Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo

Close

Children w/o wife ?

Help
Gilles W.
2008-04-25
2013-05-30
  • Gilles W.
    Gilles W.
    2008-04-25

    Hello

    I have some data to enter but I don't know how.

    I have a man and I know he was married and then divorced.
    I don't know the name of this wife.
    They had one child and I have all datas (name, surname, date & place of birth) for this children.

    The father is in my database, but how can I enter his child ?
    If I try to create a "marriage" event, I must enter the wife's name.
    And from the father's name, I can't enter a child...

    Any clue ?

    Thanks a lot :)

     
    • I always enter N. in all places I do not know (given name, surname or married name). When you enter a wife with name: N. N. and married surname you know you can easily add child.

       
    • Gilles W.
      Gilles W.
      2008-04-25

      Thanks for the tip :)

      Maybe should / could be implemented in a later release ;)

       
    • Greg Roach
      Greg Roach
      2008-04-25

    • From genealogical point of view the solution from the above link
      "1 create a "temporary" husband/wife
      2) add the child to the new family
      3) delete the temporary husband/wife"
      is not truth because this men really had wife and that was real family. Child belongs to both parents. It does not matter we do not know the names or they divorced. There should be normal marriage event (with 2 people), then birth of the child and divorce after that.

       
      • Greg Roach
        Greg Roach
        2008-04-25

        I'm sorry, but I don't understand your problem.

        You can have a "family" with *any* two or more people.  I've got some families with just siblings in my tree - no parents.

        Any family can have a "family event", such as a marriage.

        You can have father+child+marriage if you want.  You could have a family consisting of just brother and sister and their parents marriage if you wanted.

         
    • We are talking about particular relationship (not any family)
      In such case "father+child+marriage" does not make sence for me since there were also a women to "create" this child. I see no reason deleting her from the tree - one day we can put more details in her profile.

       
    • Hello Gilles,
      To add a children to a single parent, the way that is explained in the wiki is not the easier way to do (how could i explain that to a user with no confirm rights = all of the users of my site ??? No way for him not to be confused between updated and new records / updated and deleted records ... the horror for him and for the one who is supposed to confirm changes !!!)

      There is a simple and easy way to do this:
      - go to the single parent
      - choose: Edit > Quick Update in "Option for this individual"
      - in the new opened window, click on "Add a new wife" or "Add a new husband"
      - do NOT type any character in "Add a new husband" or "Add a new wife" section because you do not have any information about husband or wife
      - put the info you know about the child in " Add a new child" section

      and THAT'S IT !!

      In a single operation, this way to do:
      - creates a new family for the current individual with no husband/wife
      - adds a child to that new family

      That's what we wanted to do ?
      Nothing to delete or create for no purpose.

      I thought that was the good way to do, isn't it ?
      Andre

       
    • Gilles W.
      Gilles W.
      2008-04-25

      Thanks a lot :)

      Have to test your workaround Andre :) and thanks for the other "offical" one ;)

       
      • If one thinks it's useful, i can complete that wiki page to add this way to do ?
        Andre

         
    • Stephen Arnold
      Stephen Arnold
      2008-04-26

      Andre
      We would not recommend, in Gilles situation, he use the method you describe as he knows for sure a MARR event took place and the GEDCOM should reflect that spouse and the event to be accurate. Additionally, we don't allow our users to use the Quick Update as it is a 'poor mans' tool - terrible in that it does not allow sourcing data entry and can be easily misused and abused. It's was specifically added as a result of a particularly request from a particular person to John, but there is much discussion over the last 3 years or so of the many negatives.  JOHO, but I don't wish it to be recommended in the WIKI.

      IOHO, in Gilles situation, he should create the wife, with an unknown SURN and a MARR name with a Y for MARR event if a date is not known, and even add the DIV event as it too in known to have happened, and then the issue from this union. It is biologically impossible to have children without a mother, at least given the current state of the art.
      Stephen

       
    • Gerry Kroll
      Gerry Kroll
      2008-04-26

      All:
      Please remember that the term "wife" is confusing to some, in that, to them, it implies that a marriage took place.

      In actual fact, "wife" and "husband" are simply a convenient way to label partners of a relationship.  They don't necessarily indicate gender, and they certainly do not imply a marriage in either the legal or the religious sense.

      As Stephen says, given the current state of biological knowledge, to engender a child a male and a female are still necessary.  We refer to these as "father" and "mother" or "husband" and "wife" regardless of the method by which the engendering took place or the method by which the child actually became a "person".

      We're recording genealogical information.  Legal or religious information such as marriages are just added fluff that have no real bearing on genealogy.  The fact of engendering is unavoidable, but we don't usually record this.  Instead, we record the result (the child) of the engendering.  We also record, where possible, the two partners that produced the child.

       
      • oppiet30
        oppiet30
        2008-04-26

        Same reasoning if you have a mother and father that are never married, but have a kid together.  You are still in the same boat.  You still have to record a mother and father.

         
        • Greg Roach
          Greg Roach
          2008-04-26

          <<You still have to record a mother and father.>>

          You can do it both ways.  I do either, according to the circumstances.

          e.g. I have a baptism record from a parish register in the 1500s.  I know the father and son.  There is no record of the mother, and this will never be known.  So I just record the family without a mother

          e.g. I am doing a one-name study.  I have some info from the 1900s where I only know one parent.  However, here I am confident that I'll find the other parents details at some point in the future.  So here I record the missing parent, but with no details.

           
          • oppiet30
            oppiet30
            2008-04-26

            I have one question.

            How do you record for those people who went to a sperm bank and got pregnant that way.  Would you do it by adoption or just not record mother and father?  I guess it would be the same way if you didn't know the mother and father of the kid you are adopting.  :)

             
    • Gilles W.
      Gilles W.
      2008-04-26

      Oppiet30 > Except for raelians, I think that even if someone is born from "a sperm bank", there is a mother :P but the subject is that actually there is no "gedcom mark" to this kind of "birth" as there is a "normal" birth : sperm banks lead to an uterus.
      Sorry for details... but officially, no human being can be "made" without a women giving birth.
      After the birth, you can record adoption, steal, etc... but we need women alas (LOL)...

       
  • Irene Eng
    Irene Eng
    2012-02-26

    I have many records of males.  For multiple children, Add a child to create a one-parent family under the father will create multiple families and using Add a brother or sister  will put children under one family BUT I don’t know if they shared the same Mom.  Do either way and make corrections later on?
    Thank you
    Irene   

     
  • Stephen Arnold
    Stephen Arnold
    2012-02-26

    Irene
    It has been said more than once in these forums, PLEASE - do not resurrect ancient threads and hijack them.
    PLEASE, post a new help topic when you have a question on procedure if previous threads do not answer your questions.

    The method of recording data is much more a personal preference in genealogy (than perhaps it should be).
    The purpose of recording people in their correct orientation is important to some and not as critical to others.

    My preference in your situation would be to create a new family for each set of children where you can not confirm that they had the same mother (or father), as this would certainly be more accurate than simply assuming they have the same pair of parents. Yes, merge later when you confirm the correct set of parents.  Otherwise, you would have to note every child as parents uncertain or mother uncertain or father uncertain and do a lot more work to split off and reassign to another family if and when you discover them.
    -Stephen