In my mini one-name study (2,000 or so individuals) I have many families who intermarry regularly over several generations. I also have a number of wives with an unproven surname “said to be . . .” which I usually stick away in Research Notes where the rumored surname is not readily apparent. Then months later I come across the record for a John Smith who married a Nancy Coats and recall that another man somewhere in that branch was rumored to have married a Coats but can’t remember who it was because she’s entered with no surname.
I’m thinking of possibly listing those unproven surnames as Alternate Names, either with or without privacy brackets, so they’ll show up in the Name List. That way I could see that John’s 2nd cousin Peter Smith is rumored to have married a Jane Coats, which would lead to searching for a connection between the two Coats women and possibly confirming the missing surname. Before I go off the deep end, can anyone see flaws in this plan? I know some are sticklers for using the aka field only for true aliases, but that’s not a consideration for me. Any other potential snags? Kirsten Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
