Why Such Alterations in Spelling?

From the first primary record, of example John Britten’s life, to the last, his surname had alternate spellings, changing not only with his geographical location, but also for unexplored reasons.  Yet he seemed prosperous when he provided "a substitute" in the War of 1812, by land exchanges, and by later moving his family West.  So it is probably likely there is a reason for the various spellings, other than lack of ability to spell (which, on second glance, I may have inherited).

As John BR*N did seem to be a man of ‘means,’ would that make him more likely to have been literate or not?  (Well, I guess that’s a leap or two.)  There must be other reasons for the alternate spellings of his surname, those of his father, his son, and his grandson (that is, aside from my own typing skills).

Sos and Primarily One Example Ancestor: John W.

In several short paragraphs, I summarize some circumstantial evidence suggesting reasonable causes for some of the specific alternations in surname spellings for, our example ancestor, John BR*N.

Sos and Enunciation

How the surname was said changed secondary to, among other reasons, progressive tooth loss and extraction without anesthesia prior to 1846.  So?  Well, maybe it wasn’t so much the ‘ *mix-spaellin of the surname,’ but the saying ‘anything without pain.’

Along with that, too, goes the whole spiel about accents.  You should hear me talk--an accent I’ve got.  Yet my accent is nothing like the ‘deep-in-the-woods’ so evident in those not exposed to homogenizing talk media, as these British-Southern ancestors, in the early 1800’s, certainly were not.  Add to that other accents, such as French, Welsh, Dutch, and Spanish, and what a mix to try to understand.

Sos and Ability to Speak...

...so people can understand what you are saying.  I did not find a primary reference supporting listening for unpronounced letters, so I wrote it myself, then deleted it from this page.  Nor is there a guide to how best to explain secrets in 17th and 18th Century pronunciation.  If you happen to have a "hard to understand accent" then take to heart that I am sure your accent will become homogenized by exposure to talk media.  The strong melding of accents, "of our earliest immigrants," described, then deleted, is still evident in expression, though it is not likely those with such "strength of sound" have sound-recorded surname lists.  (And, that is a hint for those looking to contribute to the genealogy research community.)  If you want to read what I wrote about accents and our early ancestors...just let me know.

Sos and Wars with British

Both the American Revolution and the American War of 1812 were with people from ‘Britain.’  Now how to spell one’s surname when fighting on the American side during one of these really powerful conflicts?  Perhaps, too, having just immigrated from the United Kingdom?  And, with a British accent?  I don’t have the answer to that, but it is probable our ancestors really struggled with this ‘powerful identification’ problem.

So the keywords for this html page should probably include words suggesting Battles with England and so on, unfortunately, this would index and bring-up this ‘surname and hername’ BR*N discussion, for those searching for country information.  While I think this would be some form of justice for all the years I got country information when I was searching for surnames and hernames, times have changed and genealogy websites abound.

Sos and Ability to Write

So far, I found only one signed record for John--when he and Catharine Hensley married in 1822 TN Washington County.  His signature does not differ from the signature of Catharine.  Traveling forward eight years, to six pages of land transactions, and there are still no signatures for John, including an X (his mark).  There is a recorded X (his mark) for William Breeden that was too faint to see until really enlarged, but somehow, not for John.

(To review Catharine’s signature (229) and William’s X (202-205).)

While reviewing the records and once again noting the handwriting, the following hypothesis formed:  What if John’s writing hand had been injured during his brief participation in the (American/British) War of 1812, specifically on Jan 24th 1814, during the Battle of Enotachopco Creek?  Would that explain some of the alternate surname spellings?

(To review John furnishing a substitute (227) and the battle date (p2).)

Sos and Who was related to whom?

Surname spellings in this family were ‘most likely an attempt to distinguish oneself from an uncle of the same first and last names, living in the same geographical location.’

