Handling changing surnames?

[terrypin]

Four weeks into the hobby and I've just encountered my first change of surname in one branch of my tree. The respective England censuses show the following:
1901 COTTERILL
1891 (Can't find, but assume COTTERILL)
1881 COTTERILL
1871 COTTRELL
1861 COTTRELL
1851 COTTRILL

What is the best way to record these please? Especially in a PC-based family tree, where a change in one place ripples through other entries. I use Family Tree Maker, but I assume it's a general issue whatever package is used?

For example, I had previously shown John Cottrell (b. 1817 in Birmingham) as John Cotterill, and his children as Cotterill. If I now change him to Cottrell to square with the 1871 records, and also change his children too, I'd have thought I'd be inviting all sorts of ambiguity?

I'd be interested to hear how others handle such changes over the generations please.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

[casalguidi]

Hi Terry

I know that people handle this in different ways but in my trees I stick to just the one spelling to make sorting and finding easier.  In many instances, there wasn't a set pattern to the spelling as there is today due to many of our ancestors being illiterate and the names being written as they sounded to the registrar, census enumerator or parish clerk.  We'll all bound to come across branches of a family who say their name has ALWAYS been spelt a particular way but it won't be true in far the majority of cases

Best wishes

Casalguidi

[Linda_J]

Hi Terry

What a strange coincidence I find the spelling of my Cottrell family from West Sussex varies in the same way.

I use PAF 5 and I find I can overcome the change in name by including the variation in square brackets after the accepted spelling eg. Cottrell [Cotterill].

Regards Linda

[Siouxzie]

Hi Terry,
My Newall's change from Newall, to Newell, Newhall to Newel all the time, they can get married in one spelling have a child christened with another and be yet another on the census.  I long ago decided to keep them all Newall until they get to my husbands grandfather where the name changed permanently to the Newell spelling.  It's a tricky one.

Siouxzie

[suey]

I stick to one spelling but in the notes section I put the surname as found either on the census or birth marriage or death certificate.

I have several Knapps who were mistranscribed in the census so keeping a note of the surname allows me or anyone who comes after to find them again.

Suey

[JillJ]

I have so far found 35 spelling variants for one name so I usually stick with the first one I find and when searching try to remember all the others!

Jill

[jericho]

Hi Terry


like suey I stick to the one spelling and put the different variantions in  the notes section, I find that this works really well, and I don't confuse myself or my family tree program, as it seems to get a little touchy if I don't write the name with  the original spelling.


jericho

[linmey]

Same with me. I record one name but make a note of the original spelling.

[terrypin]

Thanks all, those replies were very helpful. Pleased to see it's a common issue.

Somewhere else in these archives I saw a recommendation to consistently use the surname on the birth certificate. That sounded a good idea to me - until I realised I didn't have the appropriate certificates. 

I think I'll do the same as several respondents: stick to one name (in this case, COTTRELL, the name recognised by my living relatives), and use notes (or similar) to record the variations. Happily, I now see that FTM doesn't use the precise surname to maintain correct relationships throughout the generations.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK