Entering Titles into Genealogy Programs
Denise M Tyler
how various royal and noble titles are listed. Forgive me if this is not an
appropriate question for the group, but I was wondering if there was an
"accepted" way of presenting titles.
For example, if one is entering data for a King, which is the most proper
way of entering it ... King (Prefix) John (Given Name) of England (Suffix),
or John (Given name) King of England (Suffix)?
Likewise, I have the same question for various other titles .. Earls, Dukes,
Duchesses, Ladies, Sir/Knight, etc.
Any comments? Thanks in advance.
Denise
Leo van de Pas
This is a complex question with a complex answer.
"Rulers", Emperors, Kings, medieval continental Dukes etc.,
are usually displayed with their name first and then their title.
With certain titles there can be confusion, for instance Wales and Monaco.
There can always be only one XYZ, Prince of Wales
and only one ZYX, Prince of Monaco. Now we know that Charles, Prince of
Wales, has two sons and Ranier, Prince of Monaco has three children. To
indicate the difference, the 'ruler'
Charler and Rainier, are Charles, Prince of Wales, and Ranier, Prince of
Monaco. The children of Charles are Prince William of Wales, and Henry,
Prince of Wales, the same applies to the Monegask children. For them the
title Prince is placed before the Christian name.
Dukes and Earls etc. when meeting them they would be, say, John, Duke of
Marlborough. But when recording them, I would record him as John George
Vanderbilt Henry Spencer Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough.
Another problem you are going to encounter, especially in the middle ages,
is the lack of 'surnames'. Rulers were known by the territory they ruled
over. Often people would confuse that name and think it was a surname.
However, when the Duke of XYZ's younger son married an heiress, he could
become Duke of ABC.
It is a complex matter and there is much more to it, but I hope this little
bit may be of assistance.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
I hope we keep this thread going.
One of the practical problems is that we are often constrained by the
genealogical software itself as to discrete fields and maximum field
lengths.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"You are a warrior, Clarice. The enemy is dead, the baby safe. You
are a warrior. The most stable elements, Clarice, appear in the
middle of the periodic table, roughly between iron and silver.
Between iron and silver. I think that is appropriate for you.
Hannibal Lecter." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999],
p. 32.
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:008d01bf6b6e$0a25fea0$e3433bcb@leo...
Denise M Tyler
And now for part two of the question ... and I'll bet this opens up another
can of worms <G> ...
How does one decide which title is the "correct" one to assign to the
individual's name if he or she held more than one title? One of the
problems I have as a novice in researching medieval and noble genealogies is
that I often have duplicate entries in my database because the same person
can be known by more than one title. As a result, I can sometimes enter the
same individuals and their children in twice, and it results in a lot of
cleanup afterwards (which prompted this question in the first place <G>).
So, does one typically enter the "highest" title held in the name field, and
then either enter "Also Known As" ... or is the best method to create a
custom tag or flag that will hold the other titles and dates associated with
them?
Sorry for all the questions, but as long as I'm cleaning all this up now, I
want to clean it up right. 8-)
Denise
> <snipped>
>
> "Rulers", Emperors, Kings, medieval continental Dukes etc.,
> are usually displayed with their name first and then their title.
> With certain titles there can be confusion, for instance Wales and Monaco.
> There can always be only one XYZ, Prince of Wales
> and only one ZYX, Prince of Monaco. Now we know that Charles, Prince of
> Wales, has two sons and Ranier, Prince of Monaco has three children. To
> indicate the difference, the 'ruler'
> Charler and Rainier, are Charles, Prince of Wales, and Ranier, Prince of
> Monaco. The children of Charles are Prince William of Wales, and Henry,
> Prince of Wales, the same applies to the Monegask children. For them the
> title Prince is placed before the Christian name.
>
> Dukes and Earls etc. when meeting them they would be, say, John, Duke of
> Marlborough. But when recording them, I would record him as John George
> Vanderbilt Henry Spencer Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough.
>
> <snipped>
Jeff Snavely
find that you don't have enough space to enter the title. In fact, I
frequently find that I don't have enough space to enter just the full list
of given names, irregardless of the title! The way I enter
noble/military/political/etc. titles in FTM is with a custom fact called
Titles, with one entry per title. I use the date field to record the date
they acquired the title, when known, so that they will sort in chronological
order. I also use the built in title field to record any prefix title like
"Sir".
