Multi Surnames. Why is it so ?

[Forfarian]

The fact that ROTSON is a form of ROBERTSON still leaves me to ask why would Alexander use his wife's name and not his own.

Maybe the clerk wrote it down wrong?

This is fromfamilysearch.com

See https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=714261.0

On Scotlands People, it states the details are from the Church Records which I'm attempting to attach but not having much luck as yet.

Those are not 'the details' any more than the corresponding index listing at FamilySearch contains 'the details'. That is the listing in the index. You need to look at the original document on SP to see 'the details', which may or may not contain information that is not in the index.

Before 1855, the church records are the only source of information. The majority of the surviving church records are available on Scotland's People.

[Geoff]

I know they are only the index detail for the record. But they do show you the detail of what type of record, the parish involved, their names both given and surname. and the year of the event.

The attachment was only to show the Surnames that are associated within this family then the next one was going to show how some of these different names were being used be Alexander in the next generation. Then again in the next. What is actually in the record has no bearing on what name is being used. I asked why would a person use one name then change it to another ?
If there is a reason or not why Robertson becomes Rotson or he changes his name to McGlashen after his grandmother. ?  Was this name changing a normal practice in Scotland at this time through the 18th century ?

Geoff

[Skoosh]

Depends what part of Scotland, in Shetland the surname changed with each generation & surnames were not a big deal in other places until it became necessary. In the Netherlands Napoleon forced the Dutch to use surnames. Getting hung-up on this Rotson business, when obviously it is a clerical shortcut, is a dead end. What did the folk call themselves & each other? is the question, they had no regard whatsoever in what some researcher made of their affairs 300 years hence! Some things you will just never know.

Skoosh.

[Rosinish]

I think the examples you use need to be more clear to us as all we see is different names, no context or what docs?

It's obvious to yourself who has the docs to look at whereas we have nothing to compare to make any assumption.


Annie

[Forfarian]

I know they are only the index detail for the record. But they do show you the detail of what type of record, the parish involved, their names both given and surname. and the year of the event.

But they don't show what other information is in the original, if any. For example the original may contain information about witnesses which could be a clue to other relationships.

[Liviani]

What record did Alexander appear in with the surname McGlashan?

It was quite common for children to be given a middle name being the surname of one of their grandparents or their mother's maiden name. This may or may not have been noted in the OPRs or even latterly in the statutory records and may only have "appeared" later on. So it's possible that when he is named as Alexander "McGlashan" that it's just his first names being mentioned. If his surname of Gow is missing, it could be a clerical error. I have had this in my own tree e.g. a Charles Henderson was registered at birth, a later RCE corrected the entry to state his actual name was Charles Henderson Small. With Henderson being  his middle name. So it's not unheard of for this to happen.

I think the most important thing to remember is that, OPR records aren't set in stone, for the most part they are generally correct, but the further back you go the looser the "rules" (by today's standards) become. In areas where a name is very common, people will casually be referred by another name. In one record their name will be spelt one way and in another a completely different way. This was largely to do with the lack of literacy in the general public, so names were written how they sounded and this varied by the writer. In regards to the McGlashan, it could be there were lots of Alexander Gow's in the area and he had to have an additional "identifier" so he became known as Alexander McGlashan? (Gow)

[Albufera32]

I think people are trying to be helpful but actually missing your actual question, so in an attempt to answer what I think you are asking, no it was not common practice for people to change their names or to have several different names.

What WAS common were clerical errors, misspellings, abbreviations (such as Rotson for Robertson) or other mistakes in the records. Especially given the custom of the naming traditions, it is hardly surprising that for example clerks sometimes muddled the names with previous generations or siblings. I for example have a sixth great grandmother Marion Wotherspoon whose name is spelt differently on all 8 of her children's birth registers. (It's actually quite impressive that the clerk could come up with 8 unique spellings of the same name.)

[Liviani]

I think people are trying to be helpful but actually missing your actual question, so in an attempt to answer what I think you are asking, no it was not common practice for people to change their names or to have several different names.

What WAS common were clerical errors, misspellings, abbreviations (such as Rotson for Robertson) or other mistakes in the records. Especially given the custom of the naming traditions, it is hardly surprising that for example clerks sometimes muddled the names with previous generations or siblings. I for example have a sixth great grandmother Marion Wotherspoon whose name is spelt differently on all 8 of her children's birth registers. (It's actually quite impressive that the clerk could come up with 8 unique spellings of the same name.)

I respectfully disagree there are other identifiers used in times gone by and they did vary.

It is especially important in regards to research not to focus on spelling. The name, verbally spoken between relatives will sound the same. There are no hard and fast rules regarding names when it comes to an OPR or other record. Over time, things became more standardised.

It's also important to ask what kind of records Alexander is recorded in. Was it a newspaper article? A Court record? Another OPR? All of these different type of records will affect what is written down. Nicknames were very common and in some areas so are By-names/T-Names. Some folk were identified by their residences. I read a newspaper article where someone is named "Auld Rashiebog". This is of course, not his "real" name, that was David Ogilvy, but he was known as Rashiebog in the community. That's what he called himself and this is what the newspaper article used as a name. If he moved to another farm it's entirely possible that the name switches to "Auld Netherton" for example.

I think we are thinking "too modern" in terms of names. In an ideal genealogical world, everyone would be named the same way throughout their lives. This just isn't the case the father back you go. There are many different names used, even in records. This wouldn't be done today and the full name on the birth cert would be used. Some people switched their first name with their middle name.

It's also important to remember, that in Scotland, females sometimes went by their married name and then again to their maiden name depending on the circumstance they are named in.

EDIT: I would argue that there is no such thing as a "mis-spelling" in times where literacy rates were low. Mis-spelling of names is a modern implementation. Who's to say that the person that wrote a baptismal record was "correct" in their spelling? Is the spelling Stevenson or Stephenson correct in 1755 for one individual? I have a surname in my tree that has approx 26 known variations. It is what it is.

[Albufera32]

Perhaps my comment was not clear. It seems to me the OP is asking if there were a common tradition or practice in Scotland around this era to take different names. My answer to that is No.

Are people referred to in different records by different names on occasion? Certainly, for all the reasons given above. Was there a tradition of switching between your given name, an abbreviated form of your name, your wife's name etc? No.

So again, to answer what I think is the original question - Names can differ in records for any number of reasons, but it was not an established tradition or custom to do so.

I would agree with the comment about spelling - I used the word in a modern context. I once read a quote from the diarist John Evelyn in which he derides as a dullard anyone who cannot think of at least three ways to spell any word. The idea that there is a "correct" way to spell words is a modern concept. The problem for the genealogist is when those spellings are so eccentric as to become closer to a different name.