Thanks for the feedback! After I sent my message I did do an 'Abt xxxx' with the same year as the 'marriage contract' ---- document drawn up by a notary found a LOT in French Canadian marriages/records ---- so something would show in the field and give me a 'vague idea' when they might have gotten married. Then, one of the responses mentioned that marriage banns didn't necessarily result in a marriage, and that might be the same case with a marriage contract --- can be cancelled or annulled --- so absolutely correct that it is possible for a marriage NOT to have taken place. By using the 'Abt' or 'by' (something) at least I'd know that around that timeframe a marriage might have taken place when I'm searching records or trying to have a timeframe for births, etc. Thanks again! Pat -----Original Message----- From: MScheffler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:05 PM To: Pat McGrath; [email protected] Subject: Re: [RMagic] Fact type 'replacement' Hi Pat, If I only have the marriage intention date, I use that either with "abt" in front of the date or perhaps that intention date with "aft" before the intention date in the marriage field. Then I may put the intention or contract date in the marriage note. In general I use a lot of estimated dates when I do not have actual dates for birth & marriage fields. That helps keep one from mixing up generations, as one finds frequently when they query the LDS FamilySearch through Rootsmatic for clues. Something that you did not ask, but by accident I find that Bruce has included "by" as a modifier we can now use for estimated dates. I used to be frustrated when transcribing from books that I had to use "bef" when the book had "by". There is one downside to using estimated dates at time of data entry. RM will not necessarily pick up a duplicate that it might have caught, had I not used estimated dates. That is a choice I frequently make in entering new data. -----Original Message----- From: Pat McGrath via Hi: IF I don't have a birth day but do have a baptism/christening date, the fact type CHRISTEN will print on reports in the birth field. Similarly if I do not have a death date the BURIAL will print on those same reports. BUT, if I don't have a MARRIAGE, but I DO HAVE a 'marriage contract' date ... THAT does not appear at least on the screens for the family . IS there a 'replacement' fact type that would print / show in this case???

In the USA wilderness a Marriage Bann was the announcement of Marriage intention; whereas Marriage Contract was one often arranged by the Guardian or parents. The marriage was performed by circuit preachers when they came thru. Jon On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Pat McGrath via < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! After I sent my message I did do an 'Abt xxxx' > with the same year as the 'marriage contract' ---- document drawn up by a > notary found a LOT in French Canadian marriages/records ---- so something > would show in the field and give me a 'vague idea' when they might have > gotten married. > > Then, one of the responses mentioned that marriage banns didn't necessarily > result in a marriage, and that might be the same case with a marriage > contract --- can be cancelled or annulled --- so absolutely correct that it > is possible for a marriage NOT to have taken place. > > By using the 'Abt' or 'by' (something) at least I'd know that around that > timeframe a marriage might have taken place when I'm searching records or > trying to have a timeframe for births, etc. > > Thanks again! > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: MScheffler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:05 PM > To: Pat McGrath; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RMagic] Fact type 'replacement' > > Hi Pat, > > If I only have the marriage intention date, I use that either with > "abt" > > in front of the date or perhaps that intention date with "aft" before the > intention date in the marriage field. Then I may put the intention or > contract date in the marriage note. > > In general I use a lot of estimated dates when I do not have actual > dates for birth & marriage fields. That helps keep one from mixing up > generations, as one finds frequently when they query the LDS FamilySearch > through Rootsmatic for clues. > > Something that you did not ask, but by accident I find that Bruce has > included "by" as a modifier we can now use for estimated dates. I used to > be frustrated when transcribing from books that I had to use "bef" when the > book had "by". > > There is one downside to using estimated dates at time of data entry. > RM will not necessarily pick up a duplicate that it might have caught, had > I > not used estimated dates. That is a choice I frequently make in entering > new > data. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat McGrath via > > Hi: IF I don't have a birth day but do have a baptism/christening date, > the > fact type CHRISTEN will print on reports in the birth field. Similarly if > I > do not have a death date the BURIAL will print on those same reports. > > BUT, if I don't have a MARRIAGE, but I DO HAVE a 'marriage contract' date > ... THAT does not appear at least on the screens for the family . > IS there a 'replacement' fact type that would print / show in this case??? > > > > > > > =================================== > RM list Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ROOTSMAGIC-USERS/ > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search?path=ROOTSMAGIC-USERS > WISH LIST: http://www.rootsmagic.com/forums/ BLOG: > http://blog.rootsmagic.com/ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- -- *Jon P Czarowitz*, NHC, GF, GGF, IGC Hempel Genealogist since 1986 Retired International Genealogist for http://www.clancunninghamintl.org RootsMagic 7 http://www.rootsmagic.com CUNNINGHAMS TOGETHER - CUNNINGHAMS WORLDWIDE!

On 5 Mar 2015 at 18:57, Pat McGrath via wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! After I sent my message I did do an 'Abt xxxx' with > the same year as the 'marriage contract' ---- document drawn up by a notary > found a LOT in French Canadian marriages/records ---- so something would show > in the field and give me a 'vague idea' when they might have gotten married. Here in South Africa such a contract is usually an Ante-Nuptial Contract, and very rarely a Post-Nuptial Contract, so where I have it and not the actual marriage date I put an Abt date for the marriage, as the marriage usually took place within the next couple of months. If there are children, the likelihoodf that the marriage did not take place is fairly remote. If it is a Post-Nuptial contract, obviously the marriage must have taken place, even if you don't know the date, but it could be quite a long time before the contract date. > > Then, one of the responses mentioned that marriage banns didn't necessarily > result in a marriage, and that might be the same case with a marriage contract > --- can be cancelled or annulled --- so absolutely correct that it is possible > for a marriage NOT to have taken place. -- Keep well, Steve Hayes Blog: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/famhist1.htm E-mail: [email protected]