We need NEVER MARRIED in the marriage events.
Comments
-
Brett said: Irene
I am sorry to join in on this post of your so late.
You are not alone.
Here are just some of the many previous posts in this Forum requesting, not only, "Never Married"; but, also "No Children" and the like:
( ... for some light bedtime reading ... )
Indicate whether a person was Never Married or a couple had No Children. [ Over 7 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Options for marriage data [ Over 7 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Never married person [ Over 4 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Couple Never Married [ Over 3 Years ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"Marriage Date" box needs "Not Married" Option [ 1 Year ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Data errors for the marriage date
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
As "Couple Relationship" of "Family Tree" being "Reworked". Please Create "Labels" such as "Never Married" & "No Children (No Issue)", etc. [ 11 Months ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Never Married box to expedite work [ 6 Months ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Way to indicate married and unmarried surname really are the same without resorting to notes. Perhaps will also help the software. [ 5 Months ago ]
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
So, as you can see this, request; and, those that contain additional such "Situations" have been requested for a very long time.
Like, you; and, many other Users/Patrons of "Family Tree", I would like to see/have them implemented in "Family Tree", sooner rather than later (or, in the worst case scenario, not at all).
We can live in hope.
Brett
Always the pessimistic optimist!0 -
Tom Huber said: At first, I would have said no the marriage should not be deleted if banns were read.
What I think you are saying, David, is that any marriage event should be deleted, but not the couple relationship, especially since they lived as a couple and had one or more children.
I agree with that -- that no marriage information should be entered and right now, because of the incomplete couple relationship options, there is no way to record each of the banns readings.
However, if you are saying that the couple relationship should not be shown and that any children should be recorded separately under their father and separately under their mother, then I would disagree.
If the United States, a couple (starting in 1880) are shown in a relationship as Head and (spouse -- wife or husband) even if there is no marriage found. To me, that is sufficient to prove that the couple were living together as if they were married, even if I cannot find a marriage record for them.
In those instances, I leave the marriage information empty. It would be nice to tag the census record to the couple, but that is also not available. I haven't tried to manually add the source (I know it can be added from my source box, but that isn't the same as tagging a source-linked FS source to the event).
Correct me if I haven't interpreted what you said correctly.0 -
Tom Huber said: To me (with apologies to Joe) represents the push back for expanding the couple relationship area, that I have previously mentioned.
If we run into a situation where a couple lived together but no children resulted from that relationship and no joint support of the household existed, then there is a strong argument that there should not be a couple-relationship formed. I agree with this assessment.
But, if a couple did live together and either, a) have one or more children, or b) jointly provided for the support of the household, then I disagree with Joe on using some "clunky" method to indicate a relationship.
As to the relationship being a "call to action," it is only in the sense that a person doing additional research will want to try to find a source for the relationship. In those cases, a note in the couple relationship area should suffice.
But there is still a very big need to expand the couple relationship area to cover, if nothing else, custom events and facts.0 -
Tom Huber said: To say the least, the current system is sadly lacking in so many areas, and that includes tagging sources to events/facts far beyond the vitals for individuals.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Just because banns were read, doesn't mean that a marriage took place. That is, of course, the whole point of banns - to allow a challenge. However, I would personally leave the marriage relationship there, with no events. Unless there's documentary evidence to suggest that an objection was raised.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Adrian, I don't really think that we currently have a "Marriage" relationship in the FSFT. We a "Couple" relationship that can have marriage related events added to it. It also is mislabeled as "Marriage" in several places thus adding to the confusion.
Not all Couple relationships are marriages (involving marriage events).
A Couple relationship does not really represent a marriage until a marriage event is added. In the absence of any Couple relationship events, the Couple relationship can indicate the likelihood of a marriage but not the fact.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Oops, yes, Jeff. I used the term Marriage Relationship, when I meant, of course, Couple Relationship. Honest I did.
But isn't this an illustration that if I, who might be classed as a fully paid up pedant some of the time, can get things wrong, then either the concepts are not explained properly, or the concepts are not fit for purpose? Or a bit of both.
