Child already sealed to parents but shows it has not been done
JULIETTE KRANENBURG (K87J-Q2J) shows she was already sealed to her parents in 1982 in New Zealand. It also shows she has NOT been sealed to her parents. I researched and fixed the problems but now I need someone else to either show she is or is not sealed to her parents. Her father is Mauritz Kranenburg (KCBG-D9P) and her mother is Dorothea Kranenburg (KHK6-V16). Please help and/or advise
Best Answer
-
Gordon,
your comments are accurate except for your discussion of the IGI ID numbers. Those numbers do flow into Family Tree and can tell you where the original IGI records currently reside in Family Tree. Let us consider the situation above - The IGI id for Juliette Kranenburg is 99DZ-9M5. If you go to Family Tree and enter that ID in recents the result will lead you to Juliette Kranenburg K87J-Q2J with a note that 99DZ-9M5 has been combined. This means the two records were combined in new FamilySearch and any ordinances associated would be in this record.
Now lets do a similar process for the fathers record from the IGI --- it was Mauritz - 99DZ-9SS. Again using the IGI ID and entering in recents in Family Tree yields the following --- Mauritz Kranenburg KCBG-D9P with a similar note that the records were combined (done in new FamilySearch). So we have the IGI record for the father associated with the Fathers record in Family Tree and the IGI record for the daughter associated with the daughters record in Family Tree.
However, the mothers record does not appear in the IGI as sealings were done without a mother. When these IGI records were moved to new FamilySearch a ? record was added for the spouse. We can look at the record for Mauritz Kranenburg KCBG-D9P to see if we can find that ? record for his spouse and mother of Juliette. If you look in the change log there was a ? spouse removed in 2019 that record is ? H3D8-F6Z. it is a floating record because it was simply disconnected as a spouse.
My suggestion to the original poster is to Merge the current mothers record --- Dorothea Kranenburg KHK6-V16 with the unamed record H3D8-F6Z and I believe this will resolve the ordinance issue described by the original poster. ( I tested in Beta.familysearch.org and it resolves the issue).
If you or the original poster have an questions, please let me know.
2
Answers
-
This is what happens when a merge accidentally loses parents instead of merging them or when incorrect parents are replaced with the correct parents. The parents that are disconnected from the person are replaced by the blue box.
Looking at Juliette's record, almost all the information on her came from the original import from New Family Search. Very little has been done to her record and in particular there are no merges or changes in parents. This means that the parents she was sealed to in 1982 must have been detached from her in New Family Search.
This ordinance work was not from an extraction record, because all records that had temple work from an extracted record had that extracted record put on as a source in Family Tree. This means that the ordinances on her were from a patron submitted request. These are also in the IGI because having temple work done is what put someone in the IGI. Patron submission however, were not used to create sources for Family Tree.
You can search the patron submissions under the Genealogies section of FamilySearch. Doing so, you will find this record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:99DZ-9M5 which has information that matches for your Juliette and has for parents just Maruitz. Having just this first name of a father would have been sufficient to have her sealed to him and her mother.
Support should be able to use this IGI record to confirm that the 1982 sealing was to her correct parents and fix the record so that either by recreating Mauritz and his unknown wife and merging with the parents you show or by combining the two sealing sections on her Family Tree page that her her 1982 sealing displays correctly.
(Note: although IGI ID numbers are in the same format as Family Tree numbers, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You cannot find Mauritz by searching by his IGI ID)
Good luck with this! I assume that a moderator will see this and get it moved to the team that fixes these things.
0 -
Great! The last time I looked at those IGI numbers far too many years ago, I don't think they worked like that. It's nice to know that you can track from the IGI to Family Tree that way. I'm glad you were able to find this for Judith.
This situation is exactly why I always advise people to never detach those ? individuals (actually to never delete any correct relationships) but to determine who they really represent and merge them in properly. I would say simply removing ?s is probably the most common cause of those blue boxes. Or maybe second after bad merges where parents were lopped off.
I did forget to look at her father's record for a detached spouse. There are three configurations I have run into in Family Tree for those IGI records that did not contain a mother:
- Child linked to Father/?.
- Child linked to Father/No-wife. Father shows with a second wife of ? with no children listed under them.
- Child linked to Father/No-wife and Child linked to No-husband/?.
Thanks for teaching me something today and reminding me of something!
0