"Stewart" vs "Stuart" questions

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I'm a little confused and need some help from the expert members of this group.

I have seen the Royal House spelled both as "Stewart" and "Stuart" .  I have also seen the last name of its members spelled both ways.

Which way is correct-- "Stewart" or "Stuart?"  

Thanks for everyone's help.

Brooke

[S. S.]

It would rather depend on the timeframe we discuss. Stewart and Stuart have been used interchangeably. I have however noticed that Stuart has prevailed over Stewart in modern times. Certain old peerage works and genealogical works for example still treat the surname as Stewart rather than Stuart. Ditto for the surname of peers/individuals descended from the brarnches of the House of Stuart/Stewart.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S.,  thanks for your response.

Can you go into a little more detail with regards to "timeframe?"  I'm putting together a genealogical tree and not sure which is "correct" to use, Stewart or Stuart.  Or can they be used interchangeably at this point?

Thanks again.

Brooke

[S. S.]

I have found that around the start of the16th century, Stuart becomes much more common over Stewart. This is presumably due to the growing French influence (as the French tended to spell Stuart rather than Stewart). Though, I will say I have noticed works around the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots to use Stuart more frequently over Stewart. Either way, I'd suggest you either stick to (A) use one version of the surname across your works or (B) pick a point in time (i.e. around 16th century) to split the two different spellings. 

Hope this helps. 

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S.,  thank you for your answer.  It was very helpful.

I've used it as a starting point and done a little research.  While some places just use the "Stuart" spelling throughout, others that use "Stewart" and "Stuart" tend to make the change with James VI/James I.

I haven't decided which way to go yet.  On one hand, I would like to be historically accurate, but on the other hand, it might be more consistent to just go with "Stuart' for all.

Any thoughts, one way or the other?

Brooke

[S. S.]

I think Brooke that if you wish to go for consistency (which in my opinion is a bit more important than ending up with a confusing mish-mash of different forms of a name, especially on a large genealogy tree), I suggest you utilize Stuart over Stewart. The former is far more common to most peoples' eyes than the latter. 

You can always include a footnote/note stating the divergence in the usage of the name or stick an oblique (/) to include both versions too.

Hope your genealogy tree-making proves fruitful!

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S., you make a very valid point.  Using "Stuart" (which, as you said, is really seems to be  the more common spelling these days) throughout the tree does make the (correct) statement that they are all part of the same dynasty.

And I do like the idea of perhaps including a note somewhere about the change at some point from one form to the other.  That is a definite option.

Thank you so much for helping me to make my decision!

Brooke