(I finally got round to upgrading to BK7 over Easter!) I like the new chart. One suggestion: the option of having thicker (and maybe coloured?) arc segments along the lines, rather than (or as well as?) the coloured dots; this IMO would make it much easier to see missing ancestors. (So for great-grandparents, the ring becomes a ring of eight thicker coloured segments, if they are all known, or remains as a thin black line where they aren't.) (Also perhaps a darker blue and lighter red - so a colour chooser?) As always, or at least usual - suggestion is of low priority, other things more important, etcetera: I just thought I'd mention it in case it is easy to do (which I suspect it isn't). Regards, John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows.

Hi Pip, Before doing anything else I would take a backup of the database, being careful not to overwrite the previous one, and then re-index the database. Option below quality check. Then see what quality check shows. Changing the sex of one partner does not usually change the other. Regards Steve On 11/04/2015 18:18, pipsisewa via wrote: > John, > > When I run quality check on my database, in the marriage section, I > get an indication that both parties are female. > I check the box that says change husband to male and it moves the correct > person to the husband position and show the sex of both as mald > Then I check the box that say change wife to female and the closes and > moves on. > > After doing that, I got to those people on the edit screen and it > does indeed show them both as the correct sex. The Husband now shown as > male and the wife shown as female. > > However the next time I run the quality check I get the same > indications for the same people. > > I have even tried exiting B, rebooting the computer and reopening > BK and this still happens. > > Why does this keep repeating even after the edit screen show the > couple as the correct sex? > > Must I go through the routine of deleting the marriage, changing the > sex of both personas to the correct sex and then "remarrying " them? > > Thanks, > > Pip > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:44:26 -0400, "John Steed" <[email protected]> wrote: >To Otto > >I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption of a >near family member correctly. > >You can attach the child to the birth parents. > >You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. > >The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth parents, >and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive parents. > >So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. > >Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent or >not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. > >Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing correctly >and I will check it out. > If you see to the descendant chart the Adoppted child is on bothe the branch to the adoptence parents and to the biological parents and even if thay in Edit are marked correctly amd the in some report are marked as Adoptiv, the chart does not effect that. I know that some will have the child to the new parents, but some not. Itis a question of "blood-line" and descendant connected to correct biolocical parents You say "So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports." for many that is alright, but sometimes they wish to have clean line, e.g. if we are thinking on DNA and so on. I will email you later on some samples you have had before :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

John, When I run quality check on my database, in the marriage section, I get an indication that both parties are female. I check the box that says change husband to male and it moves the correct person to the husband position and show the sex of both as mald Then I check the box that say change wife to female and the closes and moves on. After doing that, I got to those people on the edit screen and it does indeed show them both as the correct sex. The Husband now shown as male and the wife shown as female. However the next time I run the quality check I get the same indications for the same people. I have even tried exiting B, rebooting the computer and reopening BK and this still happens. Why does this keep repeating even after the edit screen show the couple as the correct sex? Must I go through the routine of deleting the marriage, changing the sex of both personas to the correct sex and then "remarrying " them? Thanks, Pip

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:36:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >The LostCousins newsletter brought this family to my attention >http://dailym.ai/1JyXUwx (warning: Daily Mail site). Could BK handle it >(-:? The question will be: Who is the mother and father Genetic Can be compared to adoption of the child to her sister and the sisters husband ? Surogatmother are not the genetic mother. I think BK can handle this. A miss in BK is that there are no differences in the way to handle adoptiv and biølogic children. My father in law had a cousin. The mother to the cousin died. The parent to my father in law adopted the child. And I have added the child to the program and marked it adoptiv and done the corect connection. That thild are now in two branches and children are in two branches and that is not in my opinion correct. We have to have a way to tell that the child is adopted and also to tell the program to differ in the presentatsion, both in reports and charts We have the Adoptive cousin treated as brother to my father and kaw and are treated as uncle to my wife, but sometimes we want to have separate alternatives. This as adopption of nearfamilymember is not unusual but BK does not handle that correct in chart and report. Anyway it is allrigth that we can add them and mark them, but miss the way to handle the branches in reports. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

