Why are all records related to weddings bound together as just one data entry option?
Hello - I was referred here by the Support team. John Hollingsworth (G7CS-97N) and his prospective father-in-law, Samuel Ayres (G6Q4-1NB), put up the $50 bond for John's marriage to Dorothea Apphia Ayres (GHTB-HK6) in Kentucky, August 1835. Fortunately, it's possible to view the document image. The document only confirms the bond being paid and permission to pursue the marriage. However, since FS doesn't discriminate between all the various forms of pre-marriage documentation, the only data entry which can be made for the couple is "Marriage". As a consequence, the document's date is quoted everywhere as the marriage date.
Isn't it possible for FS to create fields which would be historical period- and denomination-appropriate? Options for Europe, Canada & the US would include "Banns", "Bonds", Quaker "Intentions to Marry", "Marriage Licenses", and something like "Marriages Performed", etc.
Even novice users would be nudged to examine their documentation when picking one of the options.
It's a shame there are countless family tree entries all over America for Quaker weddings which are erroneously based on "Intention to Marry" announcements in meeting records. It's easy to understand how someone would make the mistake unless familiar with Quaker practices.
Answers
-
@KSmith Ripper This is a longstanding area of concern. It has been discussed many times here in FamilySearch Community (and other places as well). One long discussion can be found in this 2024 thread: Why is "Marriage Notice" not an option for a Relationship Event?
It would certainly be helpful to have additional options for events on a Couple Relationship; you are welcome to use Suggest an Idea to propose your own ideas in this area. Personally, I like the idea of adding a very small number of commonly-used additional events (Marriage License, Marriage Banns, and maybe a couple of others) plus adding the ability to add a custom event to a couple relationship (currently custom events are only allowed for individuals).
As for the specific topic of the marriage of John Hollingsworth, I would think that the best you can do at this point is to adjust the date to be more accurate. It seems clear that he was not actually married on 27 Aug 1835. About all you could do based on that marriage bond document is to make the marriage date more vague (but more correct), by changing it to "After 27 August 1835" (with an appropriate reason statement for that change). Or you could trust a secondary source for that marriage that I found on Ancestry that indicates that the marriage was in September 1835; that seems plausible, but there's no primary source associated with that secondary source to substantiate that date.
1 -
Interesting to see the note on the back of that marriage bond, "not on register"
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-Y69J-JN1
