Please show the order of marriages or relationships by birth date of children, and not a marriage da

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: The system seems to default to a marriage date, and showing that marriage first in order of relationships. Can't the system be programed to show marriages or relationships in order, by the birth of ones children, when there is no marriage or showing "No Marriage Event?"

The following is showing a marriage first, in order of marriages or relationships, solely because it has a marriage date. Callie Golson had children with William M Martin in 1891, but is showing her second husbands marriage first, in order of marriages or relationships, only because there is a marriage date.



There was NEVER MARRIED between William M Martin and Callie Golson.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Yes, but you would have to account for adoptions/stepchildren, too.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: At first, I was going to agree, Jordi, because I am a step-child, but Don specified

when there is no marriage or showing "No Marriage Event."

which resolved the issue for my situation.

The step-relationship and adoption will never apply to a couple who just lived together, even though I believe that some jurisdictions allow a single person to adopt a child. Therefore, the other member of the couple relationship would (or should) show a guardianship relationship with a child (a guardian relationship does not have to be formalized to be recorded in the massive tree).

But that still brings up the conflict of a child having both a biological relationship and some other kind of relationship. Step, Adopted, Foster, and Guardian can all present a major conflict with the order of the couples. In my case, I have relationships with both my biological parents, and my Father's second marriage where I gained a step mother (while I was still living at home).

Here is another conundrum: I have a situation where in my married ancestors died before their children were all raised. There is a court record where the oldest brother became the guardians for the remaining children who were still living at home.

So, for the child, the solution would be to not order the couples for a child (the family relationships on the right side of the Family Section) by the children's birth dates. It should apply only to the left side relationships, when place the profile's couple relationships in order.

Now, there is also the problem of what to do when there are no children involved, such as an older couple living together, but not married. I have seen at least one instance of that where the children for both of the couples were raised and had families of their own. There are no children born to an unmarried couple in that situation.

The idea of putting in dates for the unmarried couple's relationship now comes into play, which the current system does allow with the "Lived Together" relationship between the two.

It is also the solution to Don's request -- Simply put a date with respect to the "Lived together" couple and the place at the time their relationship formed. The date does not have to be precise and could be an about date.

But, if the order is based upon the standard date, then FamilySearch will need to accommodate "About" as part of a standard date.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Right now, if I enter, "in 1810", the standard can be set to 1810. But that is not possible when I enter "about 1810" -- no standard is provided. I know that I can spoof the standard date into recording 1810, but I should not have to do that.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: While the system does represent "before" and "after", I do not care to use either in this situation (or any situation as far as that goes).

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Interesting points, Tom. On the note of before and afters: I use them in different situations. Recently, I have started using after for Burial, where I know when the person died, but do not (at least currently) have a record of burial date. I just say 'after [place death date here]'. I used to just put the year of death, but I feel like this is more accurate.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Jordi

I find I am inclined to agree with your comments in one post (as of a few minutes ago) then, sadly, (if I am not misunderstanding your methods here) disagree in the "next"!

I hate using "before" or "after" inputs, as they can be carried out to the pedigree views as if the date was actual - e.g. "after 1871" appears in Landscape as "1871".

I often use Landscape for an overall view of a family. Other users might have put "after 1871" for a death because the 1871 census was the last time a record for the individual has been found. But looking from Landscape, I have gained the impression the person DID die in 1871, so I did not have to search for that event.

This would not happen in the case of any ancestor or very close relative, but I admit I do not have the time to always be so thorough with the verification of event detail relating to more distant family members.

In the case where you have a death entry AND a burial your practice is fine, as the actual (known) death year takes precedence over the burial detail in Landscape, of course.

So sorry if I am misunderstanding / misrepresenting your views / practices!

LegacyUser

Paul said: Yeah, I'm sure I have misunderstood what you do, but wanted to make my point, regardless!

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: If FamilySearch will not put the marriages or relationships in its proper order by the birth of children in the "Family Tree," then there needs to be a mechanism in play that will allow us patrons to change the marriages or relationships to there proper order in the "Family Tree."

I know for a fact that William M Martin and Callie Golson did not marry, so there will never be a marriage record or document. I know for a fact that William M Martin and Callie Golson never lived together as man an wife, so I will never be able to assume a marriage date and time for this couple to help get the marriages and relationships of Callie Golson in there proper order in the "Family Tree."

I just want the marriages and relationships showing correctly in the "Family Tree," as first marriage or relationship and second marriage or relationship.

William M Martin was a slave overseer during the Civil war. We are talking about the Selma, Dallas County, Alabama area where he owned a number of houses in downtown Selma, Alabama. William M Martin's sister lived with him during the 1880's until she died in 1892. William M Martin's and Callie Golson's child Lucy Inez Golson was born in 1891. William M Martin's censuses never show him actually living with any female, black or white. One census shows him living with a black Betsey Jackson but she was a cook and house keeper. William M Martin left a Will where it shows, ..." I devise to Callie Golson, colored, for and during her natural life and undivided one third interest in my lots... He also states in his Will, "The remainder in said undivided one third interest I devise to Lucy Inez Golson, and Willie Ann Golson, both sometimes called by surname of Martin, children of said Callie Golson, and I devise to said Lucy Inez Golson and Willie Ann Golson in fee simple the other undivided two thirds interest in said property."

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Don, do you know when William and Callie started living together? At least the year?

Are you aware that there is a date field for "Living Together" for the couple? Use that for the year. You can use "In" as in "In 1810" and it will standardize to 1810 and place that relationship in the proper order as long as the other relationships also have a date.

One thing, though. If you have several marriage entries for another relationship, get rid of all those other entries. That will help clean things up because right now, the whole couple relationship are needs a lot of work (by FamilySearch) to make it practical.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Tom, as stated above, this couple never lived together as man and wife, but he leaves some of his property to Callie Golson and her children, who are sometimes called by the surname of Martin.

The system should not always default to a marriage date. Callie Golson had a relationship with children - (Never Married) - and then had a marriage to a second husband. The system defaults to Callie Golson's second relationship or marriage, showing that relationship first in the order of marriages and relationships only because it has a marriage date showing. It would be nice to see her relationship and marriage in there order by the birth of her children. First with William Martin and then showing second marriage.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: lol, yeah I understand your point of view.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I think I understand the situation now.

From your description, William fathered a child with Callie. Unfortunately, FamilySearch provides no entry to show that they were not married and did not live together. That happened quite often among the slaves and their owners. overseers, and families of the same.

I'm not sure what can be done, other than FamilySearch will need to accommodate this kind of relationship sooner or later. Nothing fits and I'm not sure that ordering relationships by the birth dates of the children is going to fix the problem, especially if the man happened to father a bunch of kids with different women around the same time.

Now that I more fully understand the situation, there needs to be some workable solution, but I don't think that the ages of the kids is the right one.

This is, but is not, a one-night stand. The relationship may have been ongoing and may have occurred when he was married and fathering children with his wife.

If you've watched Roots, then that situation was not unusual. (That series was painful for me to watch.)

Like I've said before. the entire couple relationship area needs some serious work and this is yet another example where the current system simply does not work.

Thanks for being patient with me.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Thanks Tom.