-- Jeff Snavely <mailto:jsna...@oecadvantage.net> or
<mailto:jsna...@geocities.com>
Paternal: Blagg, Brooks, Carroll, Dilbeck, Finley, Fleming, Gilley, Goss,
Harbin, Harris, Hinkle, Holley, Lemmon, McComas, Mounsell, Parks, Putnam,
Reed, Rhodes, Shearman, Stephens, Stocker, Young
Maternal: Ambrester, Burrill, Clark, Craig, Frost, Gay, Griffin, Johnston,
Jones, Kilgore, Milligan, Parker, Parry, Peters, Portwood, Ragsdale,
Robinson, Rorex, Tattershall, Vaughan, Voss, Washington, Wells, Weston,
White, Yates (and others)
Visit my web site at <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Fields/2179/>
D. Spencer Hines
How are things at the Met?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"You are a warrior, Clarice. The enemy is dead, the baby safe. You
are a warrior. The most stable elements, Clarice, appear in the
middle of the periodic table, roughly between iron and silver.
Between iron and silver. I think that is appropriate for you.
Hannibal Lecter." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999],
p. 32.
"His Jadedness" <agh...@aol.comorgnet> wrote in message
news:20000130231342...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
| >So, does one typically enter the "highest" title held in the name
field, and
| >then either enter "Also Known As" ... or is the best method to
create a
| >custom tag or flag that will hold the other titles and dates
associated with
| >them?
|
| I've had the same problem and handle it thusly:
|
| Given Name, Highest title; full christian name of House Name
|
| EXP: Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxemburg; Adolf Wilhelm August
Friedrich of
| Nassau-Weilburg
|
|
| As I use TMG I created a custom tag TITLE and enter the title and
date of
| attaiment. so it prints in cronological order. The result is below:
|
| Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxemburg; Adolf Wilhelm August Karl
Friedrich of
| Nassau-Weilburg , son of Guillaume of Nassau-Weilbourg and Louise of
| Saxe-Altenburg, was born on 24 July 1817. Succeded as Duke of Nassau
on 20
| August 1839 upon the death of his father. He married Élisabeth
Mikhailovna of
| Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp, daughter of Michel
Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp and
| Charlotte von Württemberg , on 31 January 1844.Elisabeth died as a
result of
| childbirth without surviving issue in 1845. He married Adélaide,
Princess of
| Anhalt-Dessau, daughter of Friedrich Augustus of Anhalt-Dessau and
Marie von
| Hessen-Cassel, as his second wife on 23 April 1851 at Dessau. Issue
of the
| marriage were Guillaume (1852) and François (1859). He succeeded in
accordance
| with the Nassau Family Compact as Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxemburg
upon the
| death without surviving male issue of William III of the Netherlands
on 23
| November 1890. He died on 17 November 1905 at age 88 years, 3 months
and 24
| days.
|
|
|
| .
|
|
| His Jadedness, Andy; http://members.aol.com/agh3rd/index.htm
| Nec petita nec cupita approbatio tua
Leo van de Pas
I think you are 'satisfying' your computer. In principle 'royals' and that
includes Grand Dukes of Luxemburg, do not have a surname.
They belong to a 'House' and, in my opinion, Adolphe, Grand Duke of
Luxembourg is sufficient. If you have room to add further titles, great, but
otherwise those could go in a footnote/biographical details or whatever. I
believe Cayetana, Duquesa de Alba de Tormes, has something like 78 titles,
but then she gave some to her children, what to do with those?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: His Jadedness <agh...@aol.comorgnet>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
meg...@hotmail.com
<dty...@chorus.net> wrote:
>I am trying to go through my genealogy database in an effort to standardize
>how various royal and noble titles are listed. Forgive me if this is not an
>appropriate question for the group, but I was wondering if there was an
>"accepted" way of presenting titles.
>
>For example, if one is entering data for a King, which is the most proper
>way of entering it ... King (Prefix) John (Given Name) of England (Suffix),
>or John (Given name) King of England (Suffix)?
>
>Likewise, I have the same question for various other titles .. Earls, Dukes,
>Duchesses, Ladies, Sir/Knight, etc.
>
I read LVDP's answer, but thought my two cents might be useful, as
well.
I use Family Origins for Windows, and this is how I enter various
titles:
SURNAME GIVEN
CHURCHILL John
PREFIX SUFFIX
His Grace 1st Duke of Marlborough
This prints out as His Grace John CHURCHILL 1st Duke of Marlborough
For a continental example:
SURNAME GIVEN
NETHERLANDS Beatrix, Queen of the
PREFIX SUFFIX
HM
This prints out as HM Beatrix, Queen of the NETHERLANDS
I find that this is easy to enter, and alphabetizes well.
