.png)
Dr., Rev., Capt. Why These Titles Break Family Trees
- Devon Noel Lee
- May 13
- 5 min read
Today, we’re diving into an issue that’s been frustrating genealogists for years—the lack of consistency in how genealogy platforms handle titles and ranks like Dr., Rev., General, or Senator. If you’ve ever struggled with keeping these titles attached to your ancestors’ names as you move between genealogy software and online trees, you’re not alone. Let’s break it all down and figure out if there’s a real solution.
NO UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR TITLES
This all started when I mentioned in a previous video my frustration with Ancestry and Family Tree Maker (FTM) not having a designated prefix field. That means important titles—like military ranks, religious designations, or professional honors—can get lost in the shuffle.
Imagine seeing "General Robert E. Lee" in your tree reduced to just "Robert E. Lee"—it just feels wrong, right?
The issue here is that different genealogy software and online platforms handle titles inconsistently. Some have a title field, but they hide it. Others force people to find workarounds, which only makes things messier when we try to sync trees across platforms.
VIEWER THOUGHTS ABOUT TITLES IN FAMILY TREES
Now, let’s dive into what you all had to say about this topic—because wow, there were a lot of opinions!
Karen L said, "Possibly use the Tree Tags to add Military rank."
While MyTreeTags are great, they don’t transfer to other platforms and don’t appear in family tree views or reports. So while it might help in isolated cases, it doesn’t solve the problem across multiple platforms.
Bill H asked, "Could you use also known as fact?"
This could work IF the title field appears before the name and can be toggled as the preferred name for reports. But here’s the catch—it has to work the same way across all genealogy programs, or we’re back to square one.
Janice shared: "I use the suffix field multiple ways - I know it isn't right but it works for me."
I get the need for clarity, but inconsistent use of the suffix field just creates more confusion. Suffixes are meant for things like Jr., Sr., or PhD—not military ranks or distinguishing life dates. (Don't get me started on emojis in the suffix field either!)
Jon I and Sharon T use the suffix field for titles because Ancestry and FTM don’t display them correctly otherwise in name indexes.
Again, the problem isn’t what works for individuals—it’s that we have to find workarounds in the first place. RootsMagic, for example, already displays titles in the name index properly. If other platforms followed suit, we wouldn’t have to resort to "of course, it’s wrong" solutions.
Marilyn asserted, "also put titles and ranks in the suffix field, because people are not born with titles and ranks."
I get it, but here’s the thing—if we’re sticking to proper grammar and genealogy practices, the title should be right next to the name, not buried in a fact list. Otherwise, the proper use of a suffix should be something like "Francis D. Alcot, President of Ramsey College," not "Francis D. Alcot, President."
Titles belong before the name, and suffixes follow the name—keeping these distinctions clear would make genealogy records much easier to understand.
Jessica R raised an interesting issue: "I thought that the standard in FamilySearch is that the primary name should be the name they were given at birth, so why are you adding ranks as their prefix when that was added to their name later in life? I would think that would get entered as an alternate name instead."
Fair point.
But what about cases where someone’s legally or socially recognized name changed? If we allow adopted names and married names, shouldn’t earned titles get the same treatment?
For instance, my Grannie’s birth name was Marie Anderson, but she was adopted as an infant and a new birth certificate was issued. She was known her entire life as Louise Long, except when she married and became Louise Brown. Even though "Marie Anderson" was her birth name, almost no one knew or used it. If we acknowledge changes like this, why not also allow titles that people earned and were known by later in life?
I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to belittle anyone’s point of view—these are all valid perspectives, and I’m genuinely grateful for every comment. First, I make sure to attribute comments to users so folks don’t think I’m just making them up. Secondly, I want to highlight the debate, confusion, and workarounds that people have developed to deal with these inconsistencies.
If this were the 1990s, when database programming was still a wild west, I could understand the diversity in approaches. But it’s 2025, and with all the genealogy 'standards' I’ve heard preached—from manuals dubbed the 'Bibles of Genealogy Standards' to educators at conferences and podcasts—you’d think we could have some consistency. Otherwise, should we really keep telling people to plant their tree everywhere?
With so many conflicting standards, it’s becoming too time-consuming. Maybe we just pick one platform and stick with it? But, is that really helpful? And does that ensure our genealogy lives on after we're gone?
↪️ Are you struggling to organize and climb your family tree?
Grab your copy of our FREE Genealogy Guides:
HOW SHOULD WE FIX TITLES IN FAMILY TREES?
So, what’s the ideal fix? Here’s what needs to happen:
A universal "Title" field that appears next to the name in all genealogy software and online trees, ensuring consistency across platforms and making it easy to read names with earned ranks or positions.
User control over display settings so we can choose whether titles appear on reports, charts, and tree views. For example, users should be able to toggle whether a title like "General" appears on a family tree chart but not on a birth record.
Title fields that sync properly across platforms, so we don’t lose data when transferring between programs. If I add "Dr." in RootsMagic, I want to see "Dr." when I upload my tree to Ancestry, not have it disappear into a miscellaneous facts section.
If a title was earned later in life, an option to date it so it only appears after the person achieved it. For example, if someone became a "Senator" in 1892, the title shouldn’t appear on reports for years prior to that. This would allow for accurate representations without misattributing ranks or positions too early in a person’s life.
Right now, Gramps Genealogy Research Software (** cough ** it's free) seems to be the leader in clear title systems. Will the rest of the genealogy world follow?
How Would You Resolve the Ranks / Titles Issues?
How do you handle titles in your family tree? Drop a comment below, and let’s keep this discussion going! And if you found this video helpful, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit that notification bell so you don’t miss out on more genealogy tips and deep dives. See you next time!
Comments