This is an interesting question. My older brother, my only sibling, is in his 40s, is not married and has no children. I have kept my Fort name, but my only child, a girl, carries my husband's surname.
Of my father's 6 siblings, 4 are male, but only 2 (Roy, the elder, and Stanley, the younger) had male children. One of those sons (Stanley's) has two sons of his own, but I don't know if either of them are married yet. Roy also had 2 sons, one of whom has a son of his own. I have very little information on my Uncle Roy's family branch, so that is as much as I know.
So it seems of the 7 children of Wesley C. Fort and Lula E. Agnes Nicholson, there are only 3 third-generation possibilities for the continuation of the Fort name.
It is also interesting to note that though Wesley and Agnes's male children outnumbered their female children 5-2, their female Fort grandchildren outnumber male Fort grandchildren 9-4, and their 2 daughters produced (along with 4 girls) 5 boys between them to carry on their husband's names.
One reason I kept my maiden name was because I consider it to be more unique than my husband's surname. Unique is good, but I certainly don't want the Fort name to die out completely.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|