It's still not clear to me when a Couple Relationship should be created and when not. Personally, if there is an ongoing social relationship and children (it doesn't seem to be so important to me if there are no children) then I'd create a Couple Relationship. Or rather, I'd let it remain after it's been created for the children's parents. And let any LDS member sort out whether that satisfies Church doctrine or not.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I agree with your approach as it does seem quite logical and is the same as I do. However, the only caveat is that when circumstances really imply that the pair of biological parents were only a brief and non committal Couple relationship, then I will leave them separate as in the example I give earlier in the topic thread.
I do harp on the Couple relationship/Marriage relationship issue a lot because it seems that most people (including some at FS) just don't get it. Furthermore, a lot of the terminology on the website dealing with this issue is inappropriate as well resulting in further confusion. People are using the term "Marriage" with A LOT OF HAND-WAVING. There are enough variances on this subject that a person just can NOT communicate what really happened when they insist on greatly over-generalizing the term "marriage".0 -
joe martel said: Please refer to the proposed design at : https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/no-children-never-married0
-
Paul said: Just wanted to push this back up the list! We moan all the time about the lack of opportunity to make comments prior to a new feature being introduced, so it is rather disappointing not to have seen a flood of comments added to Joe's thread at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0
-
Tom Huber said: Joe and Paul -- The problem is that Joe's very excellent entry for a proposed design does not show up in the discussion list. Unless we consistently point to it in these discussions making this request, no one knows that it exists (and have no way to know it exists except by the link to the discussion thread).
It does show up on Joe's profile
but not in the Recent Activity list that we users see.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Oh right - I thought it was just me being daft or unable to read!
Yes - when I get the full topic list on FS GetSat I see:
All Topics
- Ideas
- Praise
- Updates
Joe's excellent thread appears to be under Topics / Questions. I can happily access that through the URL but not otherwise. If it is under a different Topic, can Joe arrange for Topics / Questions to be visible for listing to all?
Oh wow - that thread appears to be even deeper, under
Community
Topics
Questions
Needs answer
There are other sub-topics under Questions. No surprise - there are lots of questions in there with zero replies. Remarkably one or two do have replies!0 -
Nessie said: The classic unmarried scenario was Sarah Junner (illegitimate daughter of John Lawrence and Elizabeth Junner).
Thomas Robert Tighe Chapman and Sarah Junner went by the surname Lawrence and had five illegitimate sons, including TE Lawrence (of Arabia).
So this is another example of where "Not Married" is important for others to stop hunting for non-existent records in the future..0 -
Tom Huber said: Read Joe Martel's discussion at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0
-
joe martel said: sorry I always get confused by GetSat creates. Should be an idea now.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Yes - I can now see it in the ordinary display, thanks.0
-
Scott A. Johnson said: For those that say it is hard to prove a negative, or how can a researcher or descendant pass judgement on what the relationship status of a father and a mother were.
I can absolutely prove no marriage exists in some instances. Here is my own example:
My mother had a one night stand while under the influence and never got the guy's name. She literally did not have a name of the guy. When I was born, my birth certificate has no father listed. My mom has never been married before I was conceived or after. I have never had a father in my life.
Earlier this year, through the blessing of modern science and DNA testing, I tracked down my father's family and through other facts was able to conclude who my exact father is. The guy passed away in a car accident many years ago so I will never know him, but at least I now have a name. When I showed my mother, who is still alive, a photo of the guy I received from the family and told her his name, it jogged zero memories. No recollection.
I now want to update my own records and add in my father's name and complete my family tree that has always been 50% blank my entire life, and while trying to figure out how to do so found this thread. I have *strong* feelings not to list him as my mother's spouse. THEY WERE NEVER MARRIED. They never had a relationship. Zero relationship. My father in this mortal lief never knew I existed. My mother didn't even know his name. Listing them as spouses is not appropriate and an unmarried option would be highly useful here. Listing them as a couple is very offensive to me and so I am torn to even now list this person and the rest of my family tree on this website.
