How to Add Alternate Names on Ancestry.com

[@stlmama7643]

Helpful. I always struggle trying to remember how to do this. It’s also great that you pointed out the reasons the alternate name rather than aka is a better approach when it comes to records. I have German ancestors whose surname changed with the ownership of a farm, others who changed spellings over time. The record searches often hit on the variations, but not always. Thanks for this practical info!

[@TheDanEdwards]

I put anything in a name field that has or could be found on a record. That is important for some ancestors in places where different names could be used, such as Norway, where patronymics or farm names can occur depending upon the record.

[@dawnbarry2985]

This is very helpful. I have at least 3 people in my tree who for various reasons were hiding under an alias. Fortunately, DNA matches with their children helped me find where they were hiding and under which name.

[@KendallPreston-e5h]

I’m really obsessed with your tree on Ancestry. Could you do a bunch of videos where you talk about your relatives and ancestors? I just really like when you talk about them. I’m really into facts most of your family.

[@kimschneider9655]

Super helpful! My Mom did a complete first, middle, and last name change. ❤

[@debbiecarroll5672]

Good morning Connie..thank you!

[@danydagoatyt]

Thank you! So helpful. I do much Irish genealogy and they definitely had alternate names lol!

[@CarrinHalffman]

One limitation of the alternate name in Ancestry is that it does not seem to be searchable within your own tree (using the "Find in Tree" button). Since I have an extensive tree, this search capability would be very useful. My immigrant ancestors have multiple names and name changes. To be able to find relatives in my own tree, I am forced to list multiple first and last names in the name field. It's ugly and messy and goes against genealogical standards, but it's the only way I can find my people within my own tree.

[@JourneyAlee]

If I could have one genealogical wish come true, it would be a tour of all the great castles of Europe. If I got a second wish, it would be instant knowledge of why records are data fields, not profile pages to be prettied up. Just the data. The extra characters make finding matches so much more difficult for all users.

[@jedigeek442]

My Grandmother at birth last name is Melnikoff but she never went by that name since her father divorced her mother as a young age, When her mom remarried, she used the last name of her step father Achter. Should I still use Melnikoff as he preferred name even though it's only on birth record? Or should I make Achter the preferred name, since that's what she used before she got married later on? Thank you

[@KimberlyGreen]

Personally, I always use birth surname as "preferred" because it maintains the linkage to the preceeding generation for anyone who's reviewing the tree. As you mentioned, it's also on the birth vital. Since we often work backwards in time when researching, that's often one of the oldest documents we find. So I prefer to have the birth vital surname and the "preferred" name aligned. That said, the "preferred" name is mostly for the visual aspect of your tree. The more important thing is that you provide the platform with all variations of the person's name, so that the algorithm can use them when scouring the indexed records.

[@jedigeek442]

@@KimberlyGreen Thank you very much

[@GenealogyTV]

Birthname

[@KimberlyGreen]

I wish that genealogy industry standards were updated to include a fact called "maiden surname" or "birth surname". And that it was distinct from any other surnames. Side note: The audio visualization widget is a bit distracting. Maybe you're using it to watermark your videos in addition to your banner? Personally I'd prefer not to see it. But if you do still need to use it, maybe smaller and in the corner with the banner?

[@JourneyAlee]

I edited some 30,000 records to "reclaim" the individuality of my female elders -- all of who they were/are. Totally worth it, and I can see so much more about each woman at a glance. Here's a tool I need: a batch updater.

[@GenealogyTV]

Point taken.

[@darlenesye1609]

QQQ Hey Connie, apologies. I cannot find this handout. Good presentation. I may have been doing it wrong sometimes. Yeah, as I'm listening again, I Did put a few NANAs in there.

[@GenealogyTV]

There is no handout for this episode. When in doubt check the description, I will always post whether there is not a handout.

[@dplj4428]

oops! understand now why my tree started to look like a tree with vines.

[@bobbartlett8459]

When I click on Filter I get the options of Family Events and Name and Gender but I do not have alternate facts?? When I go to Add, Name I do not get preferred option ? I am working online on Win 11. Any suggestions. Thank you Bob

[@toniasalways]

Ancestry got so expensive I quit using it. I would use this hint... IF I could remember all the Marys and Betsys etc of so many of my female family member I would go through and fix them.

[@lindagibson744]

I agree 1000 percent. The costs is prohibitive for me.

[@Ribcrickett]

Ancestry memberships are 50% off this weekend and AncestryDNA is only $39 until Sept. 3, 2024.

[@dennislohr5672]

@@lindagibson744 @toniasalways Most libraries now offer Ancestry for free but it must be used inside the library which includes the library's Wi-Fi. That means your can take your personal laptop, find a comfy spot, and have access to Ancestry for free. The biggest drawback with the Library Edition is that you cannot create an Ancestry Family Tree. One final thing is that libraries are adding many other genealogy, newspaper, and historical databases. These are also free but can be accessed from home.

