
Ironically, the title of this thread contains a typo. It's one I frequently make on here. :)
-
If you wish to "standardise" the spelling within your tree I would suggest that you note on each record the spelling that was used if it differs from your chosen spelling.
So you may choose to index everyone as Trussler but on an individual's records you might note that at baptism they were recorded as "Trusler" and at marriage they were recorded as "Trusslor".
That way if any issues arise in the future you can see where any discrepancies are.
-
Please remember - spelling was an art-form; not a science!
It is a mistake to imagine that there is one 'correct' spelling for a surname - or any other name for that matter. Everyday spellings only settled down after dictionaries were compiled (late C18?) and education slowly spread during C19. By then families had chosen, or been shown by clerics, what their surnames should look like, and they became attached to them like a badge.
Some variants diverged so far that it can be difficult to persuade their owners of a common ancestry. Some examples that spring to mind are Birkinshaw, Smirthwaite and Wolstenholme (Yorkshire): an MP has settled on Brokenshire (!), a businessman on Smurfit, and the golfer on Woosnam.
So you can suit yourself which version to choose; maybe best pick the one that occurs most often.
-
One Name Studies..thats the way I went also with other families, some names
are relative simple, all good fun 'hunt the thimble' name wise....the calligraphy
used by some clergy has showing some skill when one thinks they used simple
writing equipment like a bird feather.
-
If you wish to "standardise" the spelling within your tree I would suggest that you note on each record the spelling that was used if it differs from your chosen spelling.
So you may choose to index everyone as Trussler but on an individual's records you might note that at baptism they were recorded as "Trusler" and at marriage they were recorded as "Trusslor".
That way if any issues arise in the future you can see where any discrepancies are.
That’s what I have always done. I use the spelling as it is known today, but make a note if it differs in specific records.