What I've decided to do is list only the first surname. If I find a person with two surnames, I'll create a mother with a blank given name and the second last name of the child. I think that I'm better organized this way and sort better, particularly because half of the people in my file don't use dual surnames.

-Patti

An alternative to "Family Tree Maker" is "My Heritage Family Three Builder", that allows compound non-hyphenated surnames to be listed. Also, is multilingual, and you can choose from dozens of languages within the same platform, allowing you to produce reports in any of the languages supported.

Jaime

Jose,

I always use both surnames in my entries. I use the free PAF software and have
not had problems with the sequencing.

Because I've always known that both surnames are used in our culture I began to
use them both. I wouldn't do it any other way. Let's see what other people are
doing.

Good question to pose to the group at large.

Alicia,
San Jose, Ca

________________________________
From: "jvball21@gmail.com"
To: research@lists.nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 6:10:32 AM
Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Double surnames and how thy should be listed

This question is for those of you (probably all of you) who are using genealogy
software to keep track of your information. Specifically Family Tree Maker,
since this is what I'm using.

As you probably know... in Mexican(Latin) culture. Most people have 2 surnames
starting with their own paternal then maternal name. I started my records
listing only the paternal surnames in my list, with the exception of one name
where I listed both surnames. When I went to go look for that person on my
master list to the left of the program, I noticed that it was alphabetized by
the maternal surname as opposed to the paternal. So in essence it threw it out
of place.

I was wondering how most of you are listing your names? And what benefits do you
see in doing it one way as opposed to the other.

Sometimes I think its more beneficial listing both names. Here's my reasoning...
If you come across an ancestor with both surnames but don't know the parents.
The surname can give you a clue as to the surname of the father as well as the
mother. But the draw back, in my point of view, is that your index listing will
be out of whack making it just a bit harder to find alphabetically.

Interested in hearing your opinions.
Thanks
Jose Acosta

José:

You bring up a good point surnames are very important not only in our culture but our history especially in genealogy. These are only simple surnames though. In genealogy I usually don’t follow the paternal vs. maternal surname system in genealogy for the reason that I may not remember the combination, I personally do not have time to look through thousands of records for one name in my database. Whereas in the world how many Gutiérrez de Hermosillo existed, far less then than the millions of Gutiérrez alone.

Surnames become a double-edge sword once you begin to deal with compound and hyphenated surnames. One they’re longer and stand for one lineage. It gets more complicated when different people use different surnames for different reasons. A family of twelve back in the 1600s-1700s could have had all but six kids use say Gómez de Cervantes while one used de la Cotera y Rivas-Cacho, two kids used López de Peralta, etc. Many reasons why people used different surnames, they inherited a mayorazgo which required you to carry the surname by Spanish law. Another, you could be named after one of your grandparents therefore you would carry their surname. It was not until the Borbón Reforms that all this became standardized what we know as the paternal maternal system. Never assume a man or a woman used their paternal name, I have too many cases where a man would use his maternal name and never used his father’s name.

My López de Peralta “died out” of descendants via the paternal line (línea agnática). But because they formed a mayorazgo they were able to sustain their lineage even if it was by their name up to the independence. The surname and mayorazgo passed through various families. The last one I have studied was the case of the “last” Mexican to hold the title of conde de Santiago de Calimaya whose brother inherited the López de Peralta even though if you were to take a look at their genealogy there is no trace of López de Peralta until the 1600s.

By the end of the XIX century many individuals in Mexico City could be found using up to four surnames. This was a blessing for me. You could tell who married who just by seeing all these named used. Obviously you still want to check your sources to make sure but the lines were not as troublesome as one would think.

I would suggest to keep compound names together never change them or shorten them. It keeps things in order. As to the paternal maternal surname I would just use the paternal.

If you come across your ancestor using a certain name and another record a slight variation take note of it can give you a clue. One case could be Joseph del Río y López de Lara who could have been more known as Joseph del Río, but for whatever reason either the priest or himself felt necessary to express his maternal name in the record. Whereas in other records he did not, this is still mind-boggling what decides to feel the urge to express it. By this I could suspect his mother could be López de Lara so I take note of it for future reference and sure enough. Don’t always assume it is the case though.

Daniel Méndez-Camino