TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-01 > 0946930336


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: Source Entry - married or maiden surname?
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:12:16 -0600


Tony Hall wrote:
> > Secondly, there's the use of Mrs with the *husband's* name. I suspect
> > there's some etiquette involved with this! Can anyone explain it?
> > (Should I be ducking?!) I certainly see both husband's and wife's name
> > preceded by Mrs in common use here in the UK these days. . . .

Hugh Wilding answered this quite ably, but we might add still another
perspective or two. While we always try to use etiquette in our treatment of
and associations with others, IMHO the identification of historical data
should not be determined by "political correctness."

How many of us have material that was said to have come from Susie
Smucklefuss of Maidenhead" -- or Marblehead? When we attempt to locate
"Susie Smucklefuss," we imediately hit brick walls. Even today, most married
women are not individually listed in the local phone book; the household is
more commonly listed in the husband's name. City and rural directories of
the past did the same, more often than not; and, even though we are "more
enlightened" about such matters today, many areas are abandoning the
production of city directories. In fact, whatever the source we try to use,
many women in the past are traceable *only* through their husbands. So
hubby's name would seem to be just as important in a source citation for
manuscript material as it is in our genealogical text.

> > Thirdly, there's the address. Some of my relatives are sensitive about
> > their current address being included in reports that I circulate, so I
> > omit all of them, even from source citations. Each address is included
> > in my dataset as an Address tag, but a report produces e.g. "1998
> > address held by the author".

The sensitivities are justified and the solution suggested here is a good
one -- although I lean toward Hugh's recommendation that the citation at
least include the town and state/county/province of residence.

In this regard, another observation might be added regarding the Evidence!
examples that Hugh cited (those showing the full address of the informant).
I frequently hear and see people state that Evidence! citations are for
those who intend to publish and want good form--but that was not the hope
and intent that went into the book. The Evidence! models are meant for use
*at the point of research,* to ensure that our notes include all identifying
data needed for analysis and further research. Depending upon the outlet
through which we publish, some of that data may not be printed (a point
further covered in the book's introduction). Similarly some of our
informants may not want us to publish their addresses. On the other hand,
some *do* want contact information published -- which leads us back to that
issue of etiquette: treating our associates with consideration for their
wishes, within the bounds of good scholarship.

Elizabeth Shown Mills


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: