FSFT Parents who were never married
How do I get the tree to show a persons mother and biological father? I can’t put them together because they were never married ... and when I add them separately, it will only show the parent that I select as “preferred” .. why can’t I get it to show both parents at the same time?
@FamilySearch Tips and Tricks @FamilySearch Family Tree @How to Use FamilySearch Community
Answers
-
@X24mom X24mom
.
FYI
.
'Yes', you CAN put them together as a "Couple" in a "Couple Relationship", regardless if they were married or not.
.
Despite the use of the word "Spouse" ... which is misleading ...
.
A "Couple Relationship" DOES NOT only apply to those who were, either, married; or, lived together ('Out of Wedlock').
.
A "Couple Relationship" CAN also apply, to the fact that, those two (x2) individuals/persons, had a relationship, that produced a Child.
.
As, they were/are the Parents of a Child.
.
Make them the "Biological" Parents of the Child as a "Couple Relationship"; then, just add the Child, as a Child to that "Couple Relationship" that you just made; but, there are 'caveats' ...
.
DO NOT add a "Relationship Event"; if, the "Couple" was, NOT/NEVER "Married" (including: "Common Laws"); and, never "Lived Together" - just leave it "Blank".
.
Whereas ...
.
IF, they DID "Live Together"; THEN, the "Relationship Event" CAN be "Lived Together" - no matter how long or short, that may have been.
Now, whatever you record for the "Relationship Event"; or, if you leave it "Blank", you definitely NEED to ADD copious "Notes", EVERYWHERE you can:
(ie.
For, both, individuals/persons,
▬ Life Sketch;
▬ Other Information
▬ ▬ Facts
▬ ▬ ▬ Custom Fact; and,
▬ Collaboration, both,
▬ ▬ Notes; and,
▬ ▬ Discussions
........ [ "Discussions" currently CANNOT be "Deleted"/"Removed" by others ]
For, Couple,
▬ Relationship Notes )
.
It probably would not hurt to add a "Note" (or, two) about the "Couple" Relationship of the Parents, against the Child, as well - just to 'cover all bases'.
.
Some people like to, 'look at life through rose coloured glasses' ...
But, you CANNOT; and, SHOULD NOT, 'whitewash' history - it is, what it is.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
ps: It is the 'Skeletons' in the 'Closet' that make Genealogy / Family History INTERESTING, the rest (ie. the 'run of the mill') can be quite 'mundane'.
.
0 -
My great-grandmother and her sister were born to the mistress of my second great-granduncle. He was married while he had these children, documented by their Catholic birth and baptism records. I listed them in FamilySearch as a couple, the parents of these children, with a note in the Reason This Information is Correct - "Never Married. He was married to someone else while she had at least two of his children."
0 -
Thank you for asking this question, I also needed an answer. My husband and I are both converts. I wanted to add my sister in law's boyfriend because I have the impression someone in his family is waiting to have their work done. By linking them together I can work on their family history from my own tree.
0 -
You don't have to link them (your sister in law and her boyfriend) to accomplish this. Just create a live record for the boyfriend and start linking out from there.
However, linking them together in your private space might help you to find him more quickly.
0 -
It took me many attempts of deleting and adding people to my tree to find that I could leave the relationship event blank.
This still doesn't resolve the issue that you can only see the preferred parent in the tree.
I had a child out of wedlock and later married my husband (a different person) and had a child with him. When I view my tree, it shows both of my children, but the layout makes it look like my husband is the father of my firstborn.
I hate to mention another family tree company, but I have attached 2 photos to show the difference in my family tree between FamilySearch and Ancestry and how FamilySearch hides my firstborn's father off my tree.
0 -
“This still doesn't resolve the issue that you can only see the preferred parent in the tree”
Obviously you can change the preferred parents by setting the radio button on the preferred parents in the child’s details page:
However, that is really clumsy to be doing when you really are wanting to see and browse through person relationships in the tree. FS has provided such a function, but unfortunately they only put it in the Landscape tree (the Portrait and Fan charts do not have it). In the Landscape chart, there is a left arrow (or angle bracket) on the couple relationship box for the parents of any child that has more than one set of parents documented. By clicking on that arrow, it will allow you to change the preferred parents being viewed in the tree:
So if you had biological parents that never had any kind of Family related Couple Relationship between them, you can switch between which parent’s line you want to see in the tree. Unfortunately you have to give up the portrait and fan chart type tree displays if you want to do this.
"…to show the difference in my family tree between FamilySearch and Ancestry and how FamilySearch hides my firstborn's father off my tree"
At first glance, Ancestry.com's representations of your tree seems to be more intuitive than FS's. However, there is are some distinctly different reasons for the existence of the two trees. Ancestry.com is a for-profit company and it is using the traditional tree structures to show biological lineages. This also works well with their DNA tracking tools. But in your example, what if you and your husband had decided to formally adopt an orphan? After all of the legalities were completed, would that person not actually now be your child? The answer of course is yes, even if neither of you were biologically related to the child. The child would be part of you and your husband's Family.
And if your Firstborn were living with you, your husband, your second born, and the adopted child, Would you not still consider that a Family? So how in Ancestry.com's chart would you show your firstborn having TWO father's (i.e. the biological and then the subsequent step fathers)? The issue is that Ancestry.com would now start to have problems because the modeling of a biological Family does not extend well when you also want to show other Family groups that a child may have belonged to.
The point here is that the FamilySearch FamilyTree is a non-profit single shared tree that is set up to specifically track ALL Family groups and Family types that a single person may have belonged to. The biological component can be documented here, but the main focus is the Family units that have existed. Note that there are many instances of 2 biological parents having a child but due to the circumstances (e.g. the "one night stand" scenario or the result of an attack), the Family unit ended up consisting of just a mother and a child. In other words, the man and woman not only weren't married, but they ALSO never had a family based Couple Relationship between them.
(BTW, when these situations are very clear in the historic record, I personally will NEVER create a Couple Relationship--even without any relationship events--for this man and woman since there never was one from a "Family" point of view. If I did, Someone is guaranteed to come along in Ordinances Ready, and would seal those two biological parents together which would be quite inappropriate in this case)
The old methods of pedigree charts that came out of the need to track nobility, inheritances and such is geared mainly on the biological ONLY model. DNA tracking also needs the biological model (such as in the case of Ancestry.com). But if your main goal is to track FAMILIES, the FSFT is structured for that specific purpose. So it will handle things differently.
There are some very nice tweaks that FS could add to the representations of the FT, but how this evolves is anyones guess 😎
0 -
You can "add unconnected person" found at the bottom of the "Recent" tab.
0 -
Thank you @Brett . i totally agree about skeletons 😊 is be bored to tears otherwise 😂 I had them set up the way you describe but I kept getting that annoying ❗️Saying no couple events... but there wasn’t an option for “apparel fooled around and produced a child together” 😂 so I thought I was doing it wrong
0
