Hamstra surname [10 jun 2011]
Since this family did not adopt the Hamstra surname until 1811 I am wondering whether the records should be named according to the birth names with the Hamstra surname shown as an alternate name?--Jhamstra 20:10, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
- Formally I would say you are right, because the name at birth/christening has to be the real name. In Dutch genealogies we are used to give the surname as soon as we find one even if only mentioned in the death record. I think this is a useable way. In case we would stay with the name at birth the problem will be what to do with the quite often changed names of immigrants. I know we have the possibility to give the immigrant-name as an alternate name, but for the American genealogist this would mostly become the 'official' name.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 01:32, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Added the second daughter [11 jun 2011]
She appears as "Jeltje 24" in Reference 3--Jhamstra 08:10, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- Jim, I added in two more children as well, Aukie Geerts (1783) and Aukje Geerts (1792). I titled their pages as Geerts rather than Hamstra because I don't think they lived beyond 1811 to adopt the Hamstra surname. They most likely died prior to Aukje's (1796) birth. I believe this is the proper convention in these cases - Klaas, please let me know if I'm mistaken on that. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:25, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- Those people without surname who died before the Naamsaanneming should just have their patronymic.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
|
