From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-08-10 10:18:55
|
2009/8/3 Frederico Muñoz <fs...@gm...>: > Hi, > > Just to add to what lcc already said. > > 2009/7/29 Graham Seaman <gr...@th...>: >> After doing some of my own family, I thought I'd start a new database >> for my wife's family. She's Portuguese, and they have a different >> surname system from the English one: everyone has two surnames. > > Nowadays this is true, everyone has *at least* two surnames. I never > thought of the "Portuguese system" as a, well, "system" in itself. IMO > it isn't any different from most of the other European systems > (unlike, say, the Spanish one with the "inversion" of the surnames, > etc). > >> The >> first surname is the mother's second surname, and the second surname is >> the father's second surname. All the children of a marriage have the >> same pair of surnames. > > This is in general true, bear in mind though that I know siblings with > different surnames (especially if the female surname would "die" and > there are other male siblings, etc). Also, and especially important, > is that this is a very "modern" thing. You only need to reach the XIX > century to see that the overwhelming majority of the population only > has one or two surnames, some of them seemingly random in origin (from > the father mostly, but some from one of the grandparents, and some > even patronymic). The "multiplication" of surnames is recent and is > mainly due to the "importing" of an aristocratic naming scheme by all > the classes. > >> If a daughter marries, she drops the first >> surname but keeps the second, and adds her husband's second surname at >> the end, which is the same pair of names her children will get. > > Not in general at least today... there is no provision for "dropping" > surnames I think. What happens is that the wife adds the surname of > the husband to her own surnames. Bear in mind that legally both wife > and husband can add one or more surnames and put it anywhere they > want. In practice though the custom is the general one, wife adds the > surname of the husband. > >> So for >> example my surname is Seaman, my wife's mother's surnames were de Jesus >> Soares and her father's are Rodrigues de Sousa, so her surname before >> marriage was Soares de Sousa (de Sousa is a single surname..), but she >> is now de Sousa Seaman, same as our children. > > Makes sense. The male surname is in general the one that survives each > generation. As a rule a person with two surnames got them from both > grandfather's. > >> Can I fit this pattern with the underlying database in Gramps? Or does >> anyone know of any genealogy systems geared to this type of surname pattern? > > A good deal of my tree is Portuguese (at least 70%) and I never had > any trouble in fitting this "pattern" in GRAMPS, it is actually my > Spanish ancestry that requires some fiddling. > > There is only one Surname to keep track of: the very last one. The > rest can be perfectly kept inside the name field... to be quite honest > I don't think there is another way to do it; I understand that the > apparent linearity of the system could be perhaps better served by > some kind of multiple entry fields to indicate which surname came from > which grandparent, but this would be overkill IMO. While it can be > perceived as being a "cleaner" way the fact is that in Portugal (and > in Brazil I suppose) there is no provision at all for this kind of > classification, so it is not something that people see as a "system". > As an example my driver's licence only contains "Muñoz" in the surname > field, the rest is in the name. My ID card on the other hand has only > my given name in one field and all my surnames in another. Mostly > though it is the last surname that people consider *the* surname. > > I understand that this might seem strange since you're putting a > "surname" in the "name" field, but it is what makes most sense in my > eyes. Putting them in the surname field would mean that each > generation "new" unique surnames would appear. You could use the > "group as" function to, say, group both "Henriques de Castro" and > "Pereira de Castro" under a common "Castro" surname as an alternative. > Using patronymic or call names is also a possibility although a bit of > a kludge (since it means disregarding what the fields actually mean). I would expect you then use the callname to indicate the used first name. In the case of a woman Jane Mathilde Soares de Sousa, it would be Type: birth name First name: Jane Mathilde Soares Callname: Jane Family name: de Sousa So she is grouped under the 'de Sousa' family name and a second name: Type: married name First name : Jane Mathilde de Sousa Callname: Jane Family name: Seaman Using the Group as feature more extensively, it would be instead: Type: birth name First name: Jane Mathilde Callname: Jane Family name: Soares de Sousa Group as: de Sousa So she is grouped again under the 'de Sousa' family name and a second name: Type: married name First name : Jane Mathilde Callname: Jane Family name: de Sousa Seaman Group as: Seaman As a western European I would go for the second scheme I think, but if a Southern European genealogist says scheme 1 is good, then that should carry more weight :-) Graham, do read carefully: http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gramps_3.1_Wiki_Manual_-_Entering_and_Editing_Data:_Detailed_-_part_1#Preferred_name_section and http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gramps_3.1_Wiki_Manual_-_Entering_and_Editing_Data:_Detailed_-_part_3#Name_Editor Benny |