Just to clarify the example that I read...using your example... The
husband doesn't neccessarily have to take on the surname of his
wife's father. But in your example, you have a Carlos Garcia Mendez
and a Carlita Garcia Mendez, two siblings. Carlos gets married and
has children and on his wedding records and his children's baptismal
records he is referred to as Carlos Mendez, basically dropping the
Garcia. His children then become Jose Mendez Lopez, where Lopez is
his wife's surname. Carlita on the other hand, when she gets married
and has children she is referred to as Carlita Garcia. Her children
are then Jose Lopez Garcia, where Lopez is her husband's surname. So
these two siblings end up having different surnames.
Thanks,
Angie.
P.S. Still looking for my source...
--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Macias" <usa20@e...> wrote:
> Angie; Though I can see the logic of what you say you may have
read, I have never seen this to be the case in taking the surname of
the wife.
> As you know, the child of Hector Garcia and Rosa Mendez would be
for example Carlita Garcia Mendez. I have never seen a man change
his name to Hector Mendez. It is not true in Mexico, Central America
or South America, is it true maybe in Spain or Portugal ? A family
name is very important and I have never seen a case where a man would
change his surname to that of his wife's father. I wonder where you
read this ? Traditionally the woman keeps her maiden name in that way
even after marriage.
> I know about the variations in the spelling of names. I have seen
some very strange attempts to spell Indian names by phonetics.
> Anyway, I found your entry very enlightening and will remember to
keep it in mind as I look over the records from now on. If you will
tell me where you have seen this practice, it would help me very much.
>
> Jose L. Macias
> usa20@e...
|