Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Genealogy

Name changes common?

7 replies

showmethegin · 25/03/2024 22:28

I'm a brand newbie to genealogy so please excuse my ignorance!

I have ancestors that in the mid to late 1700s appeared to change their surname from Mushen (or Mushin, there are some anomalies in spelling) to Munchin. Can anyone speculate to why they might have done this/is it common? I found some classically ashkenazi first names around then so wondered whether anti-semitism might have sadly played a part?

Or I'm totally off the mark and record keeping was just extremely poor back then!

OP posts:
NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/03/2024 01:50

Spelling wasn't standardised, and not everyone could write - so a lot of records would be written by the record keeper making a best guess at what somebody's name sounded like. I have ancestors well into the 19th century where the same person has half a dozen different spellings on various different records.

DinnaeFashYersel · 26/03/2024 03:01

There are spelling variants in my family tree due to illiteracy.

showmethegin · 26/03/2024 07:06

Ah that's really interesting, thank you. For finding historical records could you recommend the best site? I have a MyHeritage at the moment as I'm waiting on the results of a DNA test but prepared to move to another website if there is a better one

OP posts:
Another2Cats · 26/03/2024 21:53

"Can anyone speculate to why they might have done this/is it common?"

If you're talking 1700s then different spellings are very common indeed. For example, one ancestor of mine by the name of "Wixey" I have found four different contemporary spellings of the name between 1720 and 1770.

My ancestors back then were, more often than not, illiterate farm workers who signed the marriage register with a mark X rather than signing their name. The spelling of their name was entirely down to what the local vicar thought it should be.

This even occurred into the 1800s as well. I have a relation who worked as a tailor and whose last name had always been "Barlow" but then in the 1840s he just decided to change the family name to "Barley" for some reason. All the children were baptised as Barlow but in the censuses the family gave the name Barley. Who knows why?

"I found some classically ashkenazi first names around then so wondered whether anti-semitism might have sadly played a part?"

and

"...I'm waiting on the results of a DNA test..."

I can't speak to anti-semitism but if you come from an ashkenazi background then you are very likely to find a lot, and I do mean a lot, of DNA relatives.

In genetics there is something called "endogomy" which is where the same extended families tended to intermarry over several generations. You can then still see the results of this in the DNA hundreds of years later.

It is not uncommon for Ashkenazi Jews, Puerto Ricans, colonial Americans, French Canadians and US Cajuns to have large numbers of DNA matches due to endogomy many decades or centuries previously. The same thing applies to certain communities from South Asia as well.

If I can tell you a story. When I did a DNA test (actually my mum & dad did them as well) it came back that my mum had loads of people who were shared matches with her and each other. And they all, absolutely all of them, lived in the USA (we live in the UK) and most of them have ancestors going back in the USA to at least the early 1700s.

It turns out that my mum had a couple of distant relations that went over to America in the 1600s. To be frank, there was a lot of families intermarrying each other back then (the population in Maryland and Virginia was very small) and you can still see the results of that in the DNA today.

Many Americans who trace their ancestry from that time have found this when getting their DNA results. I remember somebody saying that they had colonial ancestry from Maryland and Virginia through both parents, and while the parents weren't related to each other they had dozens of DNA matches on ancestry who were related to them through both parents, and quite a few more who had a DNA match to one parent and a paper trail that connects them to the other.

It may be that you will find yourself in a similar situation.

"For finding historical records could you recommend the best site? I have a MyHeritage at the moment as I'm waiting on the results of a DNA test but prepared to move to another website if there is a better one"

I don't think that there is one "best" site. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

I have subscriptions with Ancestry, FindMyPast and MyHeritage. It depends what country you're looking at.

MyHeritage seems to be quite good with the US and some European countries, not so good with the UK. Ancestry is generally good all round. FindMyPast is good where Ancestry is weak and I find they complement each other.

If I could only choose one of those then it would probably be Ancestry. Although, for context, most of my family searches are UK related or those that emigrated to America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. However, if you are looking for records from multiple European and other countries then MyHeritage is usually very good indeed.

Ancestry is also the easiest site to use to do a family tree. I found it a lot easier than trying to use MyHeritage.

The big issue with Ancestry though is that you cannot upload DNA from another website - you have to get an Ancestry DNA test. The standard price is £89 but they do special offers from time to time, it would probably be best to keep an eye out for those.

Just checked, they had a special offer over Mothers Day for £69 so it's likely that they'll do something similar in the near future.

Misthios · 28/03/2024 07:39

Agree with non-standardised spelling. People generally could not read and write and would have no clue whether the person recording the baptism/marriage was spelling it correctly.

Agree with @Another2Cats that Ancestry is far better for records than MyHeritage. Also Familysearch, which is free.

Aydel · 28/03/2024 08:27

Yes - in my family tree Sachs has become Sack and Cohen became Coleman. Lots of other changes too, anglicising the more German sounding names.

fluffycloudalert · 30/03/2024 21:46

Some of my ancestors came to the UK from Germany in the mid 1800's, and their surname is recorded with a variety of inventive spellings, possibly depending (I think) on who was making the record of the event, and whether they were familiar with the name or not. The wider family then deliberately changed the spelling of their surname during WW1 to an English-sounding one. After the war, one branch changed it back to the old spelling, and the other didn't.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread