In message <A586F097D0854BD1868BC3DA390B72B2@optiplex>, Andrew Jackett <ajackett@slingshot.co.nz> writes: >Hi all, > >I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave link >in the Brother’s Keeper program is now broken. [] After reading other's thoughts, I wonder if it could be your browser, system, etcetera. I just tried - in my browser (and old Firefox) - entering the URL http://www.findagrave.com/ and it opened https://www.findagrave.com/ ; what happens if you enter that (the http version) directly into your browser - does it redirect to the https? If not, how about in a different browser? If you find one in which it does, I fear you might have to set that one as the default browser (I don't think BK has a setting for which browser to use, just using the default one). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

In message <BYAPR06MB5590189E8D7FC10D1848180BE32A0@BYAPR06MB5590.namprd06.prod.outlo ok.com>, Frances LaChance <singer.35@hotmail.com> writes: >it's coming up https: but opening fine here in Canada Same here in UK. (Well, I clicked the button for someone who lived and died in England but has no FAG number, and it opened the web page https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/search?firstname=Harriet&middlename=& lastname=Neave&birthyear=1840&birthyearfilter=in&deathyear=1924&deathyear filter=in&locationId=&memorialid=&orderby=n .) > >Fran > > >On 14/04/2019 9:10 a.m., John Steed wrote: >> To Andrew Jackett >> >> It seems to still be working here in the USA. >> >> I will do some checking. >> >> John Steed >> ________________________________ >> From: Andrew Jackett <ajackett@slingshot.co.nz> >> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:25 AM >> To: bk@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [BK] FindaGrave website now a secure one >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave >>link in the Brother’s Keeper program is now broken. >> >> It seems that the FindaGrave website is now a secure one with a >>slightly different web address. >> >> If you want to chase down grave memorials then may I suggest this URL: >> >> >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.f >>indagrave.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94 >>%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sd >>ata=W9L0PbBa53sMCvmJel8n5rcTrbd6HWN36k2o5Q9VPMM%3D&amp;reserved=0 >> >> Do you happen to know any more about this John Steed? >> >> Hoping the web arrangement in BK with FindaGrave will adjust to suit >>reasonably soon as it’s kind of nifty to be able to link to the >>website from BK. >> >> Andrew Jackett of New Zealand >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Remember - Use the Archives at >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiv >>er.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04d >>efbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6369081 >>27395407064&amp;sdata=JKKQs2fKLdvIVFMSJR8GqXYOMM15dTE7zYGkTV4c%2BGw%3D& >>amp;reserved=0 >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly >>%2Frootswebpref&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94% >>7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sda >>ta=KDeEf45ov6eLYJvJrpDfu7jPHEjguV5FCNOLfmN82WE%3D&amp;reserved=0 >> Unsubscribe >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists >>.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;data=02%7C01% >>7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa >>a%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=uCebFhedGWU5uhP3XZGoBKycSZJudt >>J%2FtztG9PKgZlo%3D&amp;reserved=0 >> Privacy Statement: >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancst >>ry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94% >>7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sda >>ta=5h%2FpMICWCVufmZWv%2FnGia3Gg8v8i1hK7yHSuWwPI2as%3D&amp;reserved=0 >>Terms and Conditions: >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancst >>ry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94% >>7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sda >>ta=vV7IhfaU8x25Lq5uoxwCTu1w6Xfcfk2zWwri23DxCms%3D&amp;reserved=0 >> Rootsweb Blog: >>https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsw >>eb.blog&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e >>7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=Sz0j7 >>XIti4jH7w8b8nAhCMX7nbaGgPxJL4%2BDotL2BBg%3D&amp;reserved=0 >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >>RootsWeb community >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >>https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal >>RootsWeb community > >_______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search >_______________________________________________ >Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com >Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb >community -- (Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?) Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one. -- Petitions are still unfair. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