I put additional titles and honors in notes.
Robert
His Jadedness
Barrie J Wright
responses.
I use BrothersKeeper, which is not the most sophisticated program, but it
is flexible and quick for entering.
Any advice will have to be program-relative.
I have the option to put a suffix, such as Kt. or Rt Rev. after any name
and
comma. The stop also indicates to the program that it is a title, and it
can be
summoned to list all with the title..
eg Winston Churchill, Kt. , all suffix Kt. etc
If I use I. II. IV. etc after any name, a "Find" for 'Henry V.' will throw
up
ALL Henrys, with or without numerals..
This is a useful shorthand for a search of royals but I don't like it
otherwise
for repeated generation forenames.
A major search will show ALL 'Henrys' PLUS all their suffixes or names,
including as second forenames.
I use William I. for William The Conqueror, for instance.
Kt. of course often is in addition to another title, but it is a useful
first clue to
prominent or royal linkages.
Burke's and others have similar abbreviations to use --Bart. for Baronet etc
if you wish to be more precise.
This format means that I have a simple forename and name first, and the
search will bring up all such names, as well as any with titles, suffixed as
written. Many long or multiple titles need another slot or note somewhere.
I use 'aka' [also known as] as a marker in notes.
I don't like to see hundreds of 'King etc' in alphabetical dbase lists
because
there are usually other titles as well for all such people, the simple name
is obscured, and it is this which is vital for tracing in genealogy. I
think it is
wise to leave 'of England' etc for notes too, unless the name is universally
known as such [eg John of Gaunt, Robert The Bruce, Charlemagne],
because it is not really part of the name.
There are always problems before the use of surnames became common.
Plantagenet or Tudor are just a creation for such people, for instance,
but can be useful as a family marker.
An exception is to put Wife or Husb, son or dau as a forename if it is
not known.
[Variation is Wife 1, dau 1 etc]
This just identifies the person, as married or not isolated etc, in name
lists.
Others may improve on this a lot.
HTH.
Barrie J. Wright
in Adelaide, South Australia
bjwr...@senet.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: Denise M Tyler <dty...@chorus.net>
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2000 7:22
Subject: Entering Titles into Genealogy Programs
> I am trying to go through my genealogy database in an effort to
standardize
> how various royal and noble titles are listed. Forgive me if this is not
an
> appropriate question for the group, but I was wondering if there was an
> "accepted" way of presenting titles.
>
> For example, if one is entering data for a King, which is the most proper
> way of entering it ... King (Prefix) John (Given Name) of England
(Suffix),
> or John (Given name) King of England (Suffix)?
>
> Likewise, I have the same question for various other titles .. Earls,
Dukes,
> Duchesses, Ladies, Sir/Knight, etc.
>
> Any comments? Thanks in advance.
>
> Denise
>
> ______________________________
Rafal Prinke
> I think you are 'satisfying' your computer.
This is one of the greatest problems - inadequate genealogy software.
As there is no generally accepted data model for genealogical data,
developers of genealogical software use their intuitive models.
Most of them are based on two false premises:
1) a genealogical database should reflect "real life" [so, if a real
individual has two and only two parents, a person in a genealogical
record should also have two parents]
2) church records are the basic source for genealogical research, so
a database should reflect their structure
> In principle 'royals' and that
> includes Grand Dukes of Luxemburg, do not have a surname.
> They belong to a 'House' and, in my opinion, Adolphe, Grand Duke of
> Luxembourg is sufficient. If you have room to add further titles, great, but
> otherwise those could go in a footnote/biographical details or whatever.
Yes, I also use this approach - but actually it is sometimes imprecise.
When one refers to a person "as such", usually the highest title is used
(as in your example or eg.: "James II, king of Great Britain and Ireland").
But when you print out a time-dependent statement, then you get:
Anna Hyde m. 1660 James II, king of GB and IRL
But at the time of marriage he was not a king yet. One could use
some other title like "James, Prince of Wales" (if he was one - I do
not know) but that causes identification problems. Personally,
I would prefere in cases like this that the program inserts
the word "later" so that it becomes:
Anna Hyde m. 1660 James II, _later_ king of GB and IRL
It would be especially important when the wife died before the husband
received a title.
I think that styles of addressing a person should not be included
in a database at all. After all, they are somewhat relative,
depending on who and where is addressing the person in question.
