My father's ancestry is Scottish, where the naming of a first-born son went with the paternal grandfather and the first-born daughter with the maternal mother. It becomes frustrating and recording difficult in the event the baptised first-born dies early and the succeeding son is named as if he were the first-born and is easily repeated. There was very little precedent in agricultural families for second names to differentiate. In those two centuries, there was no compulsion to include much additional information, let alone pass the records on to the Ecclesiastical Centre - i.e. The Bishop. In my paternal line, there are so many named James, it is a task-and-a-half to differentiate.  Fortunately, I know their trades! Jacobite support was rife in  N.E.Aberdeenshire! If it were not for the fortunate accident of the survival of two A5-sized notebooks, kept by a parish clerk to record burials and computerised by a willing volunteer, I wouldn't have discovered that my 4xGtGrandparents had at least eight children and that only the three I  already knew about, survived long enough to move with their mother and stepfather, in infancy, to Edinburgh. Gaps were closed and sense was made of some serious speculation! My point is, if you have such a problem in differentiating, add a birthyear in brackets (b1673), with the forename. If unsure, put a "?" in, (b1673?). Think six levels of displacement!   My best results have come by visiting the local FH Centre and asking the locals, then scrolling through reels of PR's. Something an on-line search can't do is pick out misspellings or misplacements or pick up on cross-parish boundaries. The IGI is only a tool with too many shortcomings, in my view.  Until  more detailed censuses were recorded, boarded out children or older siblings can easily be missed, so names of witnesses to weddings and baptisms are worth following up, if located in adjacent streets. They could even be related!   I know I'm virtually writing a suck-eggs guide-book here but my drift is - if you think you've looked everywhere - you really haven't!  And query any paid-for research. I didn't at first and it took several years to get that spine-chilling breakthrough, by thinking of the blindingly obvious - TWO people are involved in out-of -wedlock births. TWO surnames!!! Put the mystery people on index cards with the scarce details on and shuffle them around in rows to fit the data logically. No luck first time? Put them aside, work on something else and re-try.  I'm going back to Scotland this Spring, for the 4th time in ten years - I joined a new FHS, posed my problem and they found me a lead  late last year and another set of ancestors- a married third sister to my 4xG/G.father! Agricultural, of course! Good luck to the Sugg Family! Nigel Paterson  ________________________________ From: "family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com" <family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com> To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012, 16:03 Subject: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 41 Today's Topics:   1. Multiple identity possibilities (Chris & Jennie Sugg)   2. Individual Summary Report - Sibling List (Dave Simpson)   3. Problem with flags (Robert)   4. Re: Individual Summary Report - Sibling List (Beryl & Mike Tate)   5. Re: Problem with flags (Beryl & Mike Tate)   6. Re: Multiple identity possibilities (Clive Spratt)   7. Re: Multiple identity possibilities (John James)   8. Re: Release date of version 5 (BwUK) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:00:52 -0000 From: "Chris & Jennie Sugg" <c.andj.sugg@ntlworld.com> Subject: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <002801cce57f$6161fa00$2425ee00$@andj.sugg@ntlworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Can anybody suggest how I should deal with seventeenth and eighteenth century parish record entries (mainly burials but with some marriages) when I discover the burials or marriages of 4 or 5 Johns, Marys or Thomas' within a limited time period?  Additional information is very limited and  I am often unable to identify which family each belongs  to.  Is it the father or son who has died - or was it a different family altogether? Suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks. Chris ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:00:11 -0000 From: "Dave Simpson" <dave@quarlton.co.uk> Subject: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000f01cce590$0ce04f20$26a0ed60$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Does anyone know of a simple way of reporting a list of a person's siblings in this report? I have used a somewhat clumsy method so far that lists all children of the family: %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%  %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%  .... %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%  I have to have 19 entries to make sure that all siblings are listed (max is 18 to date), albeit that they are hidden when they don't exist. Unfortunately this duplicates the individual themselves which is what I would like to avoid (i.e. if the individual is child 4 the I don't want child 4 to appear in the Sibling list Any suggestions gratefully received Dave ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:00:34 -0000 From: "Robert" <robacis@btinternet.com> Subject: [FHU] Problem with flags To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <9BEEF7E17FF74509A552300B159F6F4C@BRENDA> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1" Some weeks ago I raised the issue of Ancestral Sources apparently corrupting the FH gedcom file and doing some nasty things such a losing some multimedia from FH. Some kind contributors mentioned various ways to solve the problem and I grateful for the suggestions, but to no avail. I now seem to have solved the problem so this message for the benefit of those who find themselves in the same position. It stems from the fact that the original gedcom file was created in Family Tree Maker and the Census dates were shown as the year of the census not the actual date. Ancestral Sources seemed not to like this and hence corrupted the file. The solution is to run "Census date check" in Ancestral Sources before trying to update the flags. by saving the Census data. Having run this check and reallocated the censuses by the actual date, once this had been done Ancestral Sources happily updated the gedcom file correctly and all the correct flags were shown in FH. So for anyone importing a file to FH or anyone using AS for the first time it seems essential to run this check before trying to input data Robacis ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:44:16 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000e01cce5a6$f82aad20$e8800760$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Dave, I do not have a shortcut to listing Siblings, but the following technique will automatically omit the Individual themselves. Use the function expression below for each entry, and replace [1] with [2] et seq in two places in each one. =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%) =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%) ... =TextIf(IsSameItem(%INDI%,%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%),"",%INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%) It works by testing if %INDI% is the same as the Sibling, and if so produces "" empty string, otherwise the Sibling. