Was He Focke or Fokke?

What name to "use" for an immigrant ancestor is often a dilemma for the genealogist. It can be made worse when the ancestor is a native of an area whose names are not readily "translatable" or for ancestors who decided not to change of Anglicize their names.

Such is the case with Focke J. Goldenstein. Sometimes he is Fokke, Focke, or Foche, and other times he is Frank. What name should be used as his actual name? Once in a while, we are told by our ancestors what they prefer to be called.

In an affidavit made in his 1880 era homestead application file for parcel of land in Dawson County, Nebraska, Fokke's preference is clear: Focke. 

The image above is part of an affidavit made by Focke J. Goldenstein in his homestead application for property located in Dawson County, Nebraska. Not all applications contain such statements, but there were irregularities in the transcribed names for Goldenstein in several of the documents and this affidavit was made in response to those inconsistent spellings. It is not often that affidavits clearly spell out exactly the name that our ancestor preferred. I'll have to go back and see exactly what is on his tombstone.

Of course, when transcribing documents the spelling on the document is used. One does not "correct" records when transcribing them. Notations or comments can discuss any irregularities on the document in regards to names.

I once had a genealogist tell me I was spelling "Focke" wrong and that  I should use "Fokke" instead. Based upon this record, I'm using Focke.

What Name Do You Use?

A recent Genealogy Tip of the Day was about names. It generated more discussion than usual and got me to thinking in more detail about what name we decide to "use" to refer to an ancestor.

Names in some records, particularly before the late 19th century, are inconsistent in their spelling of names and exactly how individuals are referred to. We will assume that you already "know" those variant spellings are the same person. The question for many genealogists is "when the ancestor has many spelling variants," how do I decide which one use when referring to them?" Documents should always be transcribed exactly as they are recorded--that needs to be made clear. Changes or corrections should not be made to the original document, even when transcribing it, and comments should be made in notations that are clearly not a part of the document itself.

What Name Should I Use?

To a point, it is personal preference on the part of the researcher--we don't often know what name our ancestor actually preferred--most of our ancestors do not leave behind documents clearly indicating their name preference. At times, ancestors do leave clues.

The tombstone shown in this post is for my great-grandmother, Fannie Iona (Rampley) Neill. Francis is the name on her birth certificate and some would say it is her real name solely for that reason. My great-grandmother is referred to as Fannie every document she ever signed in her life. Other than her birth certificate, Fannie is always referred to as Fannie and signed numerous times throughout her life. Never Francis. Because it  is somewhat clear great-grandmother preferred Fannie, then that is the name that I use for her. Of course the transcription of her birth certificate says her name was Francis--because that is what it says.

In the case of Fannie, I do not use an "also know as" or even a "nickname." Personally I don't use the "nickname" field unless I really know that the person used that nickname. Fannie may be a nickname for Francis, but for great-grandma it wasn't her nickname--it was her name.

A great-grandfather is actually named  John Michael Trautvtter. He is referred to as Michael or Mike in some records. I use "Michael" as an also known as and "Mike" as nickname. Michael is not really a nickname, but Mike is.

Translations?

Half of my ancestors were born in Ostfriesland, Germany, and have traditional low-German names. Many of these immigrants Anglicized their names some time after they arrived in the United States. Some gave their American-born children low-German names that were also Anglicized. 

Because I like the low-German sounding names, I tend to use those for individuals who Anglicized. I indicate what Anglicized name they used, if they used one. This may seem inconsistent with the Fannie example. Perhaps it is. Most of these immigrants, despite having used Anglicized names, have their low-German names on their tombstones. That to me is something of an indication of what name they used. In fact, my great-grandparents, Fred and Tena Ufkes are the only set of Ostfriesen extraction ancestors who have their Anglicized names on their stones.

So for Fred, I use Fred as his name, Frederich as his "also known as," and Fritz as his "nickname." I have records that refer to him by these names and those names are connected to those sources in my database.

I also transcribe each document as it reads--and connect it to the appropriate name. When I "choose" a name for an ancestor, I always make a note about why that name was chosen in my notes.

Sally-Sarah: What is the Difference?

Sally/Sarah, What's the Difference?

When two people have the same (or similar) names, or one person has multiple names, it can create big problems for genealogists. Records on individuals with the same name need to be "sorted" out into their separate identities, while individuals who used different names may have to be "merged" together to create one identity despite the varying names. The separating or merging is not always an easy process, and sometimes it is downright impossible. Incomplete or hasty research can aggravate the situation. Jumping to conclusions too early and holding on to them for too long may only add to the confusion.