To Otto I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption of a near family member correctly. You can attach the child to the birth parents. You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth parents, and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive parents. So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent or not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing correctly and I will check it out. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:36:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >The LostCousins newsletter brought this family to my attention >http://dailym.ai/1JyXUwx (warning: Daily Mail site). Could BK handle it >(-:? The question will be: Who is the mother and father Genetic Can be compared to adoption of the child to her sister and the sisters husband ? Surogatmother are not the genetic mother. I think BK can handle this. A miss in BK is that there are no differences in the way to handle adoptiv and biølogic children. My father in law had a cousin. The mother to the cousin died. The parent to my father in law adopted the child. And I have added the child to the program and marked it adoptiv and done the corect connection. That thild are now in two branches and children are in two branches and that is not in my opinion correct. We have to have a way to tell that the child is adopted and also to tell the program to differ in the presentatsion, both in reports and charts We have the Adoptive cousin treated as brother to my father and kaw and are treated as uncle to my wife, but sometimes we want to have separate alternatives. This as adopption of nearfamilymember is not unusual but BK does not handle that correct in chart and report. Anyway it is allrigth that we can add them and mark them, but miss the way to handle the branches in reports. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014 Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The LostCousins newsletter brought this family to my attention http://dailym.ai/1JyXUwx (warning: Daily Mail site). Could BK handle it (-:? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf _IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS_ BEFORE ALL TECHNICAL INTERVENTION ON THE [CASE CUT THE ELECTRICAL FEEDING REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROVIDES THE GOOD WORKING OF A CASE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS BOOK) [seen on bacon cabinet in Tesco (a large grocery chain)]

To Jared Handspicker and all, Thank you for taking the time to consider this situation, sharing what you did about the notes and bringing it all together properly. I'm glad to hear that I'm not alone with these things and I don't have to be stuck in a corner over it. There are helpful, healthy solutions out there for a dilemma such as this. Thanks to others for their input as well. It's given me plenty to chew over. All the best with genealogy. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Handspicker" <[email protected]> To: "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: "John Steed" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Singer35" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > Well, I've come across this sort of relationship conundrum before. There > are multiple ways to address it, but no matter which way is chosen, the > notes section for the mother (I'm assuming at least SHE was consistent in > all these) should offer some form of explanation. > > What I do for the fathers is simple. As you mentioned, they are entered as > "Father of CHILD'S NAME" and the relationship with the mother I select as > "NOT MARRIED". If they MIGHT have actually been married, that can be > explained in the notes as to the lack of proof/vital records to that > effect. Again, under the mother's notes. Do this for each child that had > a known, different father. The third "partner" of the mother, if known, > and married, can be plainly listed. > > I have also seen this where there were marriages, and "Husband of" > MOTHER'S NAME" was used, and one could put 1st or 2nd before Husband, in > such cases, if an order is known, and relationship is known, but > information with dates and locations is NOT known. > > Again, the best means to ensure this isn't overly confusing for anyone > later reading through the database is the clarifying notes under the > mother's entry. > > Also, as long as you're using different individuals for the various > fathers, and even if showing the adoptive father, all those relationships > should hold together, including the half-sister, or any step-siblings. > > Jared > >> Thanks again, Fran. >> >> To explain this instance a little further, the mother had a child to an >> unnamed father, not married, as explained previously; then she had a >> child >> to a named father, not married, who was not the first father, then to >> complicate things still further she married a man who adopted the 2nd >> child but didn't know about the 1st and wasn't the natural father of >> either of them though he wasn't completely sure. >> >> I kind of need a way of showing that mum had 3 relationships, not 2, and >> that the daughters were allegedly half-sisters and not sisters. >> >> By doing a report in BK stating who is descended from who I can depict >> this info, but the numbering may be out if I don't declare the first >> relationship and the first daughter may look to be fathered by the 2nd >> man >> if more detail isn't shown. Complicated. >> >> I'm interested in what others might have to say about this. >> >> Thanks again, >> >> Andrew. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Singer35 >> To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:54 AM >> Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child >> >> >> Andrew: >> >> the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of >> relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is dangerous so I >> don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing about even if I have some >> 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not married' sums it up very well. >> In these instances though I usually just leave relationshp blank. >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: >> >> Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more >> about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but >> "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that >> far. >> >> Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up >> another option with that or is this something that others could make >> use of as well? - is my question. >> >> Andrew. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Singer35 >> To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM >> Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child >> >> >> I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could >> suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. >> >> Fran L >> >> >> >> >> On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: >> >> Hello group, sending also to John Steed, >> >> I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown >> parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named >> parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning >> unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family >> would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner >> (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me >> saying >> they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in >> fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, >> committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a >> husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and >> explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, >> just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in >> this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from >> Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! >> ess myself in BK as well). >> >> In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of >> Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded >> better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of >> them >> still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status >> be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure >> exactly what it would be called. >> >> Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any >> great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested >> in >> this area of discussion. >> >> In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent >> relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the >> terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from >> being 'Partners' or married couples. >> >> Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury >> still out on that one? >> >> At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and >> "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located >> easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see >> better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making >> progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. >> >> Thanks for reading this. >> >> Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. >> Remember - Use the Archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------ > Jared "Jed" Handspicker > Usque Saeculis Vigilem >

