Jump to content


Photo

How do I record a father who is disowned?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Fleetz

Fleetz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 10 March 2020 - 03:50 PM

I have been reaching out to family who I discovered through my research for them if interested to provide detail of their family and relatives where the trial of information was non existent.

I have just received some information from one such of our family where all the details basically have disowned the father and all members of our family side have reverted back to our family name. How do I respect and record this?

A distant cousin married a man whom I have his name however for whatever reason his wife (my cousin) and her family disowned him. All records provided have are in the our family name, here children and grandchildren bare our family name. I have no doubt that at some point after the divorce she has had her name changed back to her maiden name.

I recall my conversation with her son where it was painfully obvious a bitter and nasty separation occurred many years back. Was obvious they do not want to discuss the reasons why which I fully respect.

So now I have these relatives that only wish to be recorded by my cousins maiden name our family name. How does Rootsmagic indeed does Rootsmagic accomodate this situation?

#2 robertjacobs0

robertjacobs0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 10 March 2020 - 03:54 PM

Use the alternate name fact as needed and either modify the sentences or add notes as necessary (and discreet?)



#3 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1058 posts

Posted 10 March 2020 - 06:32 PM

An alternate name can be marked "private". I'd enter everyone under the mother's maiden name then add a private alternate birth name with the father's surname. You don't have to link everyone to their father but you can enter a {private note} with the information.  



#4 jagwinn

jagwinn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 02:43 PM

Just an observation, genealogy is in its basic form a record of people connected by blood. The father is the father whether or not he is disowned, slighted, disavowed or dead. Surely at one point in the relationship the father/child connection was viable; if at a later date the emotions set in and relationship changes that does not change the blood relationship.

I list families as they were made, not to reflect the emotional attitudes of some of the people in the family. 



#5 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1058 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 06:10 AM

Just an observation, genealogy is in its basic form a record of people connected by blood........

 

Genealogy may be but "Family History" is more holistic. 



#6 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 07:24 AM

I have similar issues with my wife’s family, once someone gets a divorce the “out of the family spouse” gets black listed.  No-one speaks their name, ever!  Reunions get tricky.  In these cases I make a point that I’m a genealogist and for medical reasons the kids and grandkids need the information documented, BUT I created a custom fact that clearly says “Blacklisted” which makes a lot of family members very happy, they actually have laughted at the term, yet a couple of the kids (now adults) take me to the side a say thanks for remember their father.



#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3782 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 02:54 PM

I'm firmly in the camp that what I am doing is family history, not just genealogy. I have many "raised by" situations, cousins raised like siblings, blended families, and that sort of thing. And many of these kinds of things in my database are from before divorce became so common. If I don't reflect family history, I make people unhappy at family reunions because "raised by" children are otherwise not included, etc. I think that software needs to respect the need to do both genealogy and family history, although supporting family history in software can be harder that supporting pure genealogy. I frequently have to list non-biological and sometimes non-adoptive adult care givers of children as if they were parents in order to get reports to read properly for family history purposes. And I have to add copious notes to describe family history properly.

 

Jerry



#8 Fleetz

Fleetz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 09:51 PM

In my situation my relative and indeed her eldest son made it very clear the father is not to be named, nor was I going to be given his name. He has for whatever reason been completely disowned. I fully respect their rights not to disclose.

My cousin a few times removed actual kept here maiden name and her son surname is as it should be in this case our family name. I have respected their right not to name the father. I have therefore named her son’s father name as “Private” and left it at that.

Been able to fill in many other family members from the contact which were willingly provided.

#9 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1579 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 10:58 PM

In my mind, "Private" implies that you know, but aren't saying.

 

I use [Unknown] for those given & surnames that my research has not yet uncovered.

 

Since there are some family members with very strong feelings, I'd suggest using [Unknown]. But, is my bias based on my current usage?



#10 Fleetz

Fleetz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 06 April 2020 - 06:19 AM

Respect your point of view.

Unknown” I felt has connotations and felt “Private” was more respectful. End of the day neither will bring the father’s name forward which is my distant cousin’s prerogative. She was comfortable with “Private”.

I have listed her in citations against this particular entry so family members are going to be clear it is not for discussion. Unknown may have a family member coming forward with a name which frankly out of respect of my cousin I prefer not to know. Private infers case closed.

#11 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3782 posts

Posted 06 April 2020 - 08:15 AM

In this particular case, the need for privacy comes from the wishes of a living person for disowning a person. There obviously can be other reasons for privacy.For data posted online, it can simply be the very fact that people are still living. To a certain extent, this issue is more about "how to do family history" than it is about "how to do RM". But nevertheless, I do run into issues that are specific to how I use RM. And in fairness to RM, these kinds of issues surely would arise with almost any good quality genealogy software.

 

What I am talking about is situations where information about persons who are no longer living includes or implies information about people who are still living. Obituaries typically list lots of living people and their relationships to each other and to the deceased. And things like marriage records for the deceased will contain information about a surviving spouse. I typically don't find these things to be problematic for printed reports, but sometimes they do become problematic online. This is especially the case because I always include transcriptions of documents with my data in printed reports, and online I can also include images of documents. So private data can sneak through in RM's notes and in RM's citations and in RM's images if I am not very careful. I can make notes or portions of notes private in RM. I can make facts private in RM. But I cannot make citations or images private in RM. So I have to be very careful sometimes with citations and images that might include private data if I am posting the information online. In some cases, I have redacted and non-redacted versions of the same image and it's sort of a pain to be sure that it's the redacted version of the document that is posted online.

Finally (and this is tricky, also), the day is going to come where I myself and anybody else who might care will no longer be around to object to information that might be very private in the present time. Such information probably will come out eventually and probably needs to come out eventually, even if it's decades from now. So recording the data in the present day can be tricky. For an example of such a situation in my database from many, many decades ago, I have a couple in my database who were married when they were about 40 years old - second marriage for both. The woman had a 20 year old daughter from her first marriage who lived in the household with the couple. The daughter became pregnant and the 40 year old stepfather was the biological father. This was in a remote rural community and it was all kept secret by stating that the 40 year old wife was the biological mother. But it did come out 40 or 50 years later due to a deathbed confession by the biological father, so it's recorded in my family history. But if I know about such situations in the present, recording them accurately and inoffensively can be very tricky, especially when RM doesn't have privacy controls for citations and images.

 

Jerry 



#12 Fleetz

Fleetz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 06 April 2020 - 01:37 PM

Jerry,

You make many good points.

I agree it’s easier to deal with these in written form than the locked down structure of an online database like RM. Not being critical of RM, it’s brilliant.

Maybe our discussions here might get picked up by the good folks at RM? End of the day what you, I and others have raised real world situations that RM does quite cover albeit they are very much the exception than the rule.

#13 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 06 April 2020 - 05:21 PM

Recording information vs reporting information are two different things.

If the data saved to any database (be it genealogy, financial, personal, etc) is not setup to report that data in a fashion that is geared to the viewer/reader, then a problem exists.  I’ve written a lot of software over the years that required data points to have a security or privacy level attached to each data point so that some viewers could see some data while others could not, be that for screen images or report images.
 

GEDCOM 5.5.1 (sorry for this reference) includes a RESN tag for each “fact” to allow for the transmitter to indicate the need to restrict a piece of data.  I’m not big on the values used, however I do believe that a data point should have the ability to be removed from reports or transfered out of the database.  GEDCOM 5.5.5 removed this tag, which I think is wrong since if I want to transfer data from one database to another so I can use multiple program I would need some tag in the GEDCOM to carry this information Tamura Jones does not agree!