Jump to content


Photo

Adding a person created by an affair


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 02 November 2019 - 06:20 AM

I have a person who was created by an affair by their mother who was married at the time of the affair. The person was still raised by the bio mother and her husband. I know who the bio father was. What is the best way to show this person in my family group sheets? The bio father is the link into my linage. 



#2 JimDavis79

JimDavis79

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 10:39 AM

Scrollsawman, RM provides a way to characterize parentage.  In the "Edit Person" window, click on the Parents line.  You will see in the right hand pane drop-down lists for "Relationship to father" and "Relationship to mother."  The choices for the drop-down are: Birth, Adopted, Step, Foster, Related, Guardian, Sealed and Unknown.  Set up multiple parental relationships to display both the biological line and the social family line.

 

Example:  one person in my family has known biological parents.  However, this person was raised by the aunt of the man who had an affair with the biological mother.  After the affair, the biological father took one child to raise and the aunt raised two others.  No formal adoptions.  The biological parents divorced and each remarried.

 

hope this helps!

best regards, Jim


Best regards, Jim

"When you shake my family tree, nuts fall out."


#3 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 11:41 AM

Hi Jim, thanks for your response and direction. I will check it out shortly and go the way that works best.



#4 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 11:52 AM

Jim, I just looked at the drop-down you spoke of. I don't think any of those options really fit this case. It would be helpful if I could add an option "affair" to the list. I am sure there are many others out there that fall into this catagory. Maybe the programmers could add this selection to the list????



#5 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3911 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:22 PM

Jim, I just looked at the drop-down you spoke of. I don't think any of those options really fit this case. It would be helpful if I could add an option "affair" to the list. I am sure there are many others out there that fall into this catagory. Maybe the programmers could add this selection to the list????

 

In truth, the actual list doesn't matter much in RM7. The list might or might not matter in future versions of RM. Which is to say, RM7 doesn't do anything with the information you enter. If you wish information about the parentage to appear in RM reports, you need supplement the parentage information RM does offer with notes of some kind or other. My comment applies equally to affairs, adoptions, step children, foster children, guardians, related individuals such as grandparents or aunts and uncles who raise children,  etc.

 

Jerry



#6 Rick Landrum

Rick Landrum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 03:31 PM

 

In truth, the actual list doesn't matter much in RM7. The list might or might not matter in future versions of RM. Which is to say, RM7 doesn't do anything with the information you enter. If you wish information about the parentage to appear in RM reports, you need supplement the parentage information RM does offer with notes of some kind or other. My comment applies equally to affairs, adoptions, step children, foster children, guardians, related individuals such as grandparents or aunts and uncles who raise children,  etc.

 

Jerry

I tend to agree with Jerry. I really doesn't matter so long as you supplement the  choice with supporting notes. I have always looked at the parentage options separately from the marriage options ( especially in cases of adoption, guardianship, etc). The 'father is the father" regardless of the marriage record. 

Rick


RickL


#7 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 06:03 AM

Thanks guys for your inputs and advice. I think I will just make the affair and offspring a part of the notes of the offspring and two bio parents.



#8 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 05 November 2019 - 12:47 PM

OK folks, I now have an additional problem that gees along with my above posts. The person that was conceived by the affair ended up living with the bio mother and her husband that she was married to at the time of the affair. The person conceived has two half sisters from this marriage. I want to show this family (Husband, wife, person conceived, and half siblings in a family and attach the family to the bio father who is part of my direct linage. Is there a way to do this? In simple form, I want to show the two families linked to the bio father.



#9 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3911 posts

Posted 05 November 2019 - 02:43 PM

Suppose just to explain how this works in RM that you only link people with their biological parents and suppose one man has children with more than one woman or one woman has children with more than one man. For this purposes of this example, it makes no difference whether the biological parents of any particular child were married to each other or not. Under the circumstances I just described, RM's narrative reports and Family Group Sheets will have a family for each man/woman pair who had biological children together and and the children will be listed only in one family. Half brothers and half sisters will not be listed in the same family.

 

So if you want half brothers and half sisters to be listed in the same family, you will have to give such children multiple sets of parents, a biological set of parents and another set of parents. Such children with multiple sets of parents will be listed multiple times in narrative reports, once for each set of parents. Well, it can be more complicated than that for descendant narrative reports in that one or more families of interest may not be listed at all. For example, both my grandfathers became widowers as very young men, they both had very young children at the time, they both remarried later, and they both had additional children with their second wife. So descendant narrative reports that come down through my grandfathers have all their children, although the half brothers and half sisters are listed in different families, either with my grandfather and his first wife or with my grandfather and his second wife. But descendant reports that come down through my grandmothers only lists their children and not the children of my grandfather's other wife. The only way to get all the half brothers and sisters into the same family is to give them multiple sets of my parents, namely both in the family of my grandfather and his first wife and in the family of my grandfather and his second wife.

 

This concept applies all the same whether the parents of a child are biological, adoptive, foster, "raised by", or whatever. The concept does not require actual marriages for any of the parents for the parent/child relationships to be entered.

 

Jerry

 



#10 scrollsawman

scrollsawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 05 November 2019 - 03:23 PM

Jerry, email me at funtimefilms2@gmail.com. I will send you a diagram of exactly what I am trying to do. It may not be possible, dunno.



#11 History Hunter

History Hunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 April 2020 - 04:38 PM

 

In truth, the actual list doesn't matter much in RM7. The list might or might not matter in future versions of RM. Which is to say, RM7 doesn't do anything with the information you enter. If you wish information about the parentage to appear in RM reports, you need supplement the parentage information RM does offer with notes of some kind or other. My comment applies equally to affairs, adoptions, step children, foster children, guardians, related individuals such as grandparents or aunts and uncles who raise children,  etc.

 

Jerry

Jerry;

Don't get me wrong, Jerry. I am not questioning you, who have more experience with RM than I. But; are you implying in the above quote that one should just treat the adopted person as being another child of the family into which they were adopted and use a note to explain the circumstances? Wouldn't one use the Adoption fact type, rather than just a note? Maybe I'm missing something here.



#12 History Hunter

History Hunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 April 2020 - 04:52 PM

Jerry;

 

I read and re-read your post #9 that explained your own example. Adoption seems to be a tricky thing to document.

If one thinks of "bloodlines", then adopted children don't belong in the adopted families tree at all. However; many think of adopted children as a part of the adopted family group from a "social" perspective.

The presence of an adoption fact seems to imply that the adoptee is considered as just another child of a family group and the fact documents the adoption into that family group.

I don't see how RM can keep how RM7 could really keep track of a person  belonging to a biological and an adopted family group at the same time. It would seem to require some rather fancy programming to do it properly.



#13 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3911 posts

Posted 27 April 2020 - 07:36 AM

Well, I reread this whole thread just now, including my long example. I found my example to be a bit of a convoluted mess. Let me try again.

 

The way RM keeps track of families was not invented by the RM developers. It's a pretty standard model called the lineage linked model. The idea is to have a bunch of people and link them together into families. The family links don't depend on the existence of a marriage fact. There is usually a marriage fact involved in setting up family links, but there doesn't have to be.

There are two kinds of links involved in setting up a family. One kind of link creates a couple relationship. The other kind of link creates a parent/child relationship.

 

Suppose you have five people in an RM database - John Smith, Sarah Davis, Elizabeth Jones, Bill Smith, and Jane Smith. All you have done is enter them into RM with their respective birth dates. Suppose you haven't entered any marriage facts and suppose none of these people are yet linked together as a family. You could link them together in RM as follows. You could link John Smith and Sarah Davis together as spouses. You could do so by highlighting John Smith and doing an Add>Spouse to link him to Sarah Davis as his spouse. You could just as well highlight Sarah Davis and do an Add>Spouse to link her to John Smith as her spouse. Having done the Add Spouse in this manner, there is now a couple relationship between John Smith and Sarah Davis and this relationship exists even if John Smith and Sarah Davis were never married.

There are always questions about what RM calls this relationship. I have just now called it a couple relationship to try to remain neutral. But the couple relationship in RM does not depend on the existence of a marriage between the partners in the real world nor does it depend on a Marriage fact being entered into RM. The couple might actually have been married in the real world and you might actually have a marriage record. The couple might actually have been married in the real world but you haven't yet found a marriage record. Or the couple might never have been married. In any case, the couple relationship is created in RM via Add>Spouse and RM tends to call the relationship a Spouse relationship even if there is not a marriage. This terminology seems wrong to many RM users. Maybe RM should say something like Add Partner and maybe it should refer to a couple relationship or to a partner relationship. But whatever you call it does not change the nature of the link in RM. And it's not just RM, most genealogy software seems to use the same terminology. For example, GEDCOM links people together in this way with a FAMS tag, where FAMS basicially means "Family Spouse".

 

Before we do anything else like adding children, having done the Add Spouse we have that John Smith and Sarah Davis are now a family in RM. You can go to Search>Family List and see them listed. Or you can see that they are in each other's respective Spouse position in places like RM's Family View, Pedigree View,and Descendant View. And you an add a Marriage Fact for them if that's appropriate. Adding a Marriage Fact or not adding a Marriage fact has no effect on the couple link you added with Add Spouse, nor does it have any effect on Search>Family List, nor does it have any effect on them being in the Spouse positions of Family View, Pedigree View, and Descendant View. They are already a family in RM before you add the Marriage fact because you have done the Add>Spouse.

 

Now suppose that John Smith and Sarah Davis have a biological child named Bill Smith, and remember that Bill Smith is already in our database without yet having been linked. To establish this link, we can go to John Smith and Sarah Davis as a couple and do an Add>Child for Bill Smith. Or we can go to Bill Smith as an individual and do an Add Parents and add John Smith and Sarah Davis as a couple to Bill Smith as his parents. Our little family now has three people, John Smith and Sarah Davis as parents and Bill Smith as a child. A "family" in this sense can never have more than two parents, but it can have any number of children, from 0 to a very large number. Remember that John Smith and Sarah Davis were already a family in RM once we did the Add Spouse. We didn't have to add a Marriage fact for the two of them to be a family, and we didn't have to add a child for the two of them to be family.

 

Suppose we believe that Jane Smith is the biological daughter of John Smith and Sarah Davis. We do an Add Parent for her or an Add Child for John and Sarah to make her into the second child in the family.

 

Now suppose we discover that Jane Smith was the biological daughter of John Smith and Elizabeth Jones, or maybe we knew it all along. From RM's point of view, it doesn't matter when or how we found out. What we do is go to John Smith and do an Add>Spouse for Elizabeth Jones, or we go to Elizabeth Jones and do an Add>Spouse for John Smith. This is the correct procedure in RM even though John Smith and Elizabeth Jones were never married. Then we go to John Smith and Elizabeth Jones as a couple and do an Add>Child for Jane Smith or we go to Jane Smith and do an Add>Parents for John Smith and Elizabeth Jones. There is now a second family in RM. The family consists of John Smith, Elizabeth Jones, and Jane Smith. It's a family in RM even though John Smith and Elizabeth Jones were never married and never lived together, and even though Jane Smith never lived with John Smith and Elizabeth Jones as her parents.

 

You can now print two Family Group Sheets in RM. One Family Group Sheet will show John Smith and Sarah Davis as parents with Bill Smith and Jane Smith as children. The other Family Group Sheet will show John Smith and Elizabeth Jones as parents with Jane Smith as the child. John Smith will be in both families in the Father position. Jane Smith will be in both families in the Child position.

You can list Jane Smith's parent/child relationship to John Smith as biological child on both families. You can list Jane Smith's parent/child relationship to Sarah Davis as step child and Jane Smith's parent/child relationship to Elizabeth Jones as biological child. But these relationships do not show up in RM's reports. That's why it's common to add notes to your RM database to explain such situations where the notes will show up in RM's reports.

 

Jerry

 

 



#14 History Hunter

History Hunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 28 April 2020 - 04:13 AM

Thanks, Jerry, for taking the time to do this write-up. This helps me and clears things up entirely.