[tngusers2] Surname List

Sun Jun 7 00:35:22 CDT 2009

Diana,

My paternal lines originated in the Netherlands and all evidence going 
back to the early 1800's indicates that this was an egalitarian society, 
quite contrary to the statement Stephen makes about role of women in the 
19th century and perhaps even earlier.

As far back as the late 1600's a woman's name is recorded by her birth 
name on all public documents even after her marriage. Even on a record 
of the death or marriage of her child many decades after her own death, 
her name is recorded by her birth name.

In many instances, if her husband died she inherited the land and there 
are even instances where subsequent husbands took the woman's name to 
share ownership of the land she owned previous to that marriage.

I can't speak for other denominations but I know that Catholics 
(especially Jesuit) in the Netherlands educated men and women equally. I 
admit I am spoiled by the fact that I began researching my genealogy 
from the Dutch Archives as the meticulous and factual record keeping 
made it simple for me.

There are very few women in my Dutch lines (which both reach back to the 
late 1600's) who were born in the Netherlands that have no birth surname 
entered in that field, and if they do not, it is only because they are 
more than 3 or 4 times removed and I haven't had time to look for them.

Henny, feel free to chime in, I'm sure your knowledge of this society is 
more comprehensive than mine.

~Jodi
Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
> Prior to the 20th century, women were about as content with being non-persons as
> blacks were in being slaves; it was simply that neither had the power to change
> the situation.  To quote Abigail (née SMITH) ADAMS, wife of the future President
> John ADAMS, writing in 1776:
>
> "I cannot say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are
> proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist
> upon retaining an absolute power over Wives."
>
> I will give women of all centuries the respect they deserve; and, for me, that
> means recognizing their "personhood" independent of their husbands.
>
> Thankfully, we are all free to do with our own databases as we see fit.
>
> Diana
>
>
>                                                           
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tngusers2-bounces at lythgoes.net On Behalf Of Stephen Rowe
>> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:29 PM
>> To: 'TNG Users List'
>> Subject: Re: [tngusers2] Surname List
>>
>> Diana,
>>
>> Your thinking about which family you belong to, though, is 
>> 20th and 21st
>> century thinking (no offence intended btw). If you think back 
>> to the 19th
>> and earlier centuries, the role of women was much less than 
>> it is now and,
>> once married, the women virtually 'belonged' to her husband 
>> and her original
>> family (unless she came from 'blue blood') was essentially severed.
>>
>> That aside - surely, if you were using someones site for the 
>> first time and
>> started seeing names within a pair of [ ] 's, aren't you going to ask
>> yourself 'What is this for?' and not accept that the Joan 
>> [SMITH] does not
>> really have a surname of [SMITH] instead of SMITH? And, once 
>> you start to
>> query the name format, any researcher worth their salt is 
>> going to find an
>> answer and, particularly in this case, as has been stated - 
>> the answer is
>> found on the web site.
>>
>> You can never stop the 'casual researcher' who blindly copies 
>> data without
>> verifying it first. 
>>
>>
>> Stephen Rowe
>> Melbourne, Australia
>> http://www.ser.idu.au
>> http://www.mtb-images.com.au
>> stephenr at ser.id.au
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tngusers2-bounces at lythgoes.net 
>> [mailto:tngusers2-bounces at lythgoes.net]
>> On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen
>> Sent: Sunday, 7 June 2009 1:46 AM
>> To: 'TNG Users List'
>> Subject: Re: [tngusers2] Surname List
>>
>> I would thoroughly discourage ever putting the husband's 
>> surname in the
>> wife's
>> surname field.  It can all too easily be misconstrued that 
>> her maiden name
>> is
>> the same as her husband's name.  Not everyone is going to 
>> read the Notes on
>> your
>> home page.  I've seen this error occur time and again because 
>> people can't
>> stand
>> to leave the wife's surname field blank or unknown.
>>
>> Nor is it genetically accurate to connect a woman to her 
>> husband's family.
>> As a
>> woman, when I think of myself, I think of myself as a member 
>> of my parents'
>> families, not my in-law's families, and I would take deep 
>> offense at being
>> given
>> their surname as my maiden name.
>>
>> But the bottom line is that a practice putting the husband's 
>> surname in the
>> wife's surname field is an error, one likely to be picked up 
>> and promulgated
>> by
>> others.  As it says on my web site home page:
>>
>> Bad data are not better than no data.  Mistakes mislead.
>>
>> Diana
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tngusers2 mailing list
>> tngusers2 at lythgoes.net
>> http://lythgoes.net/mailman/listinfo/tngusers2_lythgoes.net
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tngusers2 mailing list
> tngusers2 at lythgoes.net
> http://lythgoes.net/mailman/listinfo/tngusers2_lythgoes.net
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lythgoes.net/pipermail/tngusers2_lythgoes.net/attachments/20090607/7658f465/attachment.html>