2012/9/19 Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
On 09/18/2012 10:36 PM, Martin Steer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:26:50AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course. My emphasis was on separate. Benny said that separate
>>> families should be made for a bastard child. However,
>>>
>>> i) a bastard child could well be raised by its biological parents, and
>>>
>>
>> Then he's not much of a bastard...
>
> In this context, the only interesting sense of 'bastard' is 'a person
> born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child'. There is no reason to
> assume that such a child would not be raised by its parents. I could
> cite a number who were so raised from my own ancestry.
>

With the parents, to use the archaic term, "shacking up"?

>>
>>> ii) in my (apparently aberrant) usage, 'family' does not mean 'people
>>> who live together', but rather something like 'people with a certain
>>> kind of documented familial connection'.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how you square that with your earlier statement:
>>      Why would you make a separate family for each of the parents of
>>      a bastard child?
>
> A question, not a statement.
>
> I don't use the Gramps family construct to organise people into
> households. I use it to organise people into genealogical families, so
> far as I'm able. For me that means births, adoptions, etc. I don't have
> much knowledge of the household arrangements of most of the people I'm
> interested in, and probably never will have. And yes, it does seem that
> I'm misusing the system, but that's what it's there for.
>

:)  That usually winds up causing extra work, though.

> +some family+
> bio father
> bio mother
> bastard 1
> bastard 2
> legit 1
>
> +some other family+
> adoptive father
> adoptive mother
> bastard 1
>
> By way of an aside, I think that it's an error, and it's certainly
> tedious, to try to capture intimate social detail in database form. The
> detail is in the documents and notes.
>

So you have *two* entries for "bastard 1"?

As far as I have seen, that is indeed how you should do it. If a woman remarries, then you certainly have two families, and you add the children to both families as they live in both families (children which are adults by that time are not readded, as they do not live in that family, and typically will not call the new husband of their mother dad at this later age).
In my use, I extend this to having families with only one parent (in gramps you can even have families with no parents).
I agree strongly with Martin however: I only do this if I have some document proof of this situation (so eg the mother living alone with the children). Like this the residence event is in the family, and is correct.

Benny

--
If adults of legally sound mind must be told what foods they
are not allowed to buy, then those people are not competent
to choose (i.e. vote for) their own leaders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
Gramps-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users