it's coming up https: but opening fine here in Canada Fran On 14/04/2019 9:10 a.m., John Steed wrote: > To Andrew Jackett > > It seems to still be working here in the USA. > > I will do some checking. > > John Steed > ________________________________ > From: Andrew Jackett <ajackett@slingshot.co.nz> > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:25 AM > To: bk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BK] FindaGrave website now a secure one > > Hi all, > > I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave link in the Brother’s Keeper program is now broken. > > It seems that the FindaGrave website is now a secure one with a slightly different web address. > > If you want to chase down grave memorials then may I suggest this URL: > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.findagrave.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=W9L0PbBa53sMCvmJel8n5rcTrbd6HWN36k2o5Q9VPMM%3D&amp;reserved=0 > > Do you happen to know any more about this John Steed? > > Hoping the web arrangement in BK with FindaGrave will adjust to suit reasonably soon as it’s kind of nifty to be able to link to the website from BK. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand > > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiver.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=JKKQs2fKLdvIVFMSJR8GqXYOMM15dTE7zYGkTV4c%2BGw%3D&amp;reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Frootswebpref&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=KDeEf45ov6eLYJvJrpDfu7jPHEjguV5FCNOLfmN82WE%3D&amp;reserved=0 > Unsubscribe https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=uCebFhedGWU5uhP3XZGoBKycSZJudtJ%2FtztG9PKgZlo%3D&amp;reserved=0 > Privacy Statement: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=5h%2FpMICWCVufmZWv%2FnGia3Gg8v8i1hK7yHSuWwPI2as%3D&amp;reserved=0 Terms and Conditions: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=vV7IhfaU8x25Lq5uoxwCTu1w6Xfcfk2zWwri23DxCms%3D&amp;reserved=0 > Rootsweb Blog: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsweb.blog&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=Sz0j7XIti4jH7w8b8nAhCMX7nbaGgPxJL4%2BDotL2BBg%3D&amp;reserved=0 > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

the same here in Norway --- hilsen/regards Otto -#- Den 14.04.2019 15:10, skrev John Steed: > To Andrew Jackett > > It seems to still be working here in the USA. > > I will do some checking. > > John Steed > ________________________________ > From: Andrew Jackett <ajackett@slingshot.co.nz> > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:25 AM > To: bk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BK] FindaGrave website now a secure one > > Hi all, > > I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave link in the Brother's Keeper program is now broken. > > It seems that the FindaGrave website is now a secure one with a slightly different web address. > > If you want to chase down grave memorials then may I suggest this URL: > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.findagrave.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=W9L0PbBa53sMCvmJel8n5rcTrbd6HWN36k2o5Q9VPMM%3D&amp;reserved=0 [1] > > Do you happen to know any more about this John Steed? > > Hoping the web arrangement in BK with FindaGrave will adjust to suit reasonably soon as it's kind of nifty to be able to link to the website from BK. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiver.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=JKKQs2fKLdvIVFMSJR8GqXYOMM15dTE7zYGkTV4c%2BGw%3D&amp;reserved=0 [2] > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Frootswebpref&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=KDeEf45ov6eLYJvJrpDfu7jPHEjguV5FCNOLfmN82WE%3D&amp;reserved=0 [3] > Unsubscribe https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=uCebFhedGWU5uhP3XZGoBKycSZJudtJ%2FtztG9PKgZlo%3D&amp;reserved=0 [4] > Privacy Statement: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=5h%2FpMICWCVufmZWv%2FnGia3Gg8v8i1hK7yHSuWwPI2as%3D&amp;reserved=0 [5] Terms and Conditions: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=vV7IhfaU8x25Lq5uoxwCTu1w6Xfcfk2zWwri23DxCms%3D&amp;reserved=0 [6] > Rootsweb Blog: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsweb.blog&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=Sz0j7XIti4jH7w8b8nAhCMX7nbaGgPxJL4%2BDotL2BBg%3D&amp;reserved=0 [7] > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search [8] > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref [9] > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com [10] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY [11] Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 [12] > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog [13] > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community Links: ------ [1] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.findagrave.com%2F&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;amp;sdata=W9L0PbBa53sMCvmJel8n5rcTrbd6HWN36k2o5Q9VPMM%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [2] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiver.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;amp;sdata=JKKQs2fKLdvIVFMSJR8GqXYOMM15dTE7zYGkTV4c%2BGw%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [3] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Frootswebpref&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;amp;sdata=KDeEf45ov6eLYJvJrpDfu7jPHEjguV5FCNOLfmN82WE%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [4] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;amp;sdata=uCebFhedGWU5uhP3XZGoBKycSZJudtJ%2FtztG9PKgZlo%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [5] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;amp;sdata=5h%2FpMICWCVufmZWv%2FnGia3Gg8v8i1hK7yHSuWwPI2as%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [6] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;amp;sdata=vV7IhfaU8x25Lq5uoxwCTu1w6Xfcfk2zWwri23DxCms%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [7] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsweb.blog&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;amp;sdata=Sz0j7XIti4jH7w8b8nAhCMX7nbaGgPxJL4%2BDotL2BBg%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0 [8] http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search [9] http://bit.ly/rootswebpref [10] https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com [11] https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY [12] https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 [13] http://rootsweb.blog

To Andrew Jackett It seems to still be working here in the USA. I will do some checking. John Steed ________________________________ From: Andrew Jackett <ajackett@slingshot.co.nz> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:25 AM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] FindaGrave website now a secure one Hi all, I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave link in the Brother’s Keeper program is now broken. It seems that the FindaGrave website is now a secure one with a slightly different web address. If you want to chase down grave memorials then may I suggest this URL: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.findagrave.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=W9L0PbBa53sMCvmJel8n5rcTrbd6HWN36k2o5Q9VPMM%3D&amp;reserved=0 Do you happen to know any more about this John Steed? Hoping the web arrangement in BK with FindaGrave will adjust to suit reasonably soon as it’s kind of nifty to be able to link to the website from BK. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiver.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=JKKQs2fKLdvIVFMSJR8GqXYOMM15dTE7zYGkTV4c%2BGw%3D&amp;reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Email preferences: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Frootswebpref&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=KDeEf45ov6eLYJvJrpDfu7jPHEjguV5FCNOLfmN82WE%3D&amp;reserved=0 Unsubscribe https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395407064&amp;sdata=uCebFhedGWU5uhP3XZGoBKycSZJudtJ%2FtztG9PKgZlo%3D&amp;reserved=0 Privacy Statement: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=5h%2FpMICWCVufmZWv%2FnGia3Gg8v8i1hK7yHSuWwPI2as%3D&amp;reserved=0 Terms and Conditions: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=vV7IhfaU8x25Lq5uoxwCTu1w6Xfcfk2zWwri23DxCms%3D&amp;reserved=0 Rootsweb Blog: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsweb.blog&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0ba039d400b04defbf8708d6c0913f94%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636908127395417075&amp;sdata=Sz0j7XIti4jH7w8b8nAhCMX7nbaGgPxJL4%2BDotL2BBg%3D&amp;reserved=0 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi all, I have just noticed, in New Zealand at least, that the FindaGrave link in the Brother’s Keeper program is now broken. It seems that the FindaGrave website is now a secure one with a slightly different web address. If you want to chase down grave memorials then may I suggest this URL: https://www.findagrave.com/ Do you happen to know any more about this John Steed? Hoping the web arrangement in BK with FindaGrave will adjust to suit reasonably soon as it’s kind of nifty to be able to link to the website from BK. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand

To John Cullom You can change the font size for Notes. Go to the Edit screen, go to the Notes tab, then at the bottom click Options, then click Font then change the size to 12 or 14 point. There is not a way to change the font size for Sources. If your screen size is 800 by 600 or 1024 by 768 then they will be the largest size. If your Windows screen size is larger than that, all of the fonts will look smaller, so try 1024 by 768 if possible. John Steed ________________________________ From: cullomsr--- via BK <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 3:11 PM To: John Steed Cc: cullomsr@reagan.com Subject: [BK] Font Size Good Morning John, I couldn't access the archives this morning but I have a simple question. Is there a way to change the font size in Notes & Sources? I thought this was answered recently but couldn't find it. Thanks, John Cullom, Westminster, Maryland, USA _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiver.rootsweb.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsearch&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014367195&amp;sdata=sT3951hIGPSR1I3tg0STTg8vDTbYu7aRmzSiz612I18%3D&amp;reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Email preferences: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Frootswebpref&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014367195&amp;sdata=ujXC9EsgVirnFGwm0ScKm3fO5zB4GYlJQtfoJfar9EA%3D&amp;reserved=0 Unsubscribe https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rootsweb.com%2Fpostorius%2Flists%2Fbk%40rootsweb.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014377103&amp;sdata=tCfZSRBYvtCvXO1cSdjUcwRbjv9KF1ZQREmamIOqeOE%3D&amp;reserved=0 Privacy Statement: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2JWBOdY&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014377103&amp;sdata=ttx3M9ICYTaoa%2BGpLf97FJYR%2BZtot61SOTLhesba%2BEw%3D&amp;reserved=0 Terms and Conditions: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fancstry.me%2F2HDBym9&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014377103&amp;sdata=QSC6Gy68ZW84fAUtWqYdFWv3PE3RFLctDtlgJ9j3CoU%3D&amp;reserved=0 Rootsweb Blog: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frootsweb.blog&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C013755f9110d4f816fb408d6c0225530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636907651014377103&amp;sdata=PxHZBIv%2BEl3EJRAL3ttjs5V5Xj0nJos7KIubtOOw%2BnU%3D&amp;reserved=0 RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Good Morning John, I couldn't access the archives this morning but I have a simple question. Is there a way to change the font size in Notes & Sources? I thought this was answered recently but couldn't find it. Thanks, John Cullom, Westminster, Maryland, USA

Bill, I too have experienced issues with Windows 10 and various browsers. IE is not really IE as it was in earlier versions of the OS. Edge is supposed to replace it but it really isn’t ready for prime time usage. I have finally settled on Firefox as it seems to be better than two two in the windows 10 OS. I do recommend shutting down the browser every time you stop for the day. I have had issues with it being very slow on starting back up. Just my two cents worth. Curt Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 12, 2019, at 2:30 PM, <bscccook@bell.net> <bscccook@bell.net> wrote: > > Hello; > > I want to thank all who responded to my query regarding the difficulties I am experiencing with the FamilySearch website. > > I am using Windows 10 with Edge as some of you are and as you are not experiencing the same difficulties it would appear the problem may be at my end. From what I remember things seem to change about the end of January when I received an update to Windows which was identified as a "Features" update. > > Thanks again for your response. > > Regards, > > Bill C. > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hello; I want to thank all who responded to my query regarding the difficulties I am experiencing with the FamilySearch website. I am using Windows 10 with Edge as some of you are and as you are not experiencing the same difficulties it would appear the problem may be at my end. From what I remember things seem to change about the end of January when I received an update to Windows which was identified as a "Features" update. Thanks again for your response. Regards, Bill C.