Done that now. That looks good apart from the word 'partner' used in the reports for the very temporary nature of the 1st encounter, but I guess it's all in the way you define 'partners'. The notes can be used to present a clearer statement and cater for different interpretations as well. Thanks. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child I suggest you enter the mother's 3 relationships/encounters. then add the corret child to the known & unknown relationships. Then with her married husband, add the adopted child and mark natural for mother, adopted for father. Fran On 07/04/2015 6:20 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: Thanks again, Fran. To explain this instance a little further, the mother had a child to an unnamed father, not married, as explained previously; then she had a child to a named father, not married, who was not the first father, then to complicate things still further she married a man who adopted the 2nd child but didn't know about the 1st and wasn't the natural father of either of them though he wasn't completely sure. I kind of need a way of showing that mum had 3 relationships, not 2, and that the daughters were allegedly half-sisters and not sisters. By doing a report in BK stating who is descended from who I can depict this info, but the numbering may be out if I don't declare the first relationship and the first daughter may look to be fathered by the 2nd man if more detail isn't shown. Complicated. I'm interested in what others might have to say about this. Thanks again, Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child Andrew: the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is dangerous so I don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing about even if I have some 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not married' sums it up very well. In these instances though I usually just leave relationshp blank. Fran On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that far. Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up another option with that or is this something that others could make use of as well? - is my question. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. Fran L On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello group, sending also to John Steed, I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! ess myself in BK as well). In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. Thanks for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Thanks again, Fran. To explain this instance a little further, the mother had a child to an unnamed father, not married, as explained previously; then she had a child to a named father, not married, who was not the first father, then to complicate things still further she married a man who adopted the 2nd child but didn't know about the 1st and wasn't the natural father of either of them though he wasn't completely sure. I kind of need a way of showing that mum had 3 relationships, not 2, and that the daughters were allegedly half-sisters and not sisters. By doing a report in BK stating who is descended from who I can depict this info, but the numbering may be out if I don't declare the first relationship and the first daughter may look to be fathered by the 2nd man if more detail isn't shown. Complicated. I'm interested in what others might have to say about this. Thanks again, Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child Andrew: the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is dangerous so I don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing about even if I have some 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not married' sums it up very well. In these instances though I usually just leave relationshp blank. Fran On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that far. Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up another option with that or is this something that others could make use of as well? - is my question. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. Fran L On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello group, sending also to John Steed, I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! ess myself in BK as well). In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. Thanks for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that far. Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up another option with that or is this something that others could make use of as well? - is my question. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. Fran L On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello group, sending also to John Steed, I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! ess myself in BK as well). In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. Thanks for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Hello group, sending also to John Steed, I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best express myself in BK as well). In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. Thanks for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand.

Well, I've come across this sort of relationship conundrum before. There are multiple ways to address it, but no matter which way is chosen, the notes section for the mother (I'm assuming at least SHE was consistent in all these) should offer some form of explanation. What I do for the fathers is simple. As you mentioned, they are entered as "Father of CHILD'S NAME" and the relationship with the mother I select as "NOT MARRIED". If they MIGHT have actually been married, that can be explained in the notes as to the lack of proof/vital records to that effect. Again, under the mother's notes. Do this for each child that had a known, different father. The third "partner" of the mother, if known, and married, can be plainly listed. I have also seen this where there were marriages, and "Husband of" MOTHER'S NAME" was used, and one could put 1st or 2nd before Husband, in such cases, if an order is known, and relationship is known, but information with dates and locations is NOT known. Again, the best means to ensure this isn't overly confusing for anyone later reading through the database is the clarifying notes under the mother's entry. Also, as long as you're using different individuals for the various fathers, and even if showing the adoptive father, all those relationships should hold together, including the half-sister, or any step-siblings. Jared > Thanks again, Fran. > > To explain this instance a little further, the mother had a child to an > unnamed father, not married, as explained previously; then she had a child > to a named father, not married, who was not the first father, then to > complicate things still further she married a man who adopted the 2nd > child but didn't know about the 1st and wasn't the natural father of > either of them though he wasn't completely sure. > > I kind of need a way of showing that mum had 3 relationships, not 2, and > that the daughters were allegedly half-sisters and not sisters. > > By doing a report in BK stating who is descended from who I can depict > this info, but the numbering may be out if I don't declare the first > relationship and the first daughter may look to be fathered by the 2nd man > if more detail isn't shown. Complicated. > > I'm interested in what others might have to say about this. > > Thanks again, > > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Singer35 > To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:54 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > > > Andrew: > > the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of > relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is dangerous so I > don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing about even if I have some > 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not married' sums it up very well. > In these instances though I usually just leave relationshp blank. > > Fran > > > > On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: > > Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more > about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but > "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that > far. > > Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up > another option with that or is this something that others could make > use of as well? - is my question. > > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Singer35 > To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > > > I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could > suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. > > Fran L > > > > > On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: > > Hello group, sending also to John Steed, > > I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown > parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named > parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning > unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family > would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner > (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying > they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in > fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, > committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a > husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and > explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, > just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in > this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from > Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! > ess myself in BK as well). > > In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of > Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded > better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them > still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status > be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure > exactly what it would be called. > > Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any > great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in > this area of discussion. > > In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent > relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the > terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from > being 'Partners' or married couples. > > Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury > still out on that one? > > At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and > "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located > easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see > better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making > progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. > > Thanks for reading this. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > www.avast.com > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > www.avast.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > www.avast.com > > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker Usque Saeculis Vigilem

I suggest you enter the mother's 3 relationships/encounters. then add the corret child to the known & unknown relationships. Then with her married husband, add the adopted child and mark natural for mother, adopted for father. Fran On 07/04/2015 6:20 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: > Thanks again, Fran. > To explain this instance a little further, the mother had a child to > an unnamed father, not married, as explained previously; then she had > a child to a named father, not married, who was not the first father, > then to complicate things still further she married a man who adopted > the 2nd child but didn't know about the 1st and wasn't the natural > father of either of them though he wasn't completely sure. > I kind of need a way of showing that mum had 3 relationships, not 2, > and that the daughters were allegedly half-sisters and not sisters. > By doing a report in BK stating who is descended from who I can depict > this info, but the numbering may be out if I don't declare the first > relationship and the first daughter may look to be fathered by the 2nd > man if more detail isn't shown. Complicated. > I'm interested in what others might have to say about this. > Thanks again, > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Singer35 <mailto:[email protected]> > *To:* Andrew Jackett <mailto:[email protected]> ; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > > Andrew: > > the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of > relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is > dangerous so I don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing > about even if I have some 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not > married' sums it up very well. In these instances though I > usually just leave relationshp blank. > > Fran > > > On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: >> Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit >> more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well >> but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite >> got that far. >> Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer >> up another option with that or is this something that others >> could make use of as well? - is my question. >> Andrew. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Singer35 <mailto:[email protected]> >> *To:* Andrew Jackett <mailto:[email protected]> ; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child >> >> I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I >> could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. >> >> Fran L >> >> >> >> On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: >>> Hello group, sending also to John Steed, >>> >>> I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! >>> ess myself in BK as well). >>> >>> In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. >>> >>> Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. >>> >>> In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. >>> >>> Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? >>> >>> At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. >>> >>> Thanks for reading this. >>> >>> Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. >>> Remember - Use the Archives athttp://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >> software. >> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Andrew, If I read you correctly, you have a name (e.g., Gladys May PARSONS) and you want to enter some information about one (or both) of her parents into separate records in your data base. But the information you have is limited. In particular, you have no name. Nor do you know if the parents were married. It appears that you suggest the solution "father of Gladys May Parsons" for the unknown father and, presumably, "mother of..." I do not see what trouble you have with this. When you enter the parents' names you do not need to have any relationship between the parents -- not "married", not "unmarried", not "partner" -- no relationship at all. If you eventually learn more about the father, you can insert it into the record you have created-- in particular you may find the name. If not, you have displayed as much about the person as you know. I have done this in the past but I usually use simply "unknown father Parsons" for the father and "unknown mother Parsons" for the mother. I also fill in an estimated birth date some 30 years before the birthday of the child. This helps me find the person again when I need to. Also, to indicate that I am making a wild guess I use "cir" as a prefix; e.g., "cir 1890" (I use "abt" if I am a bit more certain). This is not unlike the situation in which you may have unknowingly entered a name for the parent that turns out to be incorrect -- just correct it when you have the right information. The situation often occurs when you know that two people are siblings, but you are unaware that they are really half-sibs. Jim R, Gettysburg, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Jackett via To: John Steed ; Singer35 ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that far. Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up another option with that or is this something that others could make use of as well? - is my question. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: Singer35 To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. Fran L On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello group, sending also to John Steed, I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! ess myself in BK as well). In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. Thanks for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Andrew, Maybe "Unmarried couple" would best fit? I do not know of that is a valid GEDCOM option or not. Curt Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that far. > > Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up another option with that or is this something that others could make use of as well? - is my question. > > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Singer35 > To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > > > I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. > > Fran L > > > > > On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: > > Hello group, sending also to John Steed, > > I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best ex! pr! > ess myself in BK as well). > > In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. > > Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. > > In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. > > Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? > > At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. > > Thanks for reading this. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Andrew: the fact that is an unknown parent means there was some sort of relationship (barring rape); however to even speculate is dangerous so I don't worry about a relationsip I know nothing about even if I have some 'clues' I can't prove. I believe 'not married' sums it up very well. In these instances though I usually just leave relationshp blank. Fran On 07/04/2015 5:08 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: > Thanks for that, Fran. I am in the situation where I know a bit more > about the relationship and "Not married" as a term fits well but > "Partner" is one that grinds on the system as it never quite got that > far. > Am I expecting too much from a genealogy program like BK to offer up > another option with that or is this something that others could make > use of as well? - is my question. > Andrew. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Singer35 <mailto:[email protected]> > *To:* Andrew Jackett <mailto:[email protected]> ; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:49 AM > *Subject:* Re: [BK] Unknown parent of child > > I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I > could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. > > Fran L > > > > On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: >> Hello group, sending also to John Steed, >> >> I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! >> ess myself in BK as well). >> >> In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. >> >> Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. >> >> In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. >> >> Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? >> >> At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. >> >> Thanks for reading this. >> >> Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. >> Remember - Use the Archives athttp://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

I leave it blank, which is exactly what I know about them. I could suppose the realationship but that's not good genealogy. Fran L On 07/04/2015 4:29 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: > Hello group, sending also to John Steed, > > I have traditionally been perplexed as to how to enter in an unknown parent of a named child born in an historical context just to one named parent. I used to enter the unnamed parent's name as "(?)" meaning unknown (so that the matching of relationships to children in the family would be accurate) and changed the relationship to display as Partner (i.e. not married) in most cases but I had people coming back to me saying they were entering this person in as an unknown husband (or wife) when in fact it was most likely a brief liaison rather than a legally binding, committed relationship of some kind. Others blindly assumed it was a husband (or wife) and so I found myself getting back to people and explaining further about what had supposedly taken place with these folk, just what the lack of detail meant. (The software I was using, not BK in this instance, was somewhat unclear as to separating out Partners from Husband and Wife, however I am unclear as to how to best expr! > ess myself in BK as well). > > In recent weeks I've chosen to enter them in with the name "father of Gladys May PARSONS _______" and this idea seems to have it recorded better, but having the Not married = Partner status shown for some of them still kind of lets it down. I would prefer that the relationship status be changed from Partner to something more suitable but I'm not sure exactly what it would be called. > > Any ideas, people? Do other folk come up with this problem also? Any great work-arounds that we should know about? I'm certainly interested in this area of discussion. > > In a different genealogy program I treated these one set of named parent relationships as 'Friends' although I was not comfortable with the terminology. I believed that they needed to be something different from being 'Partners' or married couples. > > Do we have something to work with in that area John Steed or is the jury still out on that one? > > At least now by entering first and last names of "father _______" and "mother _______" on the Find person search, the names can be located easily in one swoop and other readers of the family tree reports can see better how the "(?)" person got to be placed there. I think I'm making progress with that but I'm open to other ideas. > > Thanks for reading this. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

I've tried a few, and settled on GedStar Pro. It costs $10, but the display is good, and it will accept all your data including sources (or so it says). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 02 April 2015 08:01 To: [email protected] Subject: BK Digest, Vol 10, Issue 74 To all Digest receivers: There are two forms of the "Digest" differing in appearance. The default is "Plain" and the other choice is "MIME" - if you would like to try the other view send a private message to me at [email protected] Today's Topics: 1. Re: Ancestor descendant list (Jim Dell) 2. Android GEDCOM viewer (Gert Blij) 3. Re: Android GEDCOM viewer (Jim Dell) 4. Re: Android GEDCOM viewer (Malcolm Webb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 03:13:02 -0400 From: Jim Dell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BK] Ancestor descendant list To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii JP Excel is easier to sort One of the things I produced was a list in date order of everybody I didn't have an obit for So when I was looking for a person's obit I might find others on the same roll of microfiche Yes I do sums Over the years I have developed several macros to make the job easier Also developed macros for Word to format & produce index of the register report Whole point it's a lot easier carrying a flash drive to the library than my books Jim Sent from my iPad > On Mar 31, 2015, at 6:57 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, Jim Dell via > <[email protected]> writes: >> Jim >> Well my book would be over a 1,000 pages long. >> What I do is create a custom report, normally an Excel spreadsheet, > {} > Going off at a tangent here: do you do sums on your data? If not you > probably [email protected] need a spreadsheet. If you just want a grid then [email protected] > tables are much more versatile than Excel. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 > MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Another lively meeting of thr 1922 Committee - the secret gathering of > BBC presenters that gets its name from the fact that no one is sober > after twenty-past seven. - Eddie Mair, RT 16-22 April 2011 Remember - > Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:43:56 +0200 From: "Gert Blij" <[email protected]> Subject: [BK] Android GEDCOM viewer To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi, Any experience out there with Android GEDCOM viewers or genealogy apps? TIA Gert ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:25:41 -0400 From: "Jim Dell" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BK] Android GEDCOM viewer To: "'Gert Blij'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Gert Using two 1) FamilyGTG 2) Rootsmagic They are not BK, but are good for looking up births & deaths I only use the viewing capability. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gert Blij via Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [BK] Android GEDCOM viewer Hi, Any experience out there with Android GEDCOM viewers or genealogy apps? TIA Gert Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:32:10 +0100 From: Malcolm Webb <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BK] Android GEDCOM viewer To: Gert Blij <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I use GedFamilies on my Kindle Fire. Upload a GedCom exported from BK. Malcolm Webb (Sent from my KindleFire HDX) On 1 April 2015, at 14:43, Gert Blij via <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Any experience out there with Android GEDCOM viewers or genealogy apps? TIA Gert Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the BK list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the BK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of BK Digest, Vol 10, Issue 74 **********************************

I use GedFamilies on my Kindle Fire. Upload a GedCom exported from BK. Malcolm Webb (Sent from my KindleFire HDX) On 1 April 2015, at 14:43, Gert Blij via <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Any experience out there with Android GEDCOM viewers or genealogy apps? TIA Gert Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message