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. > >

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/