This is but one example. In the cases of **** or incest it could also be highly inappropriate to list two individuals as spouses, and likely highly offensive to the parties involved.
I support having a "not married" option on Family Search. What happens when I pass on and 100 years from now some helpful person comes across my record and thinks they are being helpful by "fixing" any "workaround" and listing my mother and father as spouses with an unknown marriage date. Thanks, but no thanks. A "not married" or "never married" option here would be very much appreciated.0 -
Brett said: Scott
'Thank You' so very much for this most valuable insight.
As I stated in "Joe MARTEL's' post on this matter, the fact seems to be MISSED that "Family Tree" is NOT just about what happened in the PAST; but, ALSO what is happening NOW in the PRESENT; and, in the FUTURE.
Both, the "Not/Never Married"; and, the "No Children (ie. No Issue)", INDICATORS (as per the 'mock-ups being considered' as "Other Information - Facts"), ARE important, 'No', they are NOT "Events"; and, 'Yes', on 'Paper' they may NOT be able to be "Proven" - BUT, if you have PERSONAL knowledge of the individuals/persons and/or couples concerned, you SHOULD, at least, in the PRESENT and FUTURE, be able to CONFIRM, that, an individual/person; and/or, couple, was NOT/NEVER Married; and/or, had NO Children.
Brett0 -
Scott A. Johnson said: Thanks, Brett. I agree with your comments.
To expand on a statement in my original post and for the benefit of those reading this post later, after Brett's comments :
I am torn to even now list my father and his tree on this website as (game playing this out)..... what happens when some other researcher, perhaps with very honorable intentions, comes across my record and seeing the "workaround" of listing the father and mother as two separate parent sets decides to update my record, joining together my separate mother and father to now be listed as a couple? What happens when I pass on from this life, and 100 years from now this happens and I can't update things? Or my descendants lose the story of what actually happened so don't notice this detail? For those that use this website for LDS temple ordinances, they could very well submit MY name and my father and mother's names to do the temple sealing and seal us together as a family. Thanks, but no thanks.0 -
Brett said: Scott
Technically, if there is NO evidence of a "Couple" Relationship, be it, a "Marriage"; or, "Common Law"; or, living together; or, co-support of Children; or, the like; then, Members of the Church are NOT "Supposed" to do the "Temple" Work being the "Ordinances" of, either, (1) "Seal to Spouse" for the Couple; and/or, (2) "Sealing to Parents" for the Children.
But, we all know how this is often overlooked.
Furthermore ...
Anyway, NONE of the INDICATORS (as per the 'mock-ups being considered' as "Other Information - Facts") are 'set in concrete/stone', they can all be "Changed", after all, "Family Tree" is an "Open Edit" Platform, like it or not.
What is NECESSARY is the REQUIREMENT for a "Reason Statement" in cases of such INDICATORS (as per the 'mock-ups being considered' as "Other Information - Facts"). Such "Reason Statements" may be as simple as, "Personal Knowledge of"; or, "Searched the available records of ..."; or, such like.
Just my thoughts.
Brett0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: But part of the issue is this. Scott has identified an example where there was not even a couple relationship (from a "family viewpoint") even though there was a very temporary "couple relationship" as far as biology is involved. This is identical to the relation between Birdie Thurman and Wm. Woodward in the attachments to the first reply I made on this topic 4 months ago.
Since they didn't really have a formal "couple relationship" of any type, then you just don't show them as having a couple relationship. They are simply shown as separate people who are both happen to be biological parents of the same child. How simple is that?!?
The thing that bothers me is that with the direction FS is taking on this, and with the examples just given, you get the following bizarre situation occurring:
The approach being created right now mandates that you must take two people that have had NO formal couple relationship, and even though they have had NO formal couple relationship, you are required to document them in the child's pedigree by linking them together as though they DID have a couple relationship!
CERTAINLY, this is the first clue that something is wrong here!
