Uterine and Agnate parenthood

LegacyUser

Sandra Thomas said: Hi
When identifying a relationship between a sibling who has the same MOTHER but a different father can you add UTERINE and when the sibling has the same FATHER but a different mother AGNATE/CONSANGUINE. I am sure a lot of people would like to identify their siblings in the family tree and these are the legal terms used.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

First, I'm not sure that more than a handful of English-speaking persons will even know what those terms mean. I've been involved, to one degree or another, with researching my family since 1963 and this is, as far as I can remember, this is the first time I've encountered those two terms. Yes, I've heard of and understand what consanguine is, but the others?

Use an internet search engine for the definition of Uterine. The most common definition is not related to genealogy.

But that isn't what is important. Both are, in essence, archaic terms that were used to describe Matrilineality and Patrilineality or in more common terms the mother's line and father's line. I had to look up the terms you used and then access the Wikipedia articles that showed up in the search results.

A large percentage of people who use FamilySearch are novices when it comes to researching their ancestry would, like myself (even with my years of experience in not only researching my families, but teaching others how to do it) be absolutely clueless in regard to those two terms.

Taking this further -- FamilySearch and the world does not use English. While it may, at the current time, be the most commonly-used language of commerce, it is foreign to a lot of people. The FamilySearch site understands this and as such, accommodates a lot of different languages, so I seriously doubt the idea that a lot of people who would like to identify their siblings would ever even think of using "legal" terms (if they even understood them.

This isn't dumbing down the use of such terms, but more a case of understanding the average user. As a staff member at a local Family History Center, and having served in the training zone for new missionaries entering the Family History Mission, I suspect maybe one or two people would even know what the terms meant in respect to relationships.

But all that aside, the real question is where in Family Search would these terms be used and why would I use them?

FIrst, FamilySearch is far from the ideal place to place records of living persons. International and Jurisdictional laws regarding privacy are observed by the FamilySearch site. As such only a person that creates a living person's record can see that record.

Second, non-biological relationships are accommodated. That is why a user will encounter a man with more than one wife and his children listed under more than their biological mother. The same is true of a woman who has born children to more than one husband. The same system also accommodates couples of the ****, including children raised in that union.

So, I'm not sure why a user would even find use for such terms, when the massive tree -- a single tree intended to record each and every person who has lived, now lives, or will live, and their place in that tree with just one record -- can accommodate the various relationships that exist among the family of mankind.

Am I shooting down your ideal? For me, yes, but that doesn't mean that the idea does not have merit. It certainly does in an anthropological setting, but FamilySearch does not exist in such a setting. It is built for the common user.

If there is a plan to accommodate these terms in the future, then a FamilySearch representative is going to have to respond. We users simply do not know.

LegacyUser

Juli said: I've been doing genealogy for a decade and this is the very first time I have ever encountered these words in this context. The arena where they're used must be a highly specialized one.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Yeah I've never heard these either.

LegacyUser

Sandra Thomas said: Hi Tom
Thank you for responding. I am a new user and was just having some issues linking half siblings and identifying them in my family tree. I now totally understand that the terms are not as widespread as I thought and appear to only be referenced in my line of work.

In English law and French as most of our Law was written in French in the early 19th century - we can use maternal and paternal to link parentage and Agnate and Uterine to describe the relationship between half siblings and parenthood in cases. The terms appear appropriate for this use only. However thank you so much for responding and my apology for any confusion.
Regards
Sandra

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Since you are a new user to FamilySearch, you may want to use The Family History Guide, a FamilySearch-approved training tool. http://thefhguide.com/ - it contains a lot of lessons and "how to" information and may help you quickly set up the relationships between siblings and parents, especially when step- relationships exist.

It also contains training materials for other popular genealogical sites and is free.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: The FamilySearch Wiki page "Latin Genealogical Word List"
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

contains the words
agnatus: blood relative in the male line
uterinus: on mother's side of family, of the same mother

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Sandra,

As you become familiar with the FamilyTree, you will discover that when a relationship is created between a child and a parent, the TYPE of relationship can be given. This seems to cover most of these types of situation:

LegacyUser

Kellie Sue said: Same here. I've never encountered either of those terms & I've been a serious genealogist since 1981.