An alternative to adding a Record Window column per spouse is to list all spouses in one column separated by a few spaces using the following expression: =Text(%INDI.~SPOU[1]>NAME[1]% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[2]>NAME[1]% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[3]>NAME[1]% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[4]>NAME[1]%) It can easily be extended for as many spouses as you think you may need. If you only want surnames then use: =Text(%INDI.~SPOU[1]>NAME[1]:SURNAME% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[2]>NAME[1]:SURNAME% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[3]>NAME[1]:SURNAME% . " " . %INDI.~SPOU[4]>NAME[1]:SURNAME%) I have used spaces to separate names because if there are none or only one or two spouses then only trailing spaces are displayed. If you want to have say a comma (,) separator then you will have to use nested =TextIf(Condition,Text,Text) functions as follows. =Text(%INDI.~SPOU[1]>NAME[1]:SURNAME% . TextIf(Exists(%INDI.~SPOU[2]>NAME[1]%)," , " . %INDI.~SPOU[2]>NAME[1]:SURNAME% . TextIf(Exists(%INDI.~SPOU[3]>NAME[1]%)," , " . %INDI.~SPOU[3]>NAME[1]:SURNAME%, ""), "")) Back to the Focus Window - exactly what names do you want Jane to have in her various stages of life on the four tabbed display options, and the focussed person box above. Just on the Spouses & Children tab the following possibilities exist. (1) As a Child of her parents before she is married? (2) Adjacent to her 1st husband? (3) Adjacent to her 2nd husband? (4) Adjacent to her 3rd husband? (5) As a Parent to any of her children? Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paddy Buckley Sent: 01 October 2011 11:27 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple spouses Thank you Adrian. You have no need to be sorry for being pedantic. We should all be more precise. I was actually looking at the Focus window, not the Records window. I tried out your suggestion of adding extra spouse columns but that seemed to be a cumbersome solution; more so when it needed a fourth spouse column to deal with the birth of a child 4 years after the death of Jane's first husband and 2 years before her second marriage. Paddy Buckley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple spouses > <<snipped>> > the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three > marriages. > How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two subsequent> marriages? > <<snipped>> > > First I have to take you literally and deal with the Record window - that's the Individuals tab when it says [Records] at the top. (Sorry for being pedantic but not everyone calls everything the same thing). The explanation for why FH does what it does is that there is only one Individual record on file for "Jane". She simply happens to have 3 marriages, which are stored on her Individual record as links to 3 family records. It's not a Names window, so there's only one line for "Jane" and the name shown there is the first one on file. In addition, since it shows one line for all of a person's data, there's no possible concept of "current" name. > > I thought there was an item on the Wish List at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi but can't find it, so it may have never got beyond a mailing list discussion. But under that idea, as well as showing the line for the record, there would be extra lines in the Record Window for each alternative name, which would act as short-cuts to the "real" record. > > In the meantime, you might care to customise your Records window (right click column headings to customise) and add columns for the surname of the spouses - the pain here is that you'd need to add a separate column for the surname of Spouse(1), then Spouse(2), etc., however many you think you need. > > I don't know if you've recorded Alternate names for "Jane" - that would be another possibility but that also illustrates just how complex multiple names is - some people use Alternate-names (which cannot be dated in correct GEDCOM), and some just follow the family history default of allowing it to go by implication. I just checked one of my ancestors and FH carefully (and sensibly) avoids the issue by just referring to "Jane" in the narrative report after her birth event. > > Adrian B