I’ll repeat what I wrote many years ago--It does seem that given a limited number of first names used within all the alternate BR*N surname spellings, that a man changed his BR*N surname spelling depending upon his geographical proximity to either his more prominent nephew or his uncle of the same name.  Marquis Lafayette (aka Lafayette BR*N), John’s brother, is a good example of this name change, as is John’s son, Marcus Lafayette BR*N, and of course his grandson, Marquis Lafayette Fletcher BR*N.

(Note to self...scan in info for Marquis).

So my hypothesis is as follows:  If two BR*N men are recorded in the same geographical location (perhaps even conducting business with each other) and both have the same surname spelling, one is either the descendant or the sibling of the other.  And same too with given names.  If two men of the same first names are recorded in the same geographical location and their surnames vary, then one is probably either nephew, cousin, or uncle to the other.

For example:  John Britten is probably either a nephew or a cousin of [John Britain m. Kelshaw TN Washington Co].  While more research is needed, this hypothesis certainly opens up whole new avenues for record searches and connecting families.

Sos and Recorded Descendants

For this example ancestor line, the probate for guardianship lists John as deceased and reassigns care of George W., but does not state that George is the son of John.  John could have been guardian of George W. (rather than his father).  In The History of Greene County Missouri, the author states, in the "Biographical Sketch" of George W. (224), that his father is John.  While biographical histories give directional clues, they are not proof.  Yet the two circumstantial records are the best we have, so far, for this connection and is widely accepted as fact.

Stepping back one generation finds the surname spelling of BREEDEN (201).  The dates and locations confirm that William is father to John, just as well as the MO Greene County probate record for guardianship of John’s ‘children’ and "The History of Greene County Missouri Biographical Sketches" confirm that John BRITTEN is father to George W. BRITAIN.  (More on descendence, later.)

Sos and Economic Power

All the records that we amateur genealogists pursue that might give us clues to our ancestor’s lives, cannot record the fact that most of these records were to benefit those who had economic power (211) over our dear Great Grands.  From this fact can be inferred that one might not take an interest in how one’s name got spelled.  Sort of like, "It’s their record, their mistake."

Sos and Publishing Power

To review the handwriting (202-205) over the X, and decide for yourself if this is an altered primary record.

Something else requiring a heads-up for family gatherers:  When did it become one’s right to publish alternate surname spellings, just because one did a lot of research (and, perhaps, now ‘owns’ the ancestor)?

OH YES...that reference.  Just ‘wanna’ make sure that person won’t be ‘readin’ my strong sentiment here before listing the name.  (I know...not funny).

Now these people, as well as the family researchers and historians mentioned throughout this and subsequent pages are long-deceased and have descendants, so I’m ‘not-gonna-be naming’ names. 
 
By the way, a quick internet search resulted in finding no penalties for altering genealogical records.  Of course though, in my opinion, there should be serious consequences! 
 
(To review the typed list (230) given out in lieu of actually reviewing the primary record, in the same courthouse as the ‘very-aged and therefore fragile’ primary record.  And, that one more ‘oft-quoted’ secondary source alteration (228) alluded to, above.)

Sos and Vested Interest in Accuracy

The typists who typed from very-much hard to decipher primary records, who did not have a vested interest in the accuracy of his/her work secondary to not being a descendant, combined with a preemptive sense of ‘knowing to which family people belonged,’ and all the variations of ‘being smaRt’ about names, really maligned this particular surname and hername, ‘Britain.’

Sos and A Conclusion to These Considerations

As the lists show, the BR*N surname is spelled differently almost each time recorded, even when father and son are next to each other on the same record (316). 
 
Therefore, spelling of BR*N is not a reliable indicator of family group.  Any of the surnames listed along the right margin, plus many not listed, may be descendants of another.

Sos and The Spellings of Your Surnames and Hernames

The above reasons are those suggested as primary for spelling variations in this particular set of surnames.  The surname Britain was used as an example, with the view of translating the message here to your own genealogical endeavors. 
Peace. 
B.GaiL