British tradition is one thing, diplomatic protocol is another.
The heir to the Imperial Throne of Austro-Hungary is officially
styled "Dr. Habsburg" in the European Parliament.
Best regards,
Rafal
Leo van de Pas
When James II married Ann Hyde he was Duke of York, but I know what you
mean. However, If you say:
Ann Hyde 1638-1671, in 1659 married James II King of England etc 1685-1688
Because you do intend to add dates as well, then it becomes clear that Ann
Hyde was never Queen-Conosrt of England as she died before her husband
became king.
We want computer programs to follow us (not the other way around) but at the
same time we should not make it more complicated than necessary.
I hope you agree?
Leo
Mary Katherine K Hebenstreit-Halbrook
Or are there less than 57 to be posted?
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> This is an excellent answer by Leo van de Pas, as a starter.
>
> I hope we keep this thread going.
>
> One of the practical problems is that we are often constrained by the
> genealogical software itself as to discrete fields and maximum field
> lengths.
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "You are a warrior, Clarice. The enemy is dead, the baby safe. You
> are a warrior. The most stable elements, Clarice, appear in the
> middle of the periodic table, roughly between iron and silver.
> Between iron and silver. I think that is appropriate for you.
> Hannibal Lecter." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999],
> p. 32.
>
> "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:008d01bf6b6e$0a25fea0$e3433bcb@leo...
> | Dear Denise
> | This is a complex question with a complex answer.
> |
> | "Rulers", Emperors, Kings, medieval continental Dukes etc.,
> | are usually displayed with their name first and then their title.
> | With certain titles there can be confusion, for instance Wales and
> Monaco.
> | There can always be only one XYZ, Prince of Wales
> | and only one ZYX, Prince of Monaco. Now we know that Charles, Prince
> of
> | Wales, has two sons and Ranier, Prince of Monaco has three children.
> To
> | indicate the difference, the 'ruler'
> | Charler and Rainier, are Charles, Prince of Wales, and Ranier,
> Prince of
> | Monaco. The children of Charles are Prince William of Wales, and
> Henry,
> | Prince of Wales, the same applies to the Monegask children. For them
> the
> | title Prince is placed before the Christian name.
> |
> | Dukes and Earls etc. when meeting them they would be, say, John,
> Duke of
> | Marlborough. But when recording them, I would record him as John
> George
> | Vanderbilt Henry Spencer Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough.
> |
> | Another problem you are going to encounter, especially in the middle
> ages,
> | is the lack of 'surnames'. Rulers were known by the territory they
> ruled
> | over. Often people would confuse that name and think it was a
> surname.
> | However, when the Duke of XYZ's younger son married an heiress, he
> could
> | become Duke of ABC.
> |
> | It is a complex matter and there is much more to it, but I hope this
> little
> | bit may be of assistance.
> | Best wishes
> | Leo van de Pas
> |
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: Denise M Tyler <dty...@chorus.net>
> | To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
John Steele Gordon
> I prefer to use the first field as is ie. as a 'name' field and a
> title is not a name. So the example above would be James II Stuart
> with his title or titles in another obvious place. Of course this is
> purely my preference. I would like to see genealogy programs have the
> ability to search on more than one field though.
Family Origin 8.0 handles titles better than any genealogy program I
know of. Certainly much better than Family Tree Maker, which is geared
much more to making pretty charts for Grandma's birthday than serious
genealogy.
When you enter a person into a database, it gives you four fields to
work with: 1) first name, 2) last name, 3) title (prefix), and 4) title
(suffix).
Thus if you fill in the fields 1) Henry 2) Percy 3) Sir 4) K.G., 2nd
Earl of Northumberland, what comes out when you print is "Sir Henry
Percy, K.G., 2nd Earl of Northumberland." Similarly 1) Edward III 2)
blank 3) blank 4) King of England comes out "Edward III, King of
England." Similarly again, 1) Edwin 2) Sandys 3) The Most Reverend 4)
Archbishop of York comes out "The Most Reverend Edwin Sandys, Archbishop
of York."
It also allows you to see five generations at once on the screen, which
makes navigating much easier. I highly recommend it.
JSG
--
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/g/o/r/John-S-Gordon
StNeel
trying to recover family lines & Henry, King of England is not all that useful
<gn>. What is his family, brothers, cousins, ancestors & descent called. Henry
Tudor is more useful.
