I have two questions: (1) is the surname of a woman listed as a sponsor or godparent her maiden name or married name; and (2) how prevalent was it that a woman might be known by her middle name and not by her given name as reflected in a baptism record (and did this practice vary depending on the county or parish or might it have been a family tradition)?
From my experience, lived and researched, the sponsors names would reflect the person's status at the time of the event. So, if Mary Byrne was a sponsor while she was single, her surname would be Byrne. If she married Jack Doyle, and afterwards if she were to sponsor a child, she would be named as Mary Doyle. Question 2, It would not be unusual to the present day for a person to be called by her/his second or even third name or even a "pet" name but they would invariably sign or give their name as their correct given name, if asked. Possibly if the registrar, or more commonly in the parish records, the priest, knew a sponsor as whoever, he might put that name down as sponsor because he possibly might not know the first or given name, and possibly neglect to ask if the name was correct or not.
I hope this is not too rambling an answer to your questions.
I would agree with what Jaybee has said. I’d add that middle names were pretty uncommon in Ireland in the 1800s, plus marriage naming customs are different to those in the US and Canada. If Mary Byrne married Jack Doyle in Ireland, she just became Mary Doyle. Not Mary Byrne Doyle. So whilst a woman’s maiden name might sometimes subsequently be recorded in official records, it’s not a name she would have routinely used after she had married. And that’s generally still the same today.
Will confess to being totally confused by the latest responses to this question as it appears to present a contrary view to a previous posting.
Rua
Rua. Surnames of female sponsors and witnesses names were always recorded as their maiden name (even when they are married.21 Dec 2016
Who were witnesses and sponsors in marriage & baptism ...
irelandxo.com › ireland › tipperary › message-board › w...
Thank you for the responses -- despite the aparrent contrary information with regard to my first question! At least I know I have to dig deeper. As to the second question, I ask it since my wife's great great grandmother, reportedly born in April 1853, came to the United States around 1868, and family lore was that her first name was Bridget and her middle name was Catherine. Her last name was O'Dea and I believe she was from Moycullen parish since I have traced the O'Dea family she lived with here in 1870 as being from there. But, I cannot find any baptism record for a Bridget O'Dea from Galway County born in April between 1851-1855. There is, however, a Catherine O'Dea born in April 1853 in Moycullen parish so I wonder if Bridget could be her.
Hi,
I'm not sure about the 1850s, but in the 1950s this is certainly the case. My wife and my brother are both known by their middle names. While middle names may not be common in 1850s records, I think that names other than given names may have been used in families. So, if you were to ask me, Catherine could be called Bridget. But everything else would have to be double-checked and alternatives ruled out.
As you may know, dates of birth from the 1800s are difficult to believe and can be out by several years. With this in mind, and to confuse you more, there was a Bridget O'Dea born in April in Moycullen in 1849.
No clear answer I'm afraid!
Best wishes, Kieran Jordan
I have to agree with the latest post. In my own family history my 3G grandmother was known as Margaret, Maude, Madge, Annie and Mary on the baptism registrations of her children. Dates for ages can vary up to 10 yrs in some cases. Some priests- not all - were inclined to display their prowess in Latin. One name I see which is constantly referred to in my own tree is Henricus. I'm pretty certain that NO CHILD from a rural area would be lumbered with such a title, unless they were landed gentry or something similar. I'm still unconvinced of the assertion that a woman's maiden name had to be used when sponsoring a child. The sponsors would invariably be a very close relative, or an even closer friend trusted by the family to look after the children in the event of a tragedy in the family.
Thank you for the reply. As a follow-up note: I've seen instances where the maiden name of a mother was not noted in baptism records and instead, just the husband's last name is noted for both parents. It would seem that this raises the possibility that at least sometimes a woman's married name versus maiden name was used.