[@BookofMormonReader]

It's FREE through Family Search's handshake portal. If you already have a FREE profile there, simply go to a deceased ancestor's profile and go to the right side menu. Select Ancestry and go from there. This dual partnership also allows you to link them both for making sure both platforms have the same records, photos, etc. Now, frolic, family style!

[@Ribcrickett]

@@BookofMormonReader that’s awesome.

[@glenjones6980]

I have someone who was born out of wedlock in one name (I have the cert and baptism), he appears in one census as a 2 yer old and vanishes but seems to be replaced by another male, same age, same place of birth and same mother in the next census. The 'replacement' has no birth record or baptism and to further muddy the waters he signs up to the army then subsequently changes his name and is known as such for the rest of his life. His army pension records make no reference to the name from the birth cert but note both the latter names and which is the alias. I really don't know what name to use and what to add where but he is the grandfather of my highest mystery dna match. I feel this match is crucial to resolving the NPE issues I have with my mother (the group of matches in the name changing family contains 60 matches as high as 275cM and I have no idea how I match any of them).

[@Nauysvyf]

Ancestry won’t let me manually add a different surname to the Father’s surname for females. Not very useful when I have come against someone with a number of alias names, that have appeared on documents. Also difficult for adoptions. The only way is to import the name with a document, which it does allow.

[@deenacaldwell4415]

It doesn't let you do an Alternate Name or Also Known As Name?

[@dennislohr5672]

@Nauysvyf I've had the same problem and was somewhat surprised that @GenealogyTV did not cover this quirk in the video. I'm actually glad you mentioned it because I was wondering if it was just be me. I'll add that this only happens if I try to *manually* add or change a surname. It has never been a problem while adding a record with a different surname. What's odd is this doesn't seem to happen every time and with different results, but I think I've got it at least partly figured out. (1) I get ⚠ "The last name is not the same as the father’s last name" with an "Add Anyways" button an if it's a completely unique surname. (2) The warning is ⚠ "Use the maiden name for the last name, not the married name" if it's a female and the new add matches a husband's surname. Sometimes it has the "Add Anyways" button but other times that's not an option and I cannot Save. I can sometimes get the Add Anyways option by closing it out and trying to redo it once or several times.

[@johnbethea4505]

I ran against a brickwall so high and strong that I couldn't break down. My real grandfather can't be found, just assumed.

[@carokat1111]

A DNA test should give you clues as that’s a close relationship

[@johnbethea4505]

@carokat1111 I am 77, and most of my people are dead. I can't find anyone if they're any that have been tested, or maybe they didn't have children.

[@KimberlyGreen]

@@johnbethea4505 Hi John. Carokat1111 is right about a DNA test. Let me give some additional thoughts that might help ... With DNA-based research, you have to come at it from multiple directions. It's kind of like sending out a bunch of radar pings from different locations and watching where they overlap. So your research pattern is going to involve documenting the ancestors of your matches. First, you'll build their trees backwards in time. The more distant a cousin they are, the further back you'll have to go. So it's best if you first work on your first and second cousin matches. Since you're 77, you should document the matches back to their ancestors born around 1880 to 1900. That should get who their grandparents are (and about 2 generations older than you). Next, you'll build out *forwards* in time. For each of those folks born in the early 1900s you'll fill in their descendants all the way down to your generation, and maybe further if you find it links up with someone else that's a DNA match. The ultimate effect is that you'll be filling in all the people *around you* , both living and passed, who you share DNA relationships with. That's why you should initially concentrate on your first and second cousin matches. Doing it for third and beyond gets exponentially more intensive and time-consuming. What you'll ultimately have is a really strong picture of where your grandfather *had to be* among all those folks. It's kinda like having a puzzle where all the pieces are in place except for one, and there's one hole in the puzzle too. For example, if your grandfather had siblings then you'll have a tree that accounts for all of their siblings' families, but a big old gap for one person. That gap person is most likely your grandfather. You can then explore that person's life in more detail. Find out where they lived, who they interacted with, etc. More importantly, you'll want to look for places & times where he would have possibly interacted with your grandmother. If you're really fortunate, you'll find a birth record with the name of your parent that has the suspected grandfather listed too. By the way, you might consult what's called a consanguinity chart so that you understand what those cM and percentage shared really mean. (I like the one created by John J Tierney. You can do a web search for his blog.) Side note: I have a similar situation, in that my maternal great-grandmother was adopted at an early age and her birth parents aren't known. I'm following the techniques I mentioned to hopefully find clues. But since she's further back, I have to go back to 3rd, 4th and later cousins. It's time consuming.