Should Ramona Navarro vda. de Villegas keep vda. de Villegas in the family name? #565

"Vda." (viuda de, "widow of") is common in Spanish and Philippine records: Ramona Navarro vda. de Villegas is Ramona Navarro, widow of a Villegas. The no-comma form splits the compound, while the comma form already keeps it whole:

>>> parse("Ramona Navarro vda. de Villegas")
ParsedName(given='Ramona', middle='Navarro vda.', family='de Villegas')
>>> parse("Navarro vda. de Villegas, Ramona")
ParsedName(given='Ramona', family='Navarro vda. de Villegas')

So the paths disagree, the same pattern as #429, #430 and #432. Spanish y already gives the closest precedent: Juan García y Pérez reads family García y Pérez.

vda should not become a suffix word. de Villegas follows it, so a suffix reading would strand the husband's surname.

Options

• (a) A connective, like y: vda. joins its neighbors, so family = Navarro vda. de Villegas. This matches the comma form and keeps the string intact.
• (b) A marker clause, like née: de Villegas goes to family, and Navarro goes to maiden (or stays as middle). This is more interpretive: Philippine usage often treats the whole compound as the surname in use.

Open questions

• Which spellings are listed: vda, vda., viuda? Vda capitalized mid-name is common.
• Should vda. require a particle after it (de) before it joins?
• What happens with no family before it (Ramona vda. de Villegas)?
• Does Vda collide with any borne name? (Check under decisions.md#vocabulary-collisions.)