What if she married later either to the father of the child or someone else.? Would this not be confusing? I have recently come across and ancestor of mine who was born illigitimate and where the mother refused to name the father. I later found evidence that she later married but don't know whether it was the child's father or not. What I have done is indicate in the child's notes that he was born out of wedlock and that the father is unknown. I don't know any other way to handle this but if I aquired info, say from someone else, that she never married, I probably wouldn't look too hard for a future husband. I'd assume that 'never' meant 'never ever'! I'd welcome any further guidance in this matter. Rollei (in Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ >From: "Dick Cazier" <dcazier@comcast.net> >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation >Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:15:34 -0600 > >Richard, >I see your point. But, as Jerry pointed out, it's good to have some bold >notation on the Individual screen to remind you of the situation. Maybe a >better entry in the Married Name field would be "No marriage records >found." Or, "believed to have never married." >Dick Cazier >----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> >To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:39 PM >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > > >>Since I am a big proponent of using the Married Name field, I'd like to >>respond to this suggestion with some reservations. >>I have always been reluctant to enter any comment that suggests not >>married, unmarried, or never married. First of all the notion of marriage >>has evolved significantly over the centuries of recorded history, and the >>recording of marriages has vacillated back and forth between civil >>authorities, religious authorities, and families. My reluctance to making >>such a comment in the most visible fields is that the connotation of not >>married carries a lot of negative baggage, and that putting such a comment >>where it is readily seen seems so final. Such a comment will stop anyone >>from ever looking further for a spouse. What if a parent, angry that a >>daughter married someone unacceptable, entered that comment in a family >>bible? I can imagine a lot of similar circumstances that would lead to >>such a situation. Many times there is a common-law spouse that may not be >>recorded, but should have been. I have seen cases where a young person >>was married for a few weeks and ended up getting a divorce or annulment >>without ever telling anyone. As far as the rest of the family was >>concerned, that person never married. I have tried to convince myself >>that having a not-married comment is actually useful except buried in the >>notes. >> >>I recall one experience some years ago when I was searching through some >>British parish records. that covered a lengthy period of time. The >>parish priests were consistent about noting the BB in the record for >>bastard born. At one point I began to notice that there was an unusual >>number of children in the record that had been born before the parents >>were married, or too soon after the marriage. It was so unusual that I >>asked the professional genealogist on duty. I was told that there were >>times during plagues and other similar times when the infant survival rate >>was so low, that it became common for betrothed couples to bear a child >>before marriage to make certain it would survive. Sometimes they waited >>until it was clear that the child was alive and kicking in the womb before >>the official marriage. Others waited to see if the child was male before >>getting married. >> >>I always ask myself, "does this comment serve any real purpose?" If >>someone without a recorded spouse has children in the database, PAF >>automatically enters Unknown. I believe that is sufficient information >>for that circumstance. If there are no children listed, then I believe >>that leaving the spouse blank is appropriate with any comments about >>marriages being placed in the notes. If you have the names of both the >>father and the mother, but there is no officially recorded date, I believe >>blank here is appropriate as well. We just don't know the circumstances >>and leaving it blank serves to indicate that you don't know. Entering >>something that may be incorrect seems to judgmental and final. >> >>Just my thoughts >>Richard Rands >> >>At 01:24 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Alishea Durham wrote: >>>My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the >>>Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting >>>the spouses full name in this field. I could see >>>putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. >>> >>> >>> >>>--- FHB39@cs.com wrote: >>> >>> > In the marriage box instead of the date I put >>> > unwed.. >>> > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put >>> > unknown since the marriage >>> > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading >>> > it will realize that the >>> > child's father is unknown. This child was born in >>> > Bavaria in 1863. His >>> > baptismal records in the church records state that >>> > he is the bastard son of >>> > Catharine. >>> > If there had not been any child I would have put >>> > none in the spouse box >>> > Fran >>> > >>> > >>> > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>> > Replying to Posts >>> > When quoting a post you're replying to, omit >>> > signatures and taglines that are appended to the >>> > post. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>>RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >>>Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >>>http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ >> >> >> >>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>RootsWeb >>http://www.rootsweb.com/ >> >> > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ >