What to do about couple relationship for parents that may have been married or may not have been mar
Abiah (LZF9-3DC) is the daughter of Elizabeth Harris and an unknown father. I believe Abiah’s parents were unmarried, based her grandfather’s and mother’s probate records. Another user believes the parents may have been married. It is not possible for the parents to have multiple relationship types. Should a duplicate Abiah be created so 1 Abiah could have unmarried parents and the other could have married parents? I have been in contact with the user, she has add a solution to the couple relationship that i am not sure is the best solution, so we need your help.
Answers
-
@Julie Brumsted
.
Julie
.
Short Answer: 'NO', definitely NOT.
.
Just LEAVE IT the way it currently is.
.
Either of you, you; or, the other User/Patron, may be correct.
.
For the other User/Patron it is a matter of trying to find that elusive "Marriage", if any.
.
And, for both, of you, it is a matter of finding a Christening/Baptism, if any.
.
But, whatever you do, DO NOT knowingly "Create" a "Duplicate" of "Abiah".
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett,
Thank you for your answer.
Abiah's (LZF9-3DC) parents currently have a couple relationship that reads "Marriage: before 1683, No marriage"
It should be no couple relationship or a couple relationship - Marriage - based on evidence, correct?
0 -
Julie, remember that a "Couple Relationship" seems to be appropriate for the biological parents, regardless of whether or not you have any couple relationship events (such as a marriage) recorded. The "Marriage before 1683" event that is recorded has been properly documented in both a couple relationship note as well as the reason statement when the assumed event was created in the system.
Both the Note and the Reason statement *ARE* the evidence in this case for both the assume marriage event and the Couple Relationship entity for the biological parents. The conclusion about a marriage estimate is based on those documented assumptions and therefore stands as a legitimate conclusion until someone finds more information on it.
However, the "No marriage" marker is not only ambiguous, it is just plain WRONG. Not only is there no evidence or proof attached showing that the marriage never happened, it has also been recorded in the "Place of Marriage" field which is inappropriate. As a result, the assumed marriage "before 1683" has been assigned the geographical location of "No, Ringkøbing, Denmark". Obviously the automatic places standardizing tool saw the "No" part of "No marriage" and assumed that the location in Denmark was being referred to.
Furthermore, if you they to fix this by removing the standard place name assigned the the place of marriage called "No marriage", you will just get a red "!" showing it as a data error (since the displayed place of marriage - "No marriage" - has no standard place name assigned to it).
In general, in the computer kingdom when a field has been designed for a specific purpose (such as the "Place of Marriage" field), you just CAN'T repurpose it for anything that you feel like without undesired side effects. Because there is NO information at all about where that potential place of marriage may have occurred, it will be most correctly documented by leaving the field blank.
For some reason people want a marker that says a couple in the 1600's were never married, even though that conclusion is virtually impossible to show any real proof or evidence for (i.e., it is a negative conclusion). If there really was no marriage, then the marriage event is inappropriate. FS has set this up so that you can only have one or the other, but not both.
0 -
Jeff Wiseman
Thank you for your answer.
I agree. Abiah's (LZF9-3DC) parents Couple Relationship is currently incorrect.
But genealogists Gale Ion Harris and Jacobus came to the conclusion that Abiah was an illegitimate child based on her maternal grandfather's and her mother's probate records. See her Life Sketch, Discussion "The parentage of Abiah..." and the Will of Capt. Daniel Harris, Probate record of the estate of Elizabeth Hunnewell in Sources.
Even with professional genealogists concluding that Abiah's parents were not married, in Family Tree is it still assumed that they could have been married and therefore Married before 1683 is the correct Couple Relationship?
If that is the case then Abiah should have no surname instead of her mother's surname as is now the case, correct?
0 -
Julie
I would largely agree with Jeff's reply. Personally, I never create an ID for an "Unknown". Neither do I add events (like "before 1683") unless I am quite sure, in this case, there was a marriage that took place shortly before that time. Unless I have evidence for names and dates I leave fields blank. As Jeff points out, the current entry for the marriage is completely wrong, as the format messes up the standardisation. I would remove this, but believe (given the circumstances) it best to leave the name as "Abiah Harris".
I know many users believe they need to complete every box under the Vitals, but what is the harm in not completing this if you don't have any evidence?
Paul
0 -
Paul
Thank you for your answer.
I agree it is hard for many users to leave to leave fields blank in Vitals if there is no evidence.
In the case of Abiah's father, when the ID "Unknown" was not there, an undocumented name was regularly added as Abiah's father (an old genealogy claimed, without evidence, a man named Birdsey was Abiah's father). If the mother is unknown, the ID 'Mrs. Harris' can be created. But I'm thinking the ID "Mr. Elizabeth Harris" cannot be created.
Julie
0 -
You shouldn't have to create an "Unknown" PID at all.
