TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2010-12 > 1292853736


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:02:16 -0600
References: <50423F5353C54DCFA4D9E1CCE34A1213@jfc> <4D0E9F3C.5090508@sprynet.com><002a01cba04c$3e92ae30$bbb80a90$@net>
In-Reply-To: <002a01cba04c$3e92ae30$bbb80a90$@net>


Darrell, I treat it the same way I would a will that says: His daughter,
Elizabeth. I would record the name as Elizabeth Dutton. You can always
suppress the surname if you want it to print only Elizabeth. Now if the will
says: His daughter, wife of John Jones, then I would record her name as
Elizabeth Jones. Now we can all think of women who still went by Elizabeth
Dutton, but unless I had proof that she only went by her maiden name, I
would record it as Elizabeth Jones, because I believe that is what the
document is stating.

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Teresa Elliott
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea.

> I might later find via other evidence that she was the wife of Adam and
her
> maiden surname was Jones, or that she was a step-daughter with a different
> surname, or her given name was actually MaryBeth (or Elizabeth, or
Bethany),
> or something else. I believe your basic point here is that as researchers
we
> draw conclusions when processing evidence and it's inescapable, and if so,
I
> agree.



This thread: