Unable to add marriage event without wife's name

LegacyUser

Paul said: I am always reluctant to use "Unknown" as a name for a spouse, but is this the only option where (in this case) the wife's name is not shown in the original register, or (in other cases) is illegible?

I'd prefer to leave the name blank until I have evidence of her identity, but it seems I must add a spouse before I can add a marriage for an individual.

I did test to see whether I could add the event details (after using a probable first name) then delete the (woman's) name, but the event disappeared, too, when she was removed from the relationship.

For now I've gone back and entered her as "Margaret ?", assuming this is the best I can do.

LegacyUser

Juli said: You have to have a relationship if there's to be a relationship event, and there have to be two people if there's to be a relationship, so yeah, you do have to enter a wife -- but as far as I know, you _can_ actually leave her nameless.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Wouldn't accept a blank entry after I deleted the name I'd inputted, so have left it as a . (period) for the time being. It's logical that two names are required for detail in the couple relationship area, equally, there should be a way to display a marriage event (on a person page) when this situation applies.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: If there are formal sources for the marriage, then what some folks would do is enter her surname to be the same as the last name of the husband and put a value of "Mrs." in the name prefix field (e.g., "Mrs. Brown")

This will allow the events and notes associated with the couple relationship to "have a home". I suspect that it will also assist when doing searches for post marital events.

When further information is found about her name, it can be updated at that time.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Not really good genealogical practice, Jeff. Think I'd prefer to call her "Unknown" than do this!

BTW - I've identified the couple's children from the father's name and parish where the family lived, but still no mother's name in the children's christening records (quite common for early 18th century parish register entries in England).

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: This MAY (or may not) help:

"Put each part of the name in the correct field
Title. Use this for words like “Count” or “Mister.” If a person does not have a title, leave this field blank.
First Names. Enter the person's first and middle names. Put nicknames in the “Other Information” section.
Last Names. Enter the person’s family name or surname. If a woman changed her surname after marriage, enter her maiden name. If the person has no last name, such as for Native Americans, leave the Last Name field blank.
Suffix. Enter words like “Jr.” or “Sr.,” or perhaps a Roman numeral, as in “John Smith III.” If a person does not have a suffix, leave this field blank.
Put nicknames and other variations in the Other Information section
Add other names a person had in the “Other Information” section. These names include the following:"

https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Understood. But "Unknown" is not a name. It shouldn't be in a name field. When was the last time you met a person by the name "Unknown"? In fact, I suspect that for ordinance work "Unknown" is one of those names that is specifically rejected by the system when reserving ordinances. By definition ANY field in the record that is BLANK is UNKNOWN.

On the other hand, the reason that a name such as Mrs. Brown can be justified is that on a marriage record she is shown to be the spouse of "John Brown" (at least in the culture around here--admittedly I don't know the implications in other cultures for this). If you have a marriage record showing a husband, there HAS to be a spouse, so the presence of a couple relationship is justified

So yeah. It is a kludge, just the same as using a name of "Unknown" (which of course is NOT her name and shouldn't be used as a placeholder because things like the search engine assumes that it is a really name). But "Mrs. Brown" is a far more reasonable place holder with some benefits over the obviously incorrect name of "Unknown".

And by the way, the historical uses of names in the formate of "Mrs. Brown" have actually been used in many sealing ordinances.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Thanks to both you and Jeff for suggestions, Robert. As I have explained, the problem lies when you don't have ANY name to input but still want to view the (male) person's marriage on his main page.