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dave Simpson Sent: 07 February 2012 12:00 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Individual Summary Report - Sibling List Does anyone know of a simple way of reporting a list of a person's siblings in this report? I have used a somewhat clumsy method so far that lists all children of the family: %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[1]>%  %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[2]>%  .... %INDI.FAMC[1]>CHIL[19]>%  I have to have 19 entries to make sure that all siblings are listed (max is 18 to date), albeit that they are hidden when they don't exist. Unfortunately this duplicates the individual themselves which is what I would like to avoid (i.e. if the individual is child 4 the I don't want child 4 to appear in the Sibling list Any suggestions gratefully received Dave ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:44:16 -0000 From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Problem with flags To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000f01cce5a6$f8a92bf0$e9fb83d0$@co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Robacis, Thank you for that feedback - very useful. I will add your advice to the FHUG Knowledge Base tutorials for AS. AS does mention the importance of running the Census Date Check in the Help, but you have to follow the links from Census Flag Settings via Census Flag Check to Census Date Check to read:- "Census facts in the GEDCOM family history file that have been created prior to using Ancestral Sources (or predecessor Gedcom Census) may not have accurate dates for censuses recorded. For example, a UK 1901 census fact might have the date 1901 rather than the more accurate 31 Mar 1901. If you wish to make use of the Census Flag Check feature of Ancestral Sources it is recommended that you first try to ensure that existing census facts have dates that match those in Ancestral Sources." Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: 07 February 2012 12:01 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Problem with flags Some weeks ago I raised the issue of Ancestral Sources apparently corrupting the FH gedcom file and doing some nasty things such a losing some multimedia from FH. Some kind contributors mentioned various ways to solve the problem and I grateful for the suggestions, but to no avail. I now seem to have solved the problem so this message for the benefit of those who find themselves in the same position. It stems from the fact that the original gedcom file was created in Family Tree Maker and the Census dates were shown as the year of the census not the actual date. Ancestral Sources seemed not to like this and hence corrupted the file. The solution is to run "Census date check" in Ancestral Sources before trying to update the flags. by saving the Census data. Having run this check and reallocated the censuses by the actual date, once this had been done Ancestral Sources happily updated the gedcom file correctly and all the correct flags were shown in FH. So for anyone importing a file to FH or anyone using AS for the first time it seems essential to run this check before trying to input data Robacis ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:48:45 -0000 From: "Clive Spratt" <clivespratt@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <8BE9A56636A947DE8119CE993DAA7956@ClivesLaptop> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Chris, I have a separate database within FH called 'Other People' so that every family or individual that 'may' become a family member can be recorded, complete with the parish and census details, etc.  Provided you add as 'unrelated individual' and then add to that individual any family members you can keep a ready check on all records of interest. Clive Spratt -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Chris & Jennie Sugg Sent: 07 February 2012 10:01 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities Can anybody suggest how I should deal with seventeenth and eighteenth century parish record entries (mainly burials but with some marriages) when I discover the burials or marriages of 4 or 5 Johns, Marys or Thomas' within a limited time period?  Additional information is very limited and  I am often unable to identify which family each belongs  to.  Is it the father or son who has died - or was it a different family altogether? Suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks. Chris ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:03:31 -0000 From: "John James" <john.wjames@which.net> Subject: Re: [FHU] Multiple identity possibilities To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <B94A0D439824497DBEC35AAFFD15CAA9@STUDY> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Alternatively, you can keep all your 'possible' in your main database, still entering them as an 'unrelated individual', or in 'orphan' family groups where you can identify them as such. You can report on them using the 'Search for Orphans' standard query, or perhaps using the =RelationPool function.  I have also defined and set a 'Tentative' flag against any such dubious/uncertain individuals, and use this to condition how they are displayed in diagrams.  I also add a record level note describing why they are dubious/uncertain and what needs to be done to confirm/reject them. HTH John ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:03:47 +0000 From: BwUK <martin@biblewitness.org.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Release date of version 5 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4F314B63.6070002@biblewitness.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Simon, I don't know whether it got through to you but I had a problem with BC dates (FH4): ages came out negative. Jane had a look and agreed it was a bug. Also, I have switched from a PC (running latest version of FH4) to a MAC but can only run FH 3.1.2 using the CrossOver/Wine emulator. I cannot upgrade to FH4 on the MAC because it freezes after I've entered the upgrade Key. I suspect it it trying to access the internet and not finding it. The CrossOver forum does suggest a work around but it's a bit messy (the trial version installs but doesn't run). Can you suggest a fix? I'm concerned that if I buy FH5 it may not work or, if it does, future upgrades may not work. Thanks, Best wishes (I like your program!) Martin Cragg Cheshire On 12-02-06 12:28 PM, Simon Orde wrote: > There have been some posts asking when version 5 will be released.  We had > said February, but at this point it's looking like March.  I'm sorry about > that.  We will of course release it as soon as it's ready - but no sooner. > Thank you all for your patience. > > Simon Orde > Calico Pie > > > ------------------------------- > 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 contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 41 *****************************************************