Jump to content


Photo

Automatic Marriages


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Old Bob

Old Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 30 June 2004 - 12:58 PM

Mr. Magician...You are absolutely correct about the word "parent". Would the indication of a "family" be more accurate? A "family" could be me, me and a significant other, married or unmarried, with or without child....I am new to this and it is a great education. I guess I will have to accept that a spouce definition is a person who has a relationship with another (even if it was a one time evening relationship) and not married until you add that fact.

#22 Bob Bance

Bob Bance

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 30 June 2004 - 11:06 PM

I would say that the word "spouse" is an accomodating word that qualify a union, between a man and woman who have "espoused each other". The result could be a household full of children. Society , or more likely under religious pressure, formalised this union, by creating "marriage", which was recorded as an event, for practical purposes. I could not find a legal definition to the word spouse. Genealogical trees would be devoided of branches if we were to enter " Common-law wife/husband", " Mistresse"; Lover" " Concubine" and who knows what. rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Regards to all
Bob.

#23 deb750

deb750

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 01 July 2004 - 09:38 PM

This is getting too complicated and confusing. I make a motion that we terminate the "spouse" issue. Do I hear a second to this motion?

As we can all see, there ain't no politically correct terms for the "short relationships" betweent two people that can please all. I've simply added the SINGLE fact for my UNWED parents that says "John Doe and Mary Smith were never married." in the narrative reports.

I'm happy with this solution. It's not the best solution but, hey, it works. It's a simple statement that gives the simple truth to the situation.

Perhaps this will be the last word on this issue. cool.gif

Deb

#24 Romer

Romer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2073 posts

Posted 01 July 2004 - 09:56 PM

As long as you're consistent, you won't be going wrong with the method you've chosen.

#25 Liberty

Liberty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9 posts

Posted 01 July 2004 - 10:22 PM

Hi

I'm a newbie so I hope no one minds my putting my 2 cents in.

According to the Social Security Administation if you live with someone for a certain length of time, not necessarily common law, they are deamed a Spouse. My Mom lived with someone for over 30 years and when he died she was entitled to widows benefits as his Spouse.

As to the other issue of having a child and not wanting to list the mother as a spouse? Was this child adopted by other parents or did the child remain with the Mother? If there was an adoption you might want to list it as an adoption with unknown parents as the adoptive parents and make up a note titled Birth Mother. An alternative to Spouse, in this situation, might be Birth Parent or Birth Mother or Birth Father instead of Spouse.

I'm a reunited adoptee with all kinds of different entries in my family tree. I have an Adopted sister and Adoptive Parents, Birth Mother (Father Unknown) and 7 Birth Siblings. So my files include 12 Great-Grandparents and their decendents.

It's challenging :-)

#26 deb750

deb750

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 03 July 2004 - 05:04 PM

Liberty, what you have stated is true. There is the "common law" status when a couple do live together and have children and social security benifits are available n that situation.

However, I'm the product of a "one night stand" and that does not mean my mother and father were spouses. They did not live together. They became bitter with each other. The alternatives you suggested do not work. I have one mother and one father. I'm not adopted so making up one is out of the question. I have listed the father and the mother and added the fact that they were single which means they were never married. Even tho my mother and father became bitter enemies, I have a wonderful relationship with his family.

When you think about it, you don't have to make something "look" good in the database if it isn't true just to make a "family" by using the word spouse. Just make it simple by listing the mother and father and adding the fact that they were single.

Deb

#27 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 03 July 2004 - 09:19 PM

Deb,

What relationship word do you suggest.

You keep saying you do not like using the word, "spouse."

Give us a better term to link two parents! Do not suggest throwing away a usable term without suggesting something of value to replace it with.


Alfred

#28 Patricia

Patricia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 03 July 2004 - 09:46 PM

Alfred, you may remember that the very early versions of FamilyOrigins either used the term "father" and "mother" (on FGS), or they allowed the user the option of choosing husband/wife or father/mother. I forget whether it was hardwired or if there was an user option. I just remember that the FGS had father/mother instead of husband/wife. Father/mother was always preferable to me on the reports.

#29 Liberty

Liberty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:30 PM

Deb,

I wasn't suggesting that any falsehoods be used to make something look good in a data base. I'm sorry if my post came off that way.

I to am the product of two unmarried parents and a one night stand. And although I was adopted I still use the terms Birth Mother or Birth Father or Birth Parents as well as Adoptive in the same context.

My thought was that if your mother raised you then Birth Father or Birth Parent could be a term used for your Father instead of a Spouse to your mother.

I didn't mean to step on any toes.

Lib

#30 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 07:49 AM

QUOTE (Patricia @ Jul 3 2004, 08:46 PM)
Alfred, you may remember that the very early versions of FamilyOrigins either used the term "father" and "mother" (on FGS), or they allowed the user the option of choosing husband/wife or father/mother. I forget whether it was hardwired or if there was an user option. I just remember that the FGS had father/mother instead of husband/wife. Father/mother was always preferable to me on the reports.

The family group sheet in RM also says father and mother if you don't have a marriage event.
RootsMagician

#31 Patricia

Patricia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:50 PM

QUOTE
The family group sheet in RM also says father and mother if you don't have a marriage event.

Oh, Bruce. I didn't notice that before! Cool cool.gif That's exactly the way I wanted it to work. I don't know why I didn't notice it before now. You're ahead of us, as usual. wink.gif I think I need to reprint some of the FGS in my working books. Thanks!!

#32 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 04 July 2004 - 04:51 PM

Well, it did that back in RootsMagic 1.0 and at least as far back as FOW 8.0. But, it still uses that widely hated word spouse if the were any little babies born with any other partner.


Alfred

#33 Patricia

Patricia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 05 July 2004 - 07:21 AM

QUOTE (Alfred @ Jul 4 2004, 03:51 PM)
Well, it did that back in RootsMagic 1.0 and at least as far back as FOW 8.0. But, it still uses that widely hated word spouse if the were any little babies born with any other partner.

That tells you how long it's been since I printed out to paper some of those specific group charts where that situation applies. ohmy.gif