General Chat

Suppose you are a Smith, and are following your paternal ancestry back. Then discover that a few generations back one of your paternal ancestor's surname changed due to remarriage, and had actually been born a Jones. Would you then feel that you are not a Smith after all? And how important would it feel to you to still follow the Smith line back as well as the newly discovered Jones bloodline?

I'm interested because that reflects my ancestry, and I'm sure such circumstances must be very commonplace.

Good point but going back to my Grandparents, I have 2 Smiths 1 Foster and 1 unknown, back to my Great Grandparents, I have again 2 Smiths 1 Pycroft,1 Hickson, 1 Foster and one Garton, so on so each time you go back a generation your adding more blood lines each just as important as your name blood line, so the name is just a label not that important.

My Grandfather took his stepfathers surname 'Foster' but his father's surname was 'Manuel'. I have researched the Manuel line back from him ... so I suppose I must feel that the Foster line is not as important to me.

Running Bear

That's the bit I have to get my head around I think: "the name is just a label not that important". To me my surname feels like an intrinsic part of my self-identity.

Barry

I am very proud of my maiden name and hated changing it when I married....................I feel a strong connection to all my ancestors that have that surname.

However, I realise that a name is just a name and we are all born as unique individuals with our personalities affected by our upbringing and the way our lives have been shaped by good and bad experiences.


I research all my lines..............my parents and their parents etc, giving me a lot of names in my tree, but my birth surname is still the one I enjoy researching more than the others.

My surname is so much NOT a part of my identity lol ..that I wouldn't have even begun to look at it if someone had not sent me a one -name study of it, maybe because my father died when I was young, the 'nurture' all came from my mother and brother, and i can see the 'nature' came from mum's side also.

At birth I was given the label' Carol Foster', but share no genes with others with the same Surname. That surname changed when I married.

I am me whatever label I use, those who made me what I am are the ones that gave me my genes. Is not that why those who were adopted seek out their blood parents?

My OH's father and grandfather were educated but before that, they had no idea how to spell their own names and there are variations going back many generations. However, I just put whatever name the record says - they are still his fore-fathers whether spelled the same or not. I would have the same view if the name was totally different.

Carol,

Yes I agree, my bloodline is really important to me. Being a bit naive about this, it just hadn't occurred to me my bloodline and surname would part company in quite this way.

Barry

Perona,

Yes ... what's in a name?!

Barry

Kitty,

That's close to how I feel I think, and very possibly the way I will go with my research. At the moment I can't really put very much time into it so the full works may have to be part of a retirement plan!

Barry

I have the same with the spelling of various ancestors on my tree.......but it is the spelling that is the most modern which I take to be the correct one......

.......so I would say, if you are a Smith and found a Jones ancestor.......you are still a Smith.....