Thank you Adrian. You have no need to be sorry for being pedantic. We should all be more precise. I was actually looking at the Focus window, not the Records window. I tried out your suggestion of adding extra spouse columns but that seemed to be a cumbersome solution; more so when it needed a fourth spouse column to deal with the birth of a child 4 years after the death of Jane's first husband and 2 years before her second marriage. Paddy Buckley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple spouses > <<snipped>> > the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three > marriages. > How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two subsequent > marriages? > <<snipped>> > > First I have to take you literally and deal with the Record window - > that's > the Individuals tab when it says [Records] at the top. (Sorry for being > pedantic but not everyone calls everything the same thing). The > explanation > for why FH does what it does is that there is only one Individual record > on > file for "Jane". She simply happens to have 3 marriages, which are stored > on > her Individual record as links to 3 family records. It's not a Names > window, > so there's only one line for "Jane" and the name shown there is the first > one on file. In addition, since it shows one line for all of a person's > data, there's no possible concept of "current" name. > > I thought there was an item on the Wish List at > http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi but can't find it, so it may have > never got beyond a mailing list discussion. But under that idea, as well > as > showing the line for the record, there would be extra lines in the Record > Window for each alternative name, which would act as short-cuts to the > "real" record. > > In the meantime, you might care to customise your Records window (right > click column headings to customise) and add columns for the surname of the > spouses - the pain here is that you'd need to add a separate column for > the > surname of Spouse(1), then Spouse(2), etc., however many you think you > need. > > I don't know if you've recorded Alternate names for "Jane" - that would be > another possibility but that also illustrates just how complex multiple > names is - some people use Alternate-names (which cannot be dated in > correct > GEDCOM), and some just follow the family history default of allowing it to > go by implication. I just checked one of my ancestors and FH carefully > (and > sensibly) avoids the issue by just referring to "Jane" in the narrative > report after her birth event. > > Adrian B > > >

You need to install Family Historian not copy it from the old computer, this will be the same for most programs (as opposed to data), if you have a CD simply install that, if you purchased a download copy of V4 just download the trial and enter the license information you received when you purchased the program. On 30 September 2011 20:36, stuartmalcolm@tiscali.co.uk < stuartmalcolm@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > I have installed Windows 7 but when I try to copy Family Historian V4 > from the transferred files list > -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Stuart, Please check the advice in the FHUG Knowledge Base regarding re-installing FH on a new Windows 7 PC and moving its data and settings from old PC. See the "Installation Guide" at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:index#installation_guide and look through all its sub-sections. If after following all that advice you still have problems, it may be better to post your questions on the FHUG Forums > V4 Usage. See http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi and register free under the Login section on the left. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of stuartmalcolm@tiscali.co.uk Sent: 30 September 2011 20:36 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Corrupt Files I have installed Windows 7 but when I try to copy Family Historian V4 from the transferred files list I get told that I have corrupt files. How do I get Family Historian back and have I lost all the information I had entered? The back up copy on my external hard drive will not open. Help please Stuart Baker

I have installed Windows 7 but when I try to copy Family Historian V4 from the transferred files list I get told that I have corrupt files. How do I get Family Historian back and have I lost all the information I had entered? The back up copy on my external hard drive will not open. Help please Stuart Baker

<<snipped>> the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three marriages. How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two subsequent marriages? <<snipped>> First I have to take you literally and deal with the Record window - that's the Individuals tab when it says [Records] at the top. (Sorry for being pedantic but not everyone calls everything the same thing). The explanation for why FH does what it does is that there is only one Individual record on file for "Jane". She simply happens to have 3 marriages, which are stored on her Individual record as links to 3 family records. It's not a Names window, so there's only one line for "Jane" and the name shown there is the first one on file. In addition, since it shows one line for all of a person's data, there's no possible concept of "current" name. I thought there was an item on the Wish List at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi but can't find it, so it may have never got beyond a mailing list discussion. But under that idea, as well as showing the line for the record, there would be extra lines in the Record Window for each alternative name, which would act as short-cuts to the "real" record. In the meantime, you might care to customise your Records window (right click column headings to customise) and add columns for the surname of the spouses - the pain here is that you'd need to add a separate column for the surname of Spouse(1), then Spouse(2), etc., however many you think you need. I don't know if you've recorded Alternate names for "Jane" - that would be another possibility but that also illustrates just how complex multiple names is - some people use Alternate-names (which cannot be dated in correct GEDCOM), and some just follow the family history default of allowing it to go by implication. I just checked one of my ancestors and FH carefully (and sensibly) avoids the issue by just referring to "Jane" in the narrative report after her birth event. Adrian B

