Add "Unmarried" to Relationship Events, the current type does not fit when the relationship is unknown.
'Lived together' would probably fit - 'unmarried' isn't a relationship Event (more of a status/type)?
I have a suggestion regarding Relationship Events. At the moment we can choose the following events:
Common law Marriage
Could we get added another one which could be called (or likewise): Never married or lived together
I miss that oppportunity. I often find children, in the Danish parish registers for births, where the parents never got married or ever have lived together.
John Gregers Hvidkjær
This feature already exists, but as it's specifically not a relationship, it is not in the relationship area. Instead, it is one of the choices under Other Information: you can add a Fact of "No Couple Relationships".
If the person did have couple relationships, just not with a specific person, then don't enter that person as a spouse. If two people had a child together but were not otherwise a couple, then you can add them separately as parents of that child.
Thank you @HvidkjaerJohnGregers and thank you @Julia Szent-Györgyi for pointing that out. While not exactly what you asked for, would the solution Julia mentioned solve your problem?
Also, we would like to encourage people submitting ideas to take some time and vote on other ideas they see and agree with in the community. Doing so can reiterate to product management that an idea is important to the community. Just click the little the up or down triangle found at the bottom of an idea.
Currently, when a couple isn't married, lived together, had an annulment, etc., only one of them can be listed on the family tree if they had a child together.
My grandfather was born out of wedlock, and since his parents never really had a romantic relationship, they both aren't able to be put onto the tree, despite him being biologically related to both. Or, at least a preferred parent needs to be chosen. Add on top of that the fact that he was raised by his grandmother and aunt. Only his grandmother can be added as a preferred parent because his grandmother and aunt were obviously never in a relationship.
You can list both parents of a child then in the place where a "marriage would be" there is a way to delete the couple relationship so that there is no relationship between the parents. This works well when there was not a common law or other definable relationship. You can also list more than one set of parents so that adopted or step parents can be listed.
Your grandfather's birth parents certainly can be put on the tree. I have an adopted relative whose birth family is known. Her birth parents never married each other but eventually married other people. I am doing research for my relative's birth family and, in fact, I'm collaborating with the family historian husband of one of her half sisters. I've also spoken with her birth mother to get information. This relative of mine has 3 sets of parents on the FamilySearch tree: 1) the adoptive parents, which are NEVER set to preferred, 2) her birth father and his spouse and 3) her birth mother and her spouse. The preferred parents are always either 2 or 3, depending on what I am researching, because I want the preferred line to show when I pop into a pedigree view. The only thing I do not like about this is having to use "step" as a relationship for the spouses of the birth parents. There is an implied meaning to the word "step" and it doesn't generally include someone you've never met. The birth parents' spouses should be visible because they are important to all of her half siblings.
The answer from @Cindy Hecker is correct and most helpful. You absolutely can and should add the biological parents as a set of parents. And since they had no couple relationship, the couple relationship between them (that is typically created when you add a set of parents) should be deleted.
@Gail Swihart Watson said "the adoptive parents, which are NEVER set to preferred". The great thing about preferred relationships is that they are a user preference. Gail may choose not to set adoptive parents as preferred, but I do. It is unquestionably the best choice in many cases in my family.
@Alan E. Brown Well, this relative and her sons have only learned of their birth heritage in the last couple of years, and they are extremely excited. My relative has been acquainted with her birth family for several decades, but doing the family history and showing it to them was a breakthrough. I put a Google Earth project together to show them the movements of my relative's birth father's line (grandfather to her sons), and they were all very excited to see the churches that are still standing where their actual ancestors were married and are buried. It is not so exciting when the ancestors are not really yours. That is the nature of being adopted. The family has wrapped their arms of love and legal protection around the adopted person, but the family can never give the adopted person a new heritage.
Yes! But, I want to further that. What if birth mom and birth dad never married, lived together yada yada, but eventually married other people. I would like to have an option for "spouse of bio mom" and "spouse of bio dad" instead of the "step" option. Why can't the relationship between a child and spouse of their parent be just "spouse of bio parent"?
I would like to have one more option regarding couple relationship: One that indicate that they were never married, not lived together or had any other relation than what resulted in a child born out of wedlock. I have come across several who have been given an about marriage year and place, even though it is clearly stated that the child was born out of wedlock. Even if the child was a result of a **** it should have both parents attached if know.
Several discussions about the same topic were merged here. There is a related question also discussed at How are unmarried parents best represented in Family Tree