To help with these frustrating occurrences, today's article centers on difficulties caused by individuals with similar names.

Making Assumptions: A Case Study

Philip Smith and Sarah Kile were living as husband and wife in Mercer County, Illinois in the 1870 and 1880 census. This family was the focus of our research. Sarah's children's marriage and death records had consistently listed her maiden name as Kile. But the consistency of secondary sources, while comforting, did not guarantee their accuracy. However, Sarah was listed as Archibald Kile's daughter in a late-1800s Mercer County, Illinois court case. The maiden name seemed fairly solid.

A search of the online Illinois Marriage Index located no marriage between Philip Smith and Sarah Kile. However, there was a marriage between a Sarah McIntosh and a Philip Smith on 3 May 1860. Another search of Kile marriages for females turned up an 1858 marriage for a Peter McLain and a Sally Kile. After finding these online records, I made the connection that Sarah and Sally were one in the same. After all, Sally was a well-known nickname for Sarah. Peter must have had died shortly after the couple's 1858 marriage, and Sarah must have married again. The nickname situation would explain the ladies' first name difference, and the original record was probably just misread so that McLain was mistakenly recorded as McIntosh. The scenario seemed clear, based on these assumptions! (Genealogy Guardian Angel advice: Look at the actual, original marriage records before making a conclusion like that.)

Next Stop: Census!

I located an entry for Peter McLain and Sarah L. McLain in a published 1860 Mercer County, Illinois census. But the published source did not include the actual date the census was taken, and I was still holding strong to my theory. However, listed in the household were an Elizabeth Kile and a William Kile. The 1860 census does not give relationships to heads of household. Sarah, the wife of Philip Smith, was the daughter of Archibald Kile. My theory was starting to unravel slightly, but perhaps the older Kiles were Sarah McLain's aunt and uncle. (Genealogy Guardian Advice: Be certain you aren't trying to make the records fit the theory instead of making the theory fit the records.)

I needed the original census to doublecheck the information and determine the date the census was taken. While I was waiting for that, a quick look at my copy of The Sources indicated that the 1860 census began on 1 June 1860. Philip Smith married Sarah McIntosh on 3 May 1860. This was starting to shoot holes in my theory.

On To 1870 . . .

There's Peter McLain STILL living with Sally! My theory is now bust, as Philip Smith and his Sarah had several children by this time. It is back to the drawing board.

Back to the marriages (more thoroughly this time . . .)

A search in the online Illinois State Marriage Index for brides under the surname "Kyle" located a marriage between a John McIntosh and a Sarah Kyle in September of 1852 in Mercer County, Illinois. This information led to a new working hypothesis, which was as follows:

Sarah Kile married John McIntosh in 1852. This marriage was terminated (either by John's death or by a judge). Sarah McIntosh married Philip Smith in 1860. Sally Kile, who married Peter McLain, was likely a relative of Sarah Kile, who is known to have married Philip Smith. Sarah Kile (McIntosh?) Smith and Sarah Kile McLain are likely related, possibly cousins. A look at Philip Smith and Sarah McIntosh's marriage license lists her as "Mrs. Sarah McIntosh" with a mark on the Mrs. (it's not clear if the mark is intending to strike out the Mrs. or not). This "Mrs." notation is not indicated in the online marriage index and is a considerable clue.

There's still plenty of work to be done: a COMPLETE analysis of census and other records, and an attempt to find out what happened to John McIntosh.

Lessons Learned

1) Nicknames should not always be an "excuse" to automatically "combine" two individuals.


2) Consider alternate spellings.


3) Do not jump to conclusions.


4) Research with the goal of finding out as much of the truth as you can—not with the intent of proving your initial hunch correct.


5) Continue to analyze all information as new information is located.

Comments on This Research "Technique"

1) Sally was frequently used as a nickname for Sarah.


2) McIntosh and McLain being considered the "same" without any evidence to back it up was a stretch (and a very long one at that).


3) At least the research continued and the researcher finally admitted that the initial theory was not correct.

Final Note

When I was just starting my research, I hired an individual to look for an ancestral marriage record. The individual found a man with the correct surname and a woman with the correct surname, but the date he found was not the same as the marriage date I had provided. I received a copy of this couple's license with the comment (paraphrased), "Nicknames were common in early days, and people weren't always certain anyway. Likely your date is off. Here's the copy."

It was only some years later, when I researched the records myself, that I discovered my ancestors' marriage record was there—with the date and the names I had given the researcher. My ancestor and his brother had married sisters, and I was originally sent the record for their siblings.