We need NEVER MARRIED in the marriage events.
Comments
-
joe martel said: There is some default behavior that creates the couple relationship. So here a couple things to try.
1. Go create the child under one of the parents. Now add the other parent. I think this does not auto-create a couple relationship.
2. Go set the lineage type (Biological) to both the parents by clicking on the parent-child relationship icon next to the child.
3. If the couple relationship exists, you can delete that by clicking on the relationship, then delete relationship at the bottom.
4. Also, on the Person details | Other Info | Facts there is a No Couple Relationship Fact that you can declare. I think that's an odd place and as you suggest should be between the two people. In previous posts I was hoping for that and referred to it as "Not married together".0 -
Paul said: I don't necessarily want to be seen as encouraging this sort of action, but here is one way around the problem!
0 -
W David Samuelsen said: with that ugly red warning, you need to click space bar at the end then pick it to force acceptance. Put "never married" in place box.
Take another look (refresh page on your end if you haven't)0 -
Don M Thomas said: I did as you stated above W David, but I kept getting the Red Data Problem showing. I tried adding "Never Married" to the place box, but did not like it when a place in Russia was chosen by Standardizing.
I did add "Never Married" and hit the space bar, but could not get it to take away the ugly RED WARRING exclamation mark. I then deleted the "Never Married," and in deleting the "Never Married" it also took away the "NO MARRIAGE EVENTS" between the couple. So now there is nothing showing between the male and female. I guess the nothing showing between the male and female is the best we are going to get from FamilySearch. I know NEVER MARRIED has been asked for in the past and it seems to fall on deaf ears._inline.png?1581059630)
0 -
W David Samuelsen said: Don, you're doing it right but you did the last step wrong.
You type in Never Married in place box, then the list pop up, select the very first one that is actually not standardized then SAVE it. It get accepted and won't get flagged.
see here
Go ahead and look at the one I fixed for you. No red warning.0 -
Tom Huber said: This same option could be used for "Living Together" and "No Children" -- I also do not recommend this, but it is something to use until such time that FamilySearch finally gets around to working on a major upgrade of the couple (family) relationship area.0
-
Don M Thomas said: Thanks W David, I will give it a try next time I need "Never Married," or need to put something else in the marriage events like Tom suggest.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Tom, agreed and there is already option for "No Children" in "Other Information" section. The one where it says "No Couple Relationships" this is not accurate in many cases I am aware of. Should have "Never Married" or "Common Law Marriage" in the marriage section.0
-
Paul said: Just to advise, I have removed the "never married" text from this couple's relationship box. This was only meant to be illustrative, as there was actually no evidence for the statement in this particular case. As stated earlier, I am not encouraging this practice, just pointing to a way to make a known fact clearer than is currently the case.
As expressed in my comments in other threads, I am generally against these "no marriage / no children" statements, as they are often more down to speculation than concrete evidence.
Obviously, "never married" could be placed against a relationship that took place when one or both of the couple were married to other individuals at that time - although a (possible) bigamous marriage would complicate the situation, of course!0 -
Kathy H. said: "Not married" might not be an event but it certainly is a relationship. We KNOW that some people in our family were not married when their child was born. One child was even raised by someone else until the parents DID get married. There's no good reason why this can't be captured by genealogy trees. "Born out of wedlock". Shoot, even German records indicate whether the parents were married or not when then child was born, so we DO KNOW, and it is RECORDED IN THE RECORDS.0
-
Irene Ostler Nielson said: Can an option be created under "Marriage" stating the words "Not married"? Many times a child is born out of wedlock and when entering his/her father and mother who never married, it would be nice to have the option to state they never married. This is an important fact, but a red exclamation mark shows whenever I enter this fact.0
-
I see that these suggestions have been around for a while and the NEVER MARRIED issue still exists.
It helps when I find that a child is born usually to the husband when he is married to someone else.
People put the Never Married in the box even tho there is no option for that category.
0 -
Let's consider the meaning of the words:
Wedding: A marriage ceremony, the act of joining in close association and, consequently, its RECORD in some form -> the document that settles the marital association - This should be the name of the source (as I use in all couples that I add): "Wedding registration of Mr. A and Mrs B"
Marriage: The state of being united, the relation between married persons. That is their LIFE TOGETHER. Therefore, a marriage certification would be the life history of the couple, and NOT the registration or certification. Therefore, in general, there is no document of marriage.
If it is fantasy or not, if it is documented or not, this is irrelevant. Important is that, if the father and mother of a person are known, there should be able to set them as the parents, somehow connected, then set an association saying if they wedded, lived together or not, lived together in a consensual/contractual relationship, etc.
I have a case in my lineage in which the father was a catholic priest. In his christening registration, it says that he is the son of the priest and "an old Christian and clean woman" (which is to say that she was not a new Christian - how they called a converted jew, moor, gypsy, or some other group then prosecuted by the church and forced to convert or leave). Therefore, at this stage, there was no document with evidence of who was the mother. But I found the death of a woman, years later on, in which the son of the priest appears as her son. This surely is a documented proof that the priest and the woman had a (however brief) relationship and should be able to be represented in the data structure without arrangements.
"Not Married" clearly is not appropriate (well, I am "not married" to "8 billion less one" people in the world), but "had a child (or children) together" is indeed a case of many parents, and appropriate for those situations, documented or not.
0
.png?1581059630)