In message <000801d4f0b9$f127f250$d377d6f0$@pycroft.co.nz>, Barry PYCROFT <barry@pycroft.co.nz> writes: >I really do not feel that this type of information needs to be "data >identified". A term I have just now coined to express the difference between >database fields and database content. >I think that we are beginning to loose what we mean by database and the idea >of what we are doing with this data. Is there a finality, a purpose for the >database? Many of us are not sure why we're doing it by now. > >For me it is a collection of biographies which includes a study of the lives >of the families intertwined. The collection of which will become story books >and biographies. That is one particular way of using the data. While you are definitely not alone, there are many other ways. >I can read in the biography the bigamist state of a person and the lives >that lead to this event. The idea of bigamy is a condition of several events >and life actions coming together. It is not in itself an event. I never said it was. > >Let us not confuse Life events with conditions that arise as a consequence >of that event. I wasn't (-: > >The reasonableness report might well consider overlapping marriages. Like >baptisms before birth, that report serves to indicate that I have keyed the >wrong numbers for a date. So bigamy is a valid report item. That's what I was suggesting! You'd need to decide how definite you wanted, though. A second marriage before the death of the first spouse with no known divorce - but, you might not have the death date of the first spouse. And many other variations. > That reasonableness report could also prompt further more accurate research >or the need for correction, often a fault of my own doing. Indeed. That's what the reasonableness report is normally for, I think. > > Barry P. > John. >-----Original Message----- >From: J. P. Gilliver (John) [mailto:G6JPG-255@255soft.uk] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 10:37 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] bigamy in BK? > >Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" >thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? > >It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous >spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for >further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be >incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the >reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such >lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as >second or more marriages are the exception). > >Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - >or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: >-- >J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > >"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's >money." -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing, RT 2017-5-27

I really do not feel that this type of information needs to be "data identified". A term I have just now coined to express the difference between database fields and database content. I think that we are beginning to loose what we mean by database and the idea of what we are doing with this data. Is there a finality, a purpose for the database? For me it is a collection of biographies which includes a study of the lives of the families intertwined. The collection of which will become story books and biographies. I can read in the biography the bigamist state of a person and the lives that lead to this event. The idea of bigamy is a condition of several events and life actions coming together. It is not in itself an event. Let us not confuse Life events with conditions that arise as a consequence of that event. The reasonableness report might well consider overlapping marriages. Like baptisms before birth, that report serves to indicate that I have keyed the wrong numbers for a date. So bigamy is a valid report item. That reasonableness report could also prompt further more accurate research or the need for correction, often a fault of my own doing. Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) [mailto:G6JPG-255@255soft.uk] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 10:37 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] bigamy in BK? Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as second or more marriages are the exception). Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Thanks J. P. Gilliver, I have changed the custom fact to read "Marital Condition" in light of what has been shared and due to the fact that it fits with the restriction on number of characters for the name. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) Sent: 11 April, 2019 10:30 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses In message <007901d4f042$9c6bb840$d54328c0$@pycroft.co.nz>, Barry PYCROFT <barry@pycroft.co.nz> writes: >Great. > Just be aware of out-of-BK limitations. Good thought. (More below.) > > Barry P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 6:53 PM >To: barry@pycroft.co.nz; bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Thanks Barry, > >I have now added a Custom Fact Individual I have called "Condition bef >mrrg" Minor thought: "at" rather than "bef" might be a better name for it; it avoids the thought "how long before". (I know that in this case you _know_; I just like precision, and I _do_ use BEF[ore] and AFT[er] sometimes with dates many _years_ out: for example, I might record death of a first husband as BEF second marriage date if I know she was a widow at the marriage, even though he may have died decades before then. "Condition *at* marriage" would remove any ambiguity.) (More ...) >and will enter date of change in status (divorce/widowhood) in the date >field and either "bachelor", "spinster", "widowed" or "divorcee" in the >fact description field. > >That should do what I want just nicely. > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Barry PYCROFT >Sent: 11 April, 2019 2:46 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Yes, add your own. >That would be the best answer to your question "Is there a way in BK of >recording..." > >Barry P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Hi all, > >Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before >they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? > >If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate whether >someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or spinster as >a default if possible. If John Steed could register my interest in that on >his bucket list it would be great. Sounds a