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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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."

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