Now, because you have linked the biological mother and father together as a "couple" in the pedigree as though they had a formal couple relationship, you have documented a LIE! So now FS is putting in attributes on the couple relationships so that you can basically ADMIT TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE DOCUMENTED A LIE by having a value of "Never Married" or "Never Lived Together", or who knows what other kind of "statuses" they will come up with to cover the fact that you have improperly linked two people together as having had a formal relationship where NONE ever existed!
Why is FS adding features to the system so that you can flag couple relationships that you have incorrectly created in the system, as having never existed in the first place? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this? There are so many other clues on this including things like the negative proof and non-event nature of the attributes that all attest to this being an incorrect approach to this issue. Why is this such a complicated issue?
If a couple relationship didn't formally exist, then DON'T DOCUMENT IT as though it did! That way we don't need another useless attribute to simply identify that a couple relationship was incorrectly recorded in the first place.
(Note that by using this more appropriate approach, control of temple ordinances becomes automatic. No additional special code is required to search through looking for a bunch of flags indicating that a couple relationship shouldn't have the work done. Since there would be NO couple relationship in the database, ordinances Ready would have NOTHING to grab.)0 -
Tom Huber said: Jeff makes a very strong argument for not documenting the relationship in the massive tree, or even suggesting that it be documented.
Until FS finally gets around to completely fixing the family relationship area on a person's record, which would include source tagging, don't document the Y-DNA relationship you've found.
But, do record it somewhere you have full control over the relationship and can record all the details about your biological father's life.
For now, you were raised by someone, hopefully a couple, and not a single parent. (I don't know what can be done with a single parent situation at the present time and hadn't considered it before this morning.
Anyway, if you had a relationship with your grandparents, set them up as your guardians, even if no formal (living in the household) relationship existed. If you living in their household, then they acted as guardians and likely helped support you through housing and food. No formal declaration of guardianship needs to have been made.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: You are undoubtedly correct, Jeff.
For completeness, though, when you say:
"Since they didn't really have a formal "couple relationship" of any type, then you just don't show them as having a couple relationship. They are simply shown as separate people who are both happen to be biological parents of the same child. How simple is that?!?"
We need to be clear that the system itself defaults to creating a direct IT relationship between the 2 biological parents when they are entered (as I'm sure you know, but I'm making it clear for anyone else and to perhaps concentrate the discussion). It is currently possible for a user to then delete the direct IT relationship between the 2 biological parents leaving us with the state that you recommend.
However, the system then explicitly prompts us to add that relationship back in, making it appear that there should always be an IT relationship between the two parents of a child. (It says, "+ Add Couple Relationship" if there isn't an IT relationship between the 2 biological parents - it doesn't even add a question mark to that!)
Also, for anyone coming to FS FT from software that takes its inspiration from the GEDCOM model where there is only the one Family relationship that links all the parents and all their children, it is entirely logical that the parent / parent IT relationship exist - they won't question whether it should be deleted. So if FS FT is going to, to some extent swim against the tide on this, it needs to make absolutely clear how users should enter the genealogy. So far as I can see it doesn't - any instructions about illegitimacy and parental relationships appear to consist of discussion about LDS theology re who can be sealed to who. Not the point guys! I need to know how you would like me to enter my 3G GPs Martha and William. As a non-member, it doesn't actually matter to me whether I have an IT relationship between the two or not. If it matters to the Church, it needs to advise us about how to enter the genealogy re those two and their children. And that advice needs to be no further than a press of an F1 key (or equivalent) away.
One point - I suggest that the current system is never going to be entirely clear while it insists on using only three boxes to describe both the triplet biological relationship of parent / child / parent and the doublet social relationship between the two adults. Maybe the doublet social / spousal relationship needs to be drawn explicitly separately from the triplet biological.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I pretty well agree with all of that Adrian. When creating the relationships, if you start at the child then add a mother and afterwards add a father, I think that you can conveniently get around some of this, but it is not real intuitive. When you show two parents linked in a pedigree, it is supposed to mean something and nobody seems to be paying attention to what the obvious meaning should be.
