From: Brad R. <br...@fi...> - 2007-05-03 07:36:31
|
On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:49:01 +0200 Duncan Lithgow <dli...@gm...> wrote: Hello Duncan, > > Entirely up to you, but what I do is use the married name, in > > brackets, until I discover the birth name. > If I have any name I use it - just make sure the notes make clear > where the name is from. Something I've been poor at, until recently, is making adequate use of the Notes fields. But certainly, this is a prime candidate for using the Notes field. > Because of how they look in reports I've begun using [no record] for > missing name fields. I would rather that gramps reports did this Something that, so far, has not occurred in my tree (no name, that is). > which I've seen in the descendant report can cause problems with > family members who insist they know who the father is but won't tell > anyone who it is... I loathe that sort of attitude; *I* know, but I'm not going to tell *you*. It says to me that they _will_ tell me, but only after a suitable amount of begging and ingratiating behaviour from me. If they weren't going to tell me, they would just keep quiet.=20 > I've also more recently begun writing things like [son of Robert > William]. That brings other problems. The only places on my tree where the father is unknown is illegitimate children. Of the three that I have, there's strong circumstantial evidence to point to the father. For the other two, so far, attempts to locate a potential father have proved fruitless. --=20 Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Two sides to every story Public Image - Public Image Ltd |