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... 

Jose and Angie,
I seem to recall reading something about this subject.  It might have 
been in "Retoños de España en la Nueva Galicia" by Mariano González-
Leal. Possibly the Franco de Paredes chapter.  I would have to concur 
with Angie's statements, unless my memory is failing me.  The case 
study was where the husband added his wife's surname to his own.  He 
might have been Franco and the wife was Paredes so the husband added 
Paredes to his own surname. The reason for the addition is just what 
Angie said: the wife's surname carried more prestige than the 
husband's.  Steven may be able to shed some light on this.  I believe 
he is contributing to the newest edition of Retoños.
One thing we should keep in mind when you say "traditionally the wife 
keeps her maiden name" is that traditions change over time and it all 
depends on what century you are debating.  There is a big difference 
in naming patterns in say 1580 and 1920.

Maria
--- 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... 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: aajay1073 
>   To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:12 PM
>   Subject: [ranchos] Re: Naming Patterns
> 
> 
>   I read somewhere, {and I can't remember where, but I tried 
looking 
>   for my source for this information}, that if the wife's family 
was of 
>   a higher status or surname was 'better' {in using measurements 
during 
>   that time period}, then the males in the family took the wife's 
>   surname which would then pass to their children.  And the females 
>   took the husband's surname which would get passed to their 
children 
>   as the secondary surname.
> 
>   In terms of mispellings or spelling variations.  Again, I read 
>   somewhere, the person recording the name tended to be more 
educated 
>   then the general people. Therefore, it would have been 'beneath' 
him 
>   to ask how to spell a name to someone who was less educated them 
he.  
>   The ability to read and write was not wide spread, but more than 
>   likely even those people who did know how to write, were probably 
>   still not asked the correct way to spell their name.
> 
>   just me two cents...
> 
>   Angie
> 
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   ranchos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.

I read somewhere, {and I can't remember where, but I tried looking 
for my source for this information}, that if the wife's family was of 
a higher status or surname was 'better' {in using measurements during 
that time period}, then the males in the family took the wife's 
surname which would then pass to their children.  And the females 
took the husband's surname which would get passed to their children 
as the secondary surname.

In terms of mispellings or spelling variations.  Again, I read 
somewhere, the person recording the name tended to be more educated 
then the general people. Therefore, it would have been 'beneath' him 
to ask how to spell a name to someone who was less educated them he.  
The ability to read and write was not wide spread, but more than 
likely even those people who did know how to write, were probably 
still not asked the correct way to spell their name.

just me two cents...

Angie

As I re-read what I wrote here... I realize what I said may not have 
been clear.  Therefore just to clarify....{once again}

What I meant by "the males in the family took the wife's surname", 
was that the male children took their mother's surname.  And, "the 
females took the husband's surname", was that the female children 
took their father's surname.

Hope this makes more sense...

Angie.

P.S.  Perhaps I need to get change for my two cents...

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> I read somewhere, {and I can't remember where, but I tried looking 
> for my source for this information}, that if the wife's family was 
of 
> a higher status or surname was 'better' {in using measurements 
during 
> that time period}, then the males in the family took the wife's 
> surname which would then pass to their children.  And the females 
> took the husband's surname which would get passed to their children 
> as the secondary surname.
> 
> In terms of mispellings or spelling variations.  Again, I read 
> somewhere, the person recording the name tended to be more educated 
> then the general people. Therefore, it would have been 'beneath' 
him 
> to ask how to spell a name to someone who was less educated them 
he.  
> The ability to read and write was not wide spread, but more than 
> likely even those people who did know how to write, were probably 
> still not asked the correct way to spell their name.
> 
> just me two cents...
> 
> Angie