The short answer is you can't, Family Historian will show the first listed name for a person at all times. It's worth remembering that someone remarrying may or may not use their previous married names. So for example a Widow probably will, but a divorcee may revert to their maiden name at divorce or may not. On 30 September 2011 11:12, Paddy Buckley <paddy.buckley@lineone.net> wrote: > Jane married three times and all three husbands have been duly recorded. > Yet the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three > marriages. How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two > subsequent marriages? I have FH 4.1.3. > -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Paddy Maiden name always remains you do not change that. The record window has columns showing her husbands names. For three husbands to be shown you will need three spouses columns. The children, if any, will have the husbands surname Victor On 30/09/2011 11:12 AM, Paddy Buckley wrote: > Jane married three times and all three husbands have been duly recorded. Yet the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three marriages. How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two subsequent marriages? I have FH 4.1.3. > > Paddy Buckley > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jane married three times and all three husbands have been duly recorded. Yet the Record Window continues to show her maiden name at all three marriages. How can I alter this to show her current surname at the two subsequent marriages? I have FH 4.1.3. Paddy Buckley

Peter, I suspect this is probably a problem with an autobackup or antivirus tool on your PC. If you have something like to BT filesafe try turning that off while you copy the file, some people have encountered this when saving Family Historian files and it comes from another program "grabbing" hold of the temporary file before Family Historian has a chance to rename it to the new name. On 30 September 2011 08:15, Peter Brockman <peterwscb@gmail.com> wrote: > re. my e-mail of 15 September. > > This is the first time I have attempted to customise a Text Scheme, so I > assume that this problem has always been lurking. > > I have not been able to check the Properties of the files and folders - > right-clicking anywhere doesn't seem to produce a 'Properties' to choose. > Nor have I been clever enough to seek to re-name any files. > -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

re. my e-mail of 15 September. This is the first time I have attempted to customise a Text Scheme, so I assume that this problem has always been lurking. I have not been able to check the Properties of the files and folders - right-clicking anywhere doesn't seem to produce a 'Properties' to choose. Nor have I been clever enough to seek to re-name any files. I feel a bit frustrated! Peter Brockman

<<snipped>> Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's <<snipped>> Do you have a source for that? Adrian B

Re Simon's reply to Adam Presumably there was a time in the past when Calico Pie invested in the resources to create a PC version of FH in the belief that they would create income from the sales of the software. So why should they not invest in the resources to produce a Mac version in the expectation of selling that software. Sales of Macs are on the increase so there is a market. I run Parallels on my Mac purely so I can stick with FH. I'd much rather run FH in a Mac environment. Nick Sent from my iPhone On 29 Sep 2011, at 08:45, Simon Kidner <simon.kidner@btinternet.com> wrote: > Dear Adam, > > I'm sure that should you be willing to invest a very large sum in Calico Pie to fund the staff needed to write a Mac version, they would consider your offer very carefully. Meanwhile, why not invest in a Mac, as I and many others have, and run a Virtual Windows machine so that you can keep using FH? If you study the user-group correspondence you will find much discussion of the merits of various enabling software. > > Best regards, > > Simon > > > > On 29 Sep 2011, at 08:31, Adam's Eden wrote: > >> >> Due to the large amount of friends etc that now use Macs instead of PC's and the difficulty in transferring gedcom files in the format originally written.I am wondering are there any plans to have Family Historian for Macs and if not why not? Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's the potenial of a cross platform product seems more obvious by each passing day. I myself have come to the conclusion I will at some stage cease using windows products due to its on going crap software,like many others have.When that happens at the current rate I will also have to sadly look for an alternative to Family Historian to. >> Best regards >> Adam >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Adam, "Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's (sic)" Not just yet. Possibly you are mistaking sales growth percentages for absolute sales numbers. Recent "analysis of Apple's sales figures and the numbers from Gartner and IDC shows that in the second quarter of 2010, Apple hit 4% of the whole PC market for the first time in more than ten years"* True, Apples sales figures are showing impressive sales growth percentages compared to PCs (where the sales growth has slipped, but is still growing, just slower), but at just over 4% of the market they have rather a long way to go before they sell more Macs than PCs. And a lot of Apple's growth is in iThingies, rather than the PC market. Don't get me wrong, Macs are great, but I wouldn't wait for Calico to bring out a native Mac version; I doubt there's enough money in it to make the major initial and ongoing investment required to develop and maintain two versions worthwhile. In the meantime, buy a Mac if you want one and use a Windows VM to run FH. Plenty of advice on the FH Mailing list and FHUG about this. John * <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/24/apple-sales-growth-pc-market> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/24/apple-sales-growth-pc-market _____ From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adam's Eden Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:32 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Regarding Macs are there any plans to have Family Historian for Macs & if not why not? Due to the large amount of friends etc that now use Macs instead of PC's and the difficulty in transferring gedcom files in the format originally written.I am wondering are there any plans to have Family Historian for Macs and if not why not? Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's the potenial of a cross platform product seems more obvious by each passing day. I myself have come to the conclusion I will at some stage cease using windows products due to its on going crap software,like many others have.When that happens at the current rate I will also have to sadly look for an alternative to Family Historian to. Best regards Adam ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 28/09/2011 Tested on: 29/09/2011 08:37:35 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 28/09/2011 Tested on: 29/09/2011 09:01:55 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.

