Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Adoption of surname

Expand Messages
  • Ron Matviyak
    ... In that system, people did not own property outright, but a family ... Andrea, One of the basics of geneology is to identify your source so people know how
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 23, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Andrea Vangor wrote:
      >
      > From: "Andrea Vangor" <drav@...>
      In that system, people did not own property outright, but a family
      > possessed the right to work a certain farm or allotment, which was then
      > accessible only to family members of that surname. It's easy to understand
      > why so many men changed their surnames from the late 18th century through
      > the 1840's, when the peasant system was operative.
      >
      > Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts on this little finding.
      >
      > Andrea
      >

      Andrea,

      One of the basics of geneology is to identify your source so people know
      how you constructed the relationships and the veracity of the records
      used. That is an interesting comment above - how did you come to the
      conclusion that that is how the legal system worked at that time? I
      have no reason to doubt it, but am asking a reason to believe it! I
      have read a number of histories and have not found much that identifies
      the practice of law and only rarely do they identify specific property
      transfer rights or limitations. If you have something it would be
      interesting to see.
      Thanks in advance.

      Ron
    • Andrea Vangor
      As a matter of interest to those poring over microfilms and matching surnames, I noticed an interesting example of surname adoption by a second husband around
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 23, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        As a matter of interest to those poring over microfilms and matching
        surnames, I noticed an interesting example of surname adoption by a second
        husband around 1865 in Opina. I have two men named Jakub or Jakubtsin who
        married two Vangor girls -- don't know if the men were brothers or the women
        sisters, but can find out if it matters. Anyway, one Vangor woman is
        widowed. She remarries a man named Schmaida, later Magyarized to Smajda.
        After a couple of years, his name is recorded as Smajda/Jakubtsin. The
        family still living on what must have been the Jakubtsin farm. Evidently,
        the new husband elected to adopt the first husband's surname because he was
        living and working on that man's property.

        I thought this was interesting, given that these people were no longer
        peasants. That is, it should have been possible if the farm was a freehold,
        for Mr. Smajda to claim a share -- or all -- of his new wife's property
        without taking her former husband's name. Maybe the peasant habits died
        hard. In that system, people did not own property outright, but a family
        possessed the right to work a certain farm or allotment, which was then
        accessible only to family members of that surname. It's easy to understand
        why so many men changed their surnames from the late 18th century through
        the 1840's, when the peasant system was operative.

        Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts on this little finding.

        Andrea
      • Andrea Vangor
        The basic assumption I am making, at least until I find some evidence to the contrary, is that the rules of feudalism operated in Upper Hungary as elsewhere in
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 23, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          The basic assumption I am making, at least until I find some evidence to the
          contrary, is that the rules of feudalism operated in Upper Hungary as
          elsewhere in Christendom. The terms "serf" and "peasant" are technical
          words that describe very particular and quite distinctive states of life. I
          am assuming that when they are used about Slovakia, hopefully by people who
          understand the proper usage, they mean essentially the same thing that these
          words mean in Western European history. They do seem to mean the same thing
          when informed people describe, for example, the persistence of serfdom in
          Russia until the 1860's.

          I have lent out my favorite book on this subject, but I think it was _Europe
          and the Faith_, 1920, by the famous English writer Hilaire Belloc. He
          describes the transition in Europe, from the Roman Empire until modern
          times, from chattel slavery through serfdom through the peasant system
          through yeomanry. It's a fascinating book and explains many details about
          these different social arrangements and their economic implications.

          Belloc wrote about himself:
          "When I am dead, I hope it may be said:
          'His sins were scarlet, but his books were read.'"

          You may also want to check out his well-known _A Bad Child's Book of Beasts"
          which includes such gems as

          THE HIPPOPOTAMUS

          I shoot the Hippopotamus
          with bullets made of platinum,
          Because if I use leaden ones
          his hide is sure to flatten 'em.

          Andrea


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Ron Matviyak <amiak@...>
          To: <SLOVAK-ROOTS@onelist.com>
          Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 9:42 AM
          Subject: Re: [SLOVAK-ROOTS] Adoption of surname


          > From: Ron Matviyak <amiak@...>
          >
          > Andrea Vangor wrote:
          > >
          > > From: "Andrea Vangor" <drav@...>
          > In that system, people did not own property outright, but a family
          > > possessed the right to work a certain farm or allotment, which was then
          > > accessible only to family members of that surname. It's easy to
          understand
          > > why so many men changed their surnames from the late 18th century
          through
          > > the 1840's, when the peasant system was operative.
          > >
          > > Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts on this little finding.
          > >
          > > Andrea
          > >
          >
          > Andrea,
          >
          > One of the basics of geneology is to identify your source so people know
          > how you constructed the relationships and the veracity of the records
          > used. That is an interesting comment above - how did you come to the
          > conclusion that that is how the legal system worked at that time? I
          > have no reason to doubt it, but am asking a reason to believe it! I
          > have read a number of histories and have not found much that identifies
          > the practice of law and only rarely do they identify specific property
          > transfer rights or limitations. If you have something it would be
          > interesting to see.
          > Thanks in advance.
          >
          > Ron
          >
          >
          > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
          >
          > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them
          > from anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance
          > to win a digital camera.
          > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Atbackup ">Click Here</a>
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.