I know it is a problem but one can only do their best on it. One can follow,
for example, Burgo -> Burg -> Burke by linage. Hmmm. I was 'thumped' for
assigning the 'family' namede Burgo a while back but there it is. SUggestions?
StNeel
Rafal Prinke
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> When James II married Ann Hyde he was Duke of York, but I know what you
> mean. However, If you say:
> Ann Hyde 1638-1671, in 1659 married James II King of England etc 1685-1688
>
> Because you do intend to add dates as well, then it becomes clear that Ann
> Hyde was never Queen-Conosrt of England as she died before her husband
> became king.
That's right. It depends how the information is used. If you add dates,
then everything is clear - but there are times when you do not want/need
dates. I have no practical solution to that problem - and in fact use
the same approach (ie. calling James II "king" even in contexts when
he was not a king).
> We want computer programs to follow us (not the other way around) but at the
> same time we should not make it more complicated than necessary.
> I hope you agree?
Absolutely. The problem is that because there is no consensus on how
core genealogical data should be presented, software developers do it
their way and users follow (they have no or little choice in most
programs - except LifeLines).
What is more, as people try to squeeze "square pegs in round holes"
the resultant GEDCOM files are increasingly incompatible.
Best regards,
Rafal
Jeff Snavely
field ONLY for official surnames. I don't think of the field as a "surname"
field, I think of it as a "surname/house" (and as a last resort "/location")
field. It make searching the database much easier than having to manually
look through a couple hundred Henry's trying to find the one I want. Using
the correct regional spelling that they would have used in their own
lifetime (Henri for French Henry's, Heinrich for German Henry's) is also a
big help in splitting them all up into more manageable size groups.
----- Original Message -----
From: "StNeel" <stn...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
D. Spencer Hines
Origins 7.0a, which has all the features you describe infra?
Any limitations that you'd like to see fixed?
Thank you.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p.
397.
"John Steele Gordon" <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3896E195...@worldnet.att.net...
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: StNeel <stn...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Entering Titles into Genealogy Programs
> The suggestions are all fine & nice but they miss a point. We are, in
general,
> trying to recover family lines & Henry, King of England is not all that
useful
> <gn>. What is his family, brothers, cousins, ancestors & descent called.
Henry
> Tudor is more useful.
It depends which Henry you talk about. But in most cases the brothers of
Kings Henry were either "of Normandy" or "of England"
or they had their own title (Bedford, Gloucester). Why not record them under
those names? If your computer needs 'satisfying' give them one of those
names as 'surname'.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
John Steele Gordon
> How much is Family Origin and is it for the PC?
It is for IBM-compatible PC's. I believe it is $29.95. There is a deluxe
version for ten bucks more, but the software is exactly the same, it
just has some extra program but I forget what. The consensus is to buy
the cheaper version. It's available from Parsons Technology and, I
think, The Learning Company. I forget what software company has eaten
what other software company lately. It's now owned by the same company
that makes Family Tree Maker, and the salesmen at the other end of the
phone will try to push that program--along with dozens of useless CD's.
Don't let them buffalo you.
There is a newsgroup FAMILY-ORIG...@rootsweb.com where you can
get any and every question answered. The man who wrote the program
answers many questions himself.
If you're overseas (from the American point of view) they try to stick
you big time for the postage. You should get an American friend to buy
it and send it to you.
JSG
--
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/g/o/r/John-S-Gordon
Jeff Snavely
> version for ten bucks more, but the software is exactly the same, it
> just has some extra program but I forget what. The consensus is to buy
> the cheaper version. It's available from Parsons Technology and, I
> think, The Learning Company. I forget what software company has eaten
> what other software company lately. It's now owned by the same company
> that makes Family Tree Maker, and the salesmen at the other end of the
> phone will try to push that program--along with dozens of useless CD's.
> Don't let them buffalo you.
I'll agree that the WFT CD's are useless, but don't go lumping all of their
CD's together. They make a lot of great CD's containing scanned images of
the pages of books and magazines compiled together into specific states or
other categories. The price of each CD is less than what it would cost to
buy just one book contained on the CD.
THERON L. SMITH
I've made some extremly good finds on the WFT cds, but you have to sift
through tons of chaff to find a pound of wheat! I have found a few things
I'd never have found elsewhere.
I too have tried a few of the better cds and I like them too,
Regards,
Theron Smith.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Snavely [SMTP:jsna...@oecadvantage.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 9:24 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Entering Titles into Genealogy Programs
>
Terry Whetstone Harmon, M.D.
Terry
Reunion Home Page