Answering my own question here on the workaround I suggested, and as per Tom's suggestion (thanks!): I created a new database, and in the original one I unlinked the father (John H, whose name I wanted on the tree) from everyone else, then dragged him into the new one, and he was given Record No.1. I then dragged the others into the new one as well, and they were numbered 2, 3, 4 etc. Somehow, though, I managed to delete John H from both databases - I think I took him out of the original one first, but he still showed on screen, so maybe I tried to delete him again, but that time he disappeared from the new one. I can't remember the exact sequence, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but having lost John H completely I then had no option other than to delete everyone in that family from both databases. As there were only 8 of them, it didn't seem worth restoring from a backup, and it didn't take long to re-enter them, particularly since the sources and locations were all still in the original database. Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that as long as you don't do what I did and delete the key person, you can force the record numbers into your chosen sequence by dragging and dropping them into a new database in the order you choose. And although I wasn't able to test the final step, I assume the record numbers would stay in the same order when merged back into the original database - though presumably to be totally sure I could have brought John H back on his own first, and then the rest of his family. Arthur On 17/07/2012 18:31, Tom Holden wrote: > On the assumption that the lowest record in a tree names it, you could drag and drop the father to a new database and then his spouse and her descendants and spouses to the new tree and re-link her to the father. Make sure that that tree is as it was in the original database but with the father's name and then delete its members from the original (you will have made a backup first!). Drag and drop everyone (select the Everyone option) from the new database to the bigger one. > > Should work but I have not tested it. > > Tom > >