What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Ed Hamm

What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Ed Hamm » 11 sep 2007 20:36:13

I googled this question and am still not satisfied with a "no offical
rule" answer. How would a pro name royalty?

I use FTM 2008 software.

I have decided NOT to include 'royal titles' in their name entry.

For this example, all describing the same person,
which would be the correctly accepted way of naming:

Question 1
a. Bernard
b. Bernard of Italy (indexes as 'Italy, Bernard of')

Question 2
a. John, I (indexes as 'John, I')
b. John of England, I (indexes as 'England, John of I')
c. John Lackland

Question 3
a. Henry, III
b. Henry of England, III
c. Henry Plantagenet
d. Henry Plantagenet, III

Lesley Robertson

Re: What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 11 sep 2007 21:37:55

"Ed Hamm" <eh@qv7.info> wrote in message
news:N6CFi.3623$yf3.2085@trndny06...
I googled this question and am still not satisfied with a "no offical rule"
answer. How would a pro name royalty?

I use FTM 2008 software.

I have decided NOT to include 'royal titles' in their name entry.

For this example, all describing the same person,
which would be the correctly accepted way of naming:

Question 1
a. Bernard
b. Bernard of Italy (indexes as 'Italy, Bernard of')

Question 2
a. John, I (indexes as 'John, I')
b. John of England, I (indexes as 'England, John of I')
c. John Lackland

Question 3
a. Henry, III
b. Henry of England, III
c. Henry Plantagenet
d. Henry Plantagenet, III



If you don't want to include titles (which FTM has a special place for
anyway) then the name & surname one is all that's left. Numbers and
countries are a form of title in this context, and nicknames such as
"Lackland" are never a good idea. They all had/have surnames - you'll just
have to do the research to find them.
Lesley Robertson

Hugh Watkins

Re: What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Hugh Watkins » 11 sep 2007 22:05:07

Ed Hamm wrote:

I googled this question and am still not satisfied with a "no offical
rule" answer. How would a pro name royalty?

I use FTM 2008 software.

I have decided NOT to include 'royal titles' in their name entry.

For this example, all describing the same person,
which would be the correctly accepted way of naming:

Question 1
a. Bernard
b. Bernard of Italy (indexes as 'Italy, Bernard of')

Question 2
a. John, I (indexes as 'John, I')
b. John of England, I (indexes as 'England, John of I')
c. John Lackland

Question 3
a. Henry, III
b. Henry of England, III
c. Henry Plantagenet
d. Henry Plantagenet, III



use their full baptismal name as in the church books

with a change of name use AKA

titles should be in another field

Hugh W




--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Nigel Bufton

Re: What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Nigel Bufton » 12 sep 2007 09:50:14

"Ed Hamm" <eh@qv7.info> wrote in message
news:N6CFi.3623$yf3.2085@trndny06...
I googled this question and am still not satisfied with a "no offical rule"
answer. How would a pro name royalty?

I use FTM 2008 software.

I have decided NOT to include 'royal titles' in their name entry.

For this example, all describing the same person,
which would be the correctly accepted way of naming:

Question 1
a. Bernard
b. Bernard of Italy (indexes as 'Italy, Bernard of')

Question 2
a. John, I (indexes as 'John, I')
b. John of England, I (indexes as 'England, John of I')
c. John Lackland

Question 3
a. Henry, III
b. Henry of England, III
c. Henry Plantagenet
d. Henry Plantagenet, III

My recommendation is:
Q1: Bernard as name; Bernard of Italy as AKA; King of Italy as occupation.
Q2: John as name; I as last name suffix (just like Jr.); King of England as
occupation.
Q3: Henry Plantagenet as names (first and last); Henry III as AKA; King of
England as occupation.

Nigel
http://www.tcgr.bufton.org

Lesley Robertson

Re: What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 12 sep 2007 13:38:57

"Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote in message
news:46e7a886$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Q2: John as name; I as last name suffix (just like Jr.); King of England
as occupation.

Since he had a surname, why on earth not use it?
Lesley Robertson

Julia of Portland

Re: What is the correct way to annotate names of royalty?

Legg inn av Julia of Portland » 16 sep 2007 22:18:46

"Ed Hamm" <eh@qv7.info> wrote in message
news:N6CFi.3623$yf3.2085@trndny06...
I googled this question and am still not satisfied with a "no offical rule"
answer. How would a pro name royalty?

I use FTM 2008 software.

I have decided NOT to include 'royal titles' in their name entry.

For this example, all describing the same person,
which would be the correctly accepted way of naming:

Question 1
a. Bernard
b. Bernard of Italy (indexes as 'Italy, Bernard of')

Question 2
a. John, I (indexes as 'John, I')
b. John of England, I (indexes as 'England, John of I')
c. John Lackland

Question 3
a. Henry, III
b. Henry of England, III
c. Henry Plantagenet
d. Henry Plantagenet, III

Using FTM, with Bernard of Italy as an example, I input the name as "Bernard
of Italy \\" the double backslashes allow the name to index as Bernard of
Italy rather than Italy, Bernard of.

--
Happy Hunting!
Julia
<JuliaPortland@comcast.net>
http://hometown.aol.com/julial1957/index.html

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»