Here's a similar example, only the name of the father is known and nothing else about him:
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/KVGH-DHV
Cecil Fern Santee (KVGH-DHV) was born and given the surname of Thurman (her mother's maiden name). Later, her step father formally adopted her, thus giving her the surname of Santee. As you can see on Cecil's details page for her Family Members, since her biological father didn't have any commitment to the marriage and child, no formal "Couple Relationship" has been created between Birdie Ivalee Thurman and Wm. Woodward (i.e., Wm. Woodward is in a "Couple Relationship box" all by himself).
The only formal Couple Relationship that existed was between Birdie and her FIRST husband Joseph Santee. That is why there is only one couple relationship being shown in that family for Birdie.
If the name of the biological father was not known, the couple relationship box that his name is currently in would not exist.
0 -
JeffWiseman
Thanks.
I did not create the PID Unknown. But I did not remove him because he has been useful to help remind users that the name Birdsey as husband of Elizabeth Harris is an unsubstantiated claim made in an old genealogy. And as Paul W wrote it seems hard for some users to leave fields blank.
But now Mr. Unknown is causing problems instead of curtailing problems.
Now I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. If I leave Unknown, there are users who want to give him a marriage before 1683 to Abiah's mother. If I remove him, many users will either Restore him or add Mr. Birdsey to be married to Abiah's mother.
Julie Tryon Brumsted
0 -
Julie,
I've gone ahead and fixed up the records of Elizabeth and Abiah for you. I've added notes and discussions as appropriate based on the information that you have provided. You can go in and examine their two records with the notes and discussion and see the Change histories on both of them to see exactly what I did.
Since "Unknown" was created as a place holder just so that a "Couple Relationship" could be created for Abiah's biological parents. Firstly, since there is no information or evidence at all vitals on "Unknown" and since "Unknown" is not a legitimate name, I have removed it. Since all evidence also shows that there was never commitments by the biological parents to support each other and the child, I have ALSO removed the "Couple Relationship" as well.
If someone tries to add a Mr. Birdsey to the picture without traceable evidence (i.e., someone's old genealogy does NOT qualify here), you should remove it with a reasons statement something like:
"There is no definitive evidence provided that proves Abiah's biological father had the surname of Birdsey (see the note "Marriage" for Elizabeth Harris and the Note "Biological Father of Abiah Harris")."
If some one tries to add another Couple Relationship (and any subsequent addition of a marriage event), you can document reasons similar to those already in the Change history
You should add Elizabeth and Abiah to your "Following list" so that you can quickly check for changes and receive notices.
0 -
That person who keeps putting in the bad, unsubstantiated conclusions seems to be pretty militant. The instant I had made the corrections, she came back in and changed everything back to exactly as it was and totally ignoring all of the sources and references that had been added as well as the reasons why the original values were incorrect and had been removed. I sent a note to her asking her to actually review the reasons I had made the change and then I corrected them all again with the same reasons and supporting documentation. I've not heard back yet.
This is likely going to be a problem to you and it just depends on how long you want to fight it. In spite of the fact that the corrections made were all WELL DOCUMENTED, and the way she wants to document things is not documented appropriately at all, FamilySearch will REFUSE to get involved to eliminate problems being caused by stubborn people repeatedly doing incorrect things in the data and intentionally undoing work others have done without any justification.
This is something that has always bothered me where FS absolutely refuses to arbitrate with stubborn people constantly undoing reasonable work (unless they are using profanity or are making malicious changes). So if this person continues to set everything back to the incorrect values in spite of communications and corrections that you or I make, you have no choice but to walk away if you want to avoid "attitude problems". It could mitigate a LOT of problems in the shared tree if FS would take some responsibility. After all, nobody else in in any position to do so.
I tend to avoid the tree back into the 1600's for this very reason. There is more than enough work to do on my last 7 or 8 generations. And when you get back that far, it takes a lot more research to come up with proper conclusions
0 -
JeffWiseman,
I have looked at your fixes for Elizabeth and Abiah Harris (they are still there at the moment), MUCH APPRECIATION and THANKS!
I had decided to walk away from the couple relationship/marriage issue (other user will not allow any changes and will not have any meaningful dialogue). We'll have to see if your fixes hold. I do not want to get into another Restore War. And in the big picture, there are plenty of bio sketches, discussions, notes, and sources for other users to see what is the documented reality of Elizabeth and Abiah Harris.
It was very helpful reading replies and asking more questions of the FamilySearch Family Tree Group, I learned a lot.
Julie Brumsted
Julie Brumsted
0 -
Don't know how long it will last. Some folks can be real stinkers when it comes to doing things "their way". I sent you a message in the tree with more information on the changes.
Unfortunately, FamilySearch FamilyTree can frequently be "Survival of the Stubbornest"
0
