Jump to content


Photo

Automatic Marriages


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 13 June 2004 - 07:18 AM

huh.gif

Why isn't a man and wife considered married when they are first entered as Father and Mother? In otherwords, why is there a separate action required to show them as married?

If that is needed to allow a relationship other than man and wife, then I propose that 'married' be the default, and selections made available to show other possible relationships between the father and mother.

Or, have I overlooked the obvious? dry.gif

Thanks - Jack

Jack

a posteriori

#2 Patricia

Patricia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 13 June 2004 - 09:20 AM

QUOTE (Jack @ Jun 13 2004, 06:18 AM)
huh.gif

Why isn't a man and wife considered married when they are first entered as Father and Mother? In otherwords, why is there a separate action required to show them as married?

The program simply gives the user an opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to the marriage question. Quite often the parents are NOT married.

#3 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 13 June 2004 - 08:00 PM

Do you not "marry" a couple for whom you have no proof of marriage, but who have lived together for years, and have a housefull of children?

When I find a couple who in a census is enumerated as married, I have to accept that as prima facie evidence that they were in fact married. However, I always show the "citation quality" as questionable.

More often than not we do not know if an 18th thru early 20 century couple was or was not married; late 20th and early 21st is somewhat different. However, I suspect that a couple together for years, and with a household full of kids was married in one respect or another, e.g., common law.

I still think the default connection should be "married."
Jack

a posteriori

#4 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 June 2004 - 09:09 PM

There is no fact that is entered into the data base automatically, even birth. And we all know that if there was a person he was born.
So I think that we should never have the program enter a fact into the data base unless it is expressly added as a fact.

#5 deb750

deb750

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 15 June 2004 - 04:43 PM

I totally disagree with you Jack. You can not assume a marriage between two individuals just because they have a child or several children. I have people in my database (or my family) that have had children in the late 1800's up to recently that were never married. In fact, my father and mother were never married nor did they even live together. Does "a roll in the hay" ring any bells? rolleyes.gif

#6 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 June 2004 - 05:51 PM

Does "common law marriages" ring a bell?

But, I get your point. Apparently, the marriage fact is only to enter a date if one is known.





#7 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 15 June 2004 - 07:02 PM

deb750's situation isn't a common law marriage, since she said they never even lived together.

The marriage fact is to indicate the existance of a marriage event. A database should never add data to your database that may not be true. When you link a man and a woman together, they might be married (ie "have a marriage event"), but they might not either. It is up to the user to determine whether there was a marriage event, not the program.
RootsMagician

#8 deb750

deb750

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 05:58 PM

Thanks Bruce for the posted reply. I had trouble listing my mother and father in RM at first because it gave the indication they were married. I finally included the fact "single" and it now states "They were never married." in the reports. Unfortunately, I'm not the only child of 2 people that never married or lived together. At times, it's not only difficult to live with the information, it is sometimes difficult to show it accurately in the database programs.

Deb

#9 JKPorter

JKPorter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 18 June 2004 - 03:19 AM

ohmy.gif In regards to marrages it shows my my mom married to my dad just fine, but when I look at it from my dads side it does not show him married ( but will not let me post him as married because he his all ready married!! What can I do? BTW I am waiting for my ver 2to show up with the book ALSO my moms maiden name was Porter ( the same as my DADs Sername but not related - long story!!
Thanks if you can help!
- John -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got my answer! Thanks LOL biggrin.gif

#10 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 21 June 2004 - 06:55 PM

Where do we indicate the race of a person?

Jack
dry.gif
Jack

a posteriori

#11 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 21 June 2004 - 07:31 PM

Political correctness almost precludes signifying what race someone is. Maybe nationality would be better but I doubt it, too many ethnic jokes have crossed out ears.

Anyway, you can add a user defined fact to list the race if you want.

When you chose to add a fact to a person, there is a button in the lower left corner: "Design New Fact Type" Give it a name, you probably won't need to use the date or place, only the description.

Alfred

#12 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 10:45 AM

ohmy.gif

Thanks! I've added facts before, but it never dawned on me to do it for race.


Jack

a posteriori

#13 Bob Bance

Bob Bance

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 09:00 PM

In genealogy, a man and a woman in a relationship are considered as SPOUSES, particularly if they had children. The recorded event of their mariage establishes them as man an wife.
Bob.*

#14 Ludlow Bay

Ludlow Bay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 868 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 11:35 PM

x
x

#15 deb750

deb750

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:14 PM

Bob, just because the genealogy programs have given the indication two people are "spouses" because there is a child is not true. If the program does indicate that, then the program has a problem. My parents were not spouses under any circumstances.

mad.gif

Deb

#16 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:32 PM

What should we suggest that Bruce replace the word spouse with?

Co-Parent?

Sometimes a word has to be adapted to work in certain places because the words that are commonly used are not very acceptable in polite company.

My English aint so good, I aint got no answer for this quandary


Alfred

#17 usma79

usma79

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts

Posted 28 June 2004 - 09:34 PM

Parent would probably be a good replacement for spouse for Jack's question.

#18 Guest_OLd Bob_*

Guest_OLd Bob_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2004 - 09:44 AM

I have a long lost child that I never married the mother. I am married to another woman with a child that makes our "family". The child out of wedlock is listed as my child but not in my current "family". I entered it this way per instructions from RM. When I look at me on the tree it does say "spouces 2". I wish there was a way not to refer to the mother of the long lost child as "spouce" and just maybe "Parent" as suggested. The only thing I could do was to make a note that I never married the mother of this long lost child. Current wife if not happy it says "2 spouces"

#19 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 29 June 2004 - 10:46 AM

Would "MATE" be better?


I sure wish people would suggest some alternatives, rather than just complaining about the word "Spouse".
Alfred

#20 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 29 June 2004 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE (OLd Bob @ Jun 29 2004, 08:44 AM)
When I look at me on the tree it does say "spouces 2". I wish there was a way not to refer to the mother of the long lost child as "spouce" and just maybe "Parent" as suggested.

But she's not your parent. If we wrote "parents" there, it would be the same as the area right below it which does list the parents of the person. I think that would be way more confusing.
RootsMagician