I understand very much the IT perspective that you brought up. I suspect that the response would be more along the line of what are we supposed to be documenting. The main criteria as I understand it, is to document family units and NOT just all blood relationships. In the church they are looking to provide ordinances for family units. We are not really trying to support just the biological blood lines relative to inheritance laws (which vary from country to country).
So when you has what KIND of "Couple Relationships" are we documenting, it seems apparent that it is primarily for couples leading family units. And that is NOT the same thing as biological parent couples.
And if I understand your last point correctly I think I agree with that too. when you look at relationship charts in FS, I would prefer to see and discreet link between father and child, mother and child, with their relationship types identified. And then lastly the link between the parents representing their "couple Relationship" that is a totally separate thing from their relationships with their children.0 -
Scott A. Johnson said: I have followed the advice in this thread and updated my own record by adding in my father as a second parent set. SO my mom is listed with no spouse (she has never been married) and my father is listed as a separate parent, no spouse. This does not seem to do anything though as neither the family tree, fan chart, or family group record are recognizing the addition of the father. They still list my family tree as 50% empty, my children's fan chart as 25% empty.
Ideas?
Thanks.0 -
Scott A. Johnson said: Jeff,
Thank you for the explanation, and the screenshots are especially helpful.
Scott0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: No, with the FS fan charts, those pie shaped pieces below the person in the center are their spouse and associated children.
Yea, I should have said "switch the fan chart to Landscape".
When you are viewing pedigree type (i.e., "Tree") data, you can choose which format of view you want to use by pulling down the selection menu in the top right corner of the view. You can see the pedigree in Landscape, Portrait, Fan, or even in a Descendancy format.
The Portrait, Fan, and Descendancy all do not allow you to change family groups on the fly. Only the Landscape seems to have that capability0 -
Brett said:
0 -
Brett said: Scott
I hope you do not mind my input; and, please excuse me if you do not agree ...
But ...
Personally, if I was you, in your circumstance/situation ...
Despite the term, "Couple" Relationship, of which the 'pros' and 'cons' of such term has been discussed at length here in this Forum ...
I WOULD join your "Parents" as a "Couple"; plus, for an "Event", which is extremely 'limited' in scope (ie. ONLY, Annulment; Common Law Marriage; Divorce; and, Marriage, at present); and, although not being an "Event" and not being the case, I would added the "Event" of "Marriage" with adding the words "Not/Never Married" to, both, the 'Date; and, the 'Place', Fields; and, not care about/leave the "Red" Exclamation Mark for a non-standardized 'Date' and/or 'Place'; plus, add an extensive "Reason Statement" that is explains the circumstance/situation.
And, I would add/include that SAME "Reason Statement" in the "Life Sketch"; "Other Information" - "Facts" = "Custom Fact"; and, "Collaboration" - both, "Notes"; and, "Discussions" (as, at least, your "Discussion" CANNOT be "Deleted"/"Removed" by another User/Patron, at this time).
"Overkill", 'Yes', when it comes to the "Reason" (ie. circumstance/situation) everywhere; but, at least, you have 'covered all bases'; and, you have done your best.
And, personally, in the "Reason Statement" I would include a plea to, both, (1) LEAVE the "Red" Exclamation Mark for a non-standardized 'Date' and/or 'Place' - not to add a 'Date' and 'Place' (which other Users/Patrons sometimes do); and, (2) whether or not you are a Member of the Church, a request that the "Couple" NOT be "Sealed" together, due to the circumstance/situation.
AT LEAST, that way, neither, your, nor your Children's, "Pedigree" (ie. Family 'Tree') is empty on that ancestry.
But, that is just me.
Good Luck.
Brett
ps:
But, it would certainly help in those indicators [ie. "Check"/"Tick" Boxes of, "Not/Never Married"; and, the "No Children (ie. No Issue)"; and, the like, with the requirement for a "Reason Statement"], were implemented in "Family Tree".0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Oops. That's the top LEFT corner of the view.
(I'm really batting 100 today :-)0
This discussion has been closed.