good idea. Your creation of a "Custom Fact Individual" has probably avoided the need for JS to do anything though, though I'd add my name to the tag in the bucket list if it does get considered (-: ... > >Early church records may have these details available for a marriage ... as it'd be useful to be able to record that. In response to those who have replied that the previous spouse's details should make the condition obvious - that's all very well if you _have_ those details; you don't always, or even always know there _was_ a previous spouse. Even where you do, unless you have his/her death date _and_ it's before the second marriage, you don't know whether widow(er) or divorced. (Actually, you don't even if you do have the death date.) >record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree details on >both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an indicator that >said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could form part of the >family data without hiding it in a note. That would make for a more >complete data recording. > >What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable to >you folk? > >Interested in your thoughts. I'm with you in that adding to notes is a way to lose info (-:. [As well as to-do.] > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as second or more marriages are the exception). Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

In message <007901d4f042$9c6bb840$d54328c0$@pycroft.co.nz>, Barry PYCROFT <barry@pycroft.co.nz> writes: >Great. > Just be aware of out-of-BK limitations. Good thought. (More below.) > > Barry P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 6:53 PM >To: barry@pycroft.co.nz; bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Thanks Barry, > >I have now added a Custom Fact Individual I have called "Condition bef mrrg" Minor thought: "at" rather than "bef" might be a better name for it; it avoids the thought "how long before". (I know that in this case you _know_; I just like precision, and I _do_ use BEF[ore] and AFT[er] sometimes with dates many _years_ out: for example, I might record death of a first husband as BEF second marriage date if I know she was a widow at the marriage, even though he may have died decades before then. "Condition *at* marriage" would remove any ambiguity.) (More ...) >and will enter date of change in status (divorce/widowhood) in the date >field and either "bachelor", "spinster", "widowed" or "divorcee" in the >fact description field. > >That should do what I want just nicely. > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Barry PYCROFT >Sent: 11 April, 2019 2:46 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Yes, add your own. >That would be the best answer to your question "Is there a way in BK of >recording..." > >Barry P. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses > >Hi all, > >Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before >they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? > >If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate >whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or >spinster as a default if possible. If John Steed could register my >interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. Sounds a good idea. Your creation of a "Custom Fact Individual" has probably avoided the need for JS to do anything though, though I'd add my name to the tag in the bucket list if it does get considered (-: ... > >Early church records may have these details available for a marriage ... as it'd be useful to be able to record that. In response to those who have replied that the previous spouse's details should make the condition obvious - that's all very well if you _have_ those details; you don't always, or even always know there _was_ a previous spouse. Even where you do, unless you have his/her death date _and_ it's before the second marriage, you don't know whether widow(er) or divorced. (Actually, you don't even if you do have the death date.) >record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree >details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an >indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could >form part of the family data without hiding it in a note. That would >make for a more complete data recording. > >What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable >to you folk? > >Interested in your thoughts. I'm with you in that adding to notes is a way to lose info (-:. [As well as to-do.] > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Great. Just be aware of out-of-BK limitations. Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 6:53 PM To: barry@pycroft.co.nz; bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses Thanks Barry, I have now added a Custom Fact Individual I have called "Condition bef mrrg" and will enter date of change in status (divorce/widowhood) in the date field and either "bachelor", "spinster", "widowed" or "divorcee" in the fact description field. That should do what I want just nicely. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Barry PYCROFT Sent: 11 April, 2019 2:46 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses Yes, add your own. That would be the best answer to your question "Is there a way in BK of recording..." Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses Hi all, Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or spinster as a default if possible. If John Steed could register my interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. Early church records may have these details available for a marriage record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could form part of the family data without hiding it in a note. That would make for a more complete data recording. What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable to you folk? Interested in your thoughts. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Thanks Barry, I have now added a Custom Fact Individual I have called "Condition bef mrrg" and will enter date of change in status (divorce/widowhood) in the date field and either "bachelor", "spinster", "widowed" or "divorcee" in the fact description field. That should do what I want just nicely. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Barry PYCROFT Sent: 11 April, 2019 2:46 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Re: Recording conjugal status of spouses Yes, add your own. That would be the best answer to your question "Is there a way in BK of recording..." Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses Hi all, Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or spinster as a default if possible. If John Steed could register my interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. Early church records may have these details available for a marriage record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could form part of the family data without hiding it in a note. That would make for a more complete data recording. What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable to you folk? Interested in your thoughts. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Yes, add your own. That would be the best answer to your question "Is there a way in BK of recording..." Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses Hi all, Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or spinster as a default if possible. If John Steed could register my interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. Early church records may have these details available for a marriage record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could form part of the family data without hiding it in a note. That would make for a more complete data recording. What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable to you folk? Interested in your thoughts. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

This is one of those TIMELINE things. Immediately prior to an event, a particular condition is evident. During an Event, a change of condition is evident After an event, a particular condition evident is different from the first. Consequently, Andrew, your database is going to fill up with a whole series of dates with events that are short lived or become obsolete with the next event. Occupation, Residence, Census, are such events with self-evident conditions or status of an individual that may or might not change with the next similar event. May I ask how this information will be used? What marriage records show the family tree? On both sides of what records? All I have seen are Registers which are in book form. Incidentally, Andrew, I have a single case in my database where a divorce was applied for, the courts proceeded to publishing notices in a newspaper, but the judgment dissolving the marriage (the man's 2nd) was not made. The third marriage of the man stated he was a bachelor! So the lack of a 2nd marriage annulment made him a bigamist! And he lied on the registration! The biography (notes?) will expand on the timeline and a references to documents & papers made supporting my statement above. The person of interest might have remained a widow(er) for the rest of their lives, even changed their name back to a birth name, so I contend we do not need another EVENT condition. You can of course add your own. I have added "Sport" to my database. It is not transferable among other systems whether database on PC or a WEB- based system. - I don't think such a unique BK-specific event is a wise move. Barry P. Christchurch. NZSG #8530 __++__ -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jackett [mailto:ajackett@slingshot.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 12:54 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses Hi all, Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses before they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor or spinster as a default if possible. If John Steed could register my interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. Early church records may have these details available for a marriage record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could form part of the family data without hiding it in a note. That would make for a more complete data recording. What do others think of this? Is just adding it to a note acceptable to you folk? Interested in your thoughts. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I add the unknown spouse as a new person without a name (name _____ _____) and add the marriage certificate as a 'general source for person.' Sometimes for women, the last name at the time of marriage differs from the father's last name on the marriage record and I can infer the missing spouse's last name.  Date of death is sometimes also given, at least on Pennsylvania marriage records. If I don't have a digital copy of the relevant source attached to the source record, I may add a note with the details as well to either or both persons.  Then if I pursue that line later, I can add the name when found. On 4/10/2019 6:23 PM, Andrew Jackett wrote: > To Fran L and all, > > Thanks for your reply.  I hear what you are saying but sometimes I > know the conjugal status of a party without knowing the names of them > (It may be a line I have not yet traced).  It would be good to have > somewhere to record an unusual conjugal status of someone without > knowing or stating more about the branch they come from to tie it > together in the normal way. > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- From: Frances LaChance > Sent: 11 April, 2019 1:12 PM > To: bk@rootsweb.com ; Andrew Jackett > Subject: Re: [BK] Recording conjugal status of spouses > > A widow/widower or Divorcee would show as the two spouses of one > person.  Death of a spouse would show in that spouse's events and > divorce would show as a couple event.   That's all I need to identify > where they were in life for the second, or even third marriages > > Fran L > > > On 10/04/2019 8:54 p.m., Andrew Jackett wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Is there a way in BK of recording the conjugal status of spouses >> before they enter a marriage besides recording that in the notes? >> >> If it is not yet available, I would like BK to be able to indicate >> whether someone was a widow or divorcee (at least) and if a bachelor >> or spinster as a default if possible.  If John Steed could register >> my interest in that on his bucket list it would be great. >> >> Early church records may have these details available for a marriage >> record and sometimes it’s not possible to record the family tree >> details on both sides to show how people come to a marriage, but an >> indicator that said widow, for instance, could be recorded and could >> form part of the family data without hiding it in a note.  That would >> make for a more complete data recording. >> >> What do others think of this?  Is just adding it to a note acceptable >> to you folk? >> >> Interested in your thoughts. >> >> Andrew Jackett of New Zealand > > _______________________________________________ > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community >