Dear Adam, I'm sure that should you be willing to invest a very large sum in Calico Pie to fund the staff needed to write a Mac version, they would consider your offer very carefully. Meanwhile, why not invest in a Mac, as I and many others have, and run a Virtual Windows machine so that you can keep using FH? If you study the user-group correspondence you will find much discussion of the merits of various enabling software. Best regards, Simon On 29 Sep 2011, at 08:31, Adam's Eden wrote: > > Due to the large amount of friends etc that now use Macs instead of PC's and the difficulty in transferring gedcom files in the format originally written.I am wondering are there any plans to have Family Historian for Macs and if not why not? Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's the potenial of a cross platform product seems more obvious by each passing day. I myself have come to the conclusion I will at some stage cease using windows products due to its on going crap software,like many others have.When that happens at the current rate I will also have to sadly look for an alternative to Family Historian to. > Best regards > Adam > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Due to the large amount of friends etc that now use Macs instead of PC's and the difficulty in transferring gedcom files in the format originally written.I am wondering are there any plans to have Family Historian for Macs and if not why not? Seeing as more Macs are now sold than PC's the potenial of a cross platform product seems more obvious by each passing day. I myself have come to the conclusion I will at some stage cease using windows products due to its on going crap software,like many others have.When that happens at the current rate I will also have to sadly look for an alternative to Family Historian to. Best regards Adam

Mike, Thanks for the tip, I will look for that one in the FHUG Downloads. Margaret On 28/09/2011 20:02, Beryl & Mike Tate wrote: > The FHUG Downloads for Military History may be of interest because amongst the Attributes are many for physical descriptions such as > complexion, eyes,, hair, height, scars, weight, etc at enlistment that could be adapted for your prison records. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Margaret North > Sent: 28 September 2011 16:56 > To: john.wjames@which.net; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Recording a term of imprisonment. > > John, > > It is a shame that your research into the working life of the prison warders in your family; what stories they could have told too. > > The two entries in the Manchester Prison Registers not only told me what they were charged with and the sentence but complexion, > colour of eyes and hair and their height plus details of any scars. In the case of my Great-great-grandfather it also gave his age > "last Mar" (thus giving me a clue to his possible baptism date that has eluded me for 15 years) and also his weight on admission and > on discharge. Great-grandfather Henry at 15 got 14 days for using insulting language in 1869 and I wonder what he said to his > father George in 1877 when he got 7 days for being drunk and riotous! Unsurprisingly, neither could afford to pay the fines so had > to serve the sentences. > > Margaret. > > On 28/09/2011 08:09, John James wrote: >> Margaret, >> >> You're fortunate that they were on that side of the bars from a Family History view point as, from my experience, you're far more > likely to be able to research their time with the institution compared to that of their Warders. At least three of my paternal > family (Great Grandfather, Great Uncle, Grandfather) were Prison Warders, in interesting places like Dartmoor, Portland and The > Scrubs. >> Repeated enquiries, both to the Prison Service and to the individual institutions, have come up against a high brick wall with > spikes on the top, due to the service's apparent practice at the time of destroying all old staff records. >> I actually envy you! >> >> John >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The FHUG Downloads for Military History may be of interest because amongst the Attributes are many for physical descriptions such as complexion, eyes,, hair, height, scars, weight, etc at enlistment that could be adapted for your prison records. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Margaret North Sent: 28 September 2011 16:56 To: john.wjames@which.net; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Recording a term of imprisonment. John, It is a shame that your research into the working life of the prison warders in your family; what stories they could have told too. The two entries in the Manchester Prison Registers not only told me what they were charged with and the sentence but complexion, colour of eyes and hair and their height plus details of any scars. In the case of my Great-great-grandfather it also gave his age "last Mar" (thus giving me a clue to his possible baptism date that has eluded me for 15 years) and also his weight on admission and on discharge. Great-grandfather Henry at 15 got 14 days for using insulting language in 1869 and I wonder what he said to his father George in 1877 when he got 7 days for being drunk and riotous! Unsurprisingly, neither could afford to pay the fines so had to serve the sentences. Margaret. On 28/09/2011 08:09, John James wrote: > Margaret, > > You're fortunate that they were on that side of the bars from a Family History view point as, from my experience, you're far more likely to be able to research their time with the institution compared to that of their Warders. At least three of my paternal family (Great Grandfather, Great Uncle, Grandfather) were Prison Warders, in interesting places like Dartmoor, Portland and The Scrubs. > > Repeated enquiries, both to the Prison Service and to the individual institutions, have come up against a high brick wall with spikes on the top, due to the service's apparent practice at the time of destroying all old staff records. > > I actually envy you! > > John >

