Hi John, To me, if a father is Unknown, it means that on the birth certificate, or baptism record, or both, that is how he is described. Or that the entry is blank. Somewhat different to just "I don't know" Cheers Steve On 02/08/2015 22:17, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, John Steed > <[email protected]> writes: >> To J P Gilliver >> >> You must add one parent to have someone be a sibling of someone else. >> >> You can call the parent ? Furlong or you can call the parent "Parent of >> Mattie and James" or whatever you want. > [] > Ah, thanks. I've invented a father and called him "? ?". > > I had a faint suspicion that the name Unknown - or in fact *UNKNOWN, > since I have three called that from ages back - had some significance; > obviously my memory was in error.

In message <[email protected]>, Steve via <[email protected]> writes: >Hi John, > >To me, if a father is Unknown, it means that on the birth certificate, >or baptism record, or both, that is how he is described. Or that the >entry is blank. > >Somewhat different to just "I don't know" [] JS has reminded me that in BK5 (!), *UNKNOWN was recognised by the prog., and not printed in reports: it was used where a parent was unknown to the researcher. In 6 and later, children can be added to a person without there having to be a spouse. He thinks BK7 still recognises *UNKNOWN. I do get what you are saying, though, about truly unknown (or at least undisclosed!) fathers (though probably much less commonly mothers). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf --------------------------------------------------------- "Where do you want to crash today?" --------------------------------------------------------- Steve Haynes <[email protected]>