John, It is a shame that your research into the working life of the prison warders in your family; what stories they could have told too. The two entries in the Manchester Prison Registers not only told me what they were charged with and the sentence but complexion, colour of eyes and hair and their height plus details of any scars. In the case of my Great-great-grandfather it also gave his age "last Mar" (thus giving me a clue to his possible baptism date that has eluded me for 15 years) and also his weight on admission and on discharge. Great-grandfather Henry at 15 got 14 days for using insulting language in 1869 and I wonder what he said to his father George in 1877 when he got 7 days for being drunk and riotous! Unsurprisingly, neither could afford to pay the fines so had to serve the sentences. Margaret. On 28/09/2011 08:09, John James wrote: > Margaret, > > You're fortunate that they were on that side of the bars from a Family History view point as, from my experience, you're far more > likely to be able to research their time with the institution compared to that of their Warders. At least three of my paternal > family (Great Grandfather, Great Uncle, Grandfather) were Prison Warders, in interesting places like Dartmoor, Portland and The > Scrubs. > > Repeated enquiries, both to the Prison Service and to the individual institutions, have come up against a high brick wall with > spikes on the top, due to the service's apparent practice at the time of destroying all old staff records. > > I actually envy you! > > John > >

Thanks Adrian. I have printed your email to help me creating a new event but I will also have a look at the downloadable fact sets to see if there is anything there. So far the Event/Attribut list has covered everything that I have needed so it is new ground to be creating a new event. Margaret. On 27/09/2011 19:47, Adrian Bruce wrote: > <<snipped>> terms of imprisonment. I would welcome suggestions about how it > might be best to record this as I can't find anything in the Event/Attribute > list to cover this. > <<snipped>> > > If it was me, I'd create a new _event_ for this. Go to Tools/Work with Fact > Sets and click New... You may as well call the new fact "Imprisonment", set > it as Fact Type "Event", Record Type "Individual" and let "Fact Set" default > to "Custom". > > On the next window, the Fact Definition, you can let everything default > except for the sentence, which should read something like > > {individual} was imprisoned {date}< in {address}>< {place}>. > > Address will contain the name of the prison, place = the town, city or > locality where the prison is. > > You may also find it useful to have a custom attribute "Court case" - my > sentence for that reads: > > {individual} was charged with {value} {date}< at {address}>< {place}>. > > Notice the court case is an attribute - the value of this will be what they > are charged with. Imprisonment, on the other hand, is an event since I can > think of no useful value for it. I'd use the note for each event or > attribute to contain useful extra bits. For instance, the note of the court > case attribute could finish with the verdict and sentence. The arrangement > of< and> is simply to get the best spacing in any sentence that misses one > of the items. > > It is possible that one of the downloadable fact sets contains what you need > - I don't know, I always create my own as they're so easy (for me!) > > Adrian B > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >