Craig, I can't rewrite the Ancestry software. My suggestions are about how to enter info in whatever we have been given. I did my own family Trees in Word for 20 years because no software program would do what I wanted to do. And, after all, this was my hobby and my research and stuff I wanted to do. So I did them in Word. But when I needed to created a public Tree, I chose Ancestry (for a variety of reasons). I then look for ways around their limitations. I say again, for illigitimate children, I would enter Margaret-3 in Rawleigh-2 CHINN's tree in the box for a wife (and/or vice versa). You can decide if you want a year in the date box, or not (try it each way and see how it turns out - the wives are arranged by marriage date). There is also a box for location, and I would enter that, too. Then there is a box for description... Here is where I would put the explanation: This was an illigitimate relationship, Rawleigh and Margaret were not married, but they were the biological parents of the three children listed here. So at least the biology is correct. Then there are spaces to enter the children of each spouse, so the three children would be listed under Margaret. If you can come up with some better way to show the biology, use it! I think for Trees, biology trumps a marriage license. And this is essential for atDNA situations. I can guarantee you that the DNA knows the correct relationships, and any atDNA matches will follow the biology. Jim Bartlett On 10/26/12, Craig Kilby<persisto1@gmail.com> wrote: All, Let's look at this way. Let's just forget the troublesome issue of interracial copulation and use a white on white issue: Rawleigh Chinn and his wife's cousin Margaret Ball and their three children. There is not way to enter this on the ancestry tree unless I say they were married or "unknown father" or "unknown mother" or simply add both parties as "spouse." They, it is none of the above. Rawleigh-2 Chinn and Margaret-3 (Ball) Downman had three illegitimate children, and she was fined for all three and this is of record. His legal wife, Easter Ball (and her first cousin) took this to court. So, not to beat this horse to death, how do we enter this in the tree? I don't think we can but can sure write in lots of caveats. I suppose I am spoiled with the "Reunion" program that most mac users have, and where all these explanations are possible. Maybe with the new investors in ancestry.com from Europe, this will be revisited. I may stand alone in thinking that new investor pool will be a boon to what ancestry currently offers in this area. It was several million dollars of new cash infusion for expansion. Craig ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to VA-N[1]ORTHERN-NECK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:ORTHERN-NECK-request@rootsweb.com

Jim, this is exactly how I've been doing it. I just wish it could be more self-explanatory. But, it is what it is. I put all of this stuff in the "description box" and if need, in comments and then, if I am really moved, as uploaded files. But still, the main frame just says, for example, that Rawleigh Chinn married (2) Margaret Ball widow of Rawleigh Downman when in fact that was never the case. As you say, we just have to work around it. I am wondering though, that if enough of us explained the issues to the fine people at ancestry who seem to be very happy working on changing the "how it looks" instead of "how it really works" department, we might make some headway. I am hoping the new investor groups will trim some dead weight on the "design" department" and put some more resources into the nuts and bolts. Anyway, you are right. For now, we can only work with what he have and explain it accordingly in our notes in the most obvious and understandable way possible. Many thanks, Craig On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Jim Bartlett wrote: > I say again, for illegitimate children, I would enter Margaret-3 in > Rawleigh-2 CHINN's tree in the box for a wife (and/or vice versa). You can > decide if you want a year in the date box, or not (try it each way and see > how it turns out - the wives are arranged by marriage date). There is also a > box for location, and I would enter that, too. Then there is a box for > description... Here is where I would put the explanation: This was an > illegitimate relationship, Rawleigh and Margaret were not married, but they > were the biological parents of the three children listed here. So at least > the biology is correct. > > Then there are spaces to enter the children of each spouse, so the three > children would be listed under Margaret. > > If you can come up with some better way to show the biology, use it! I > think for Trees, biology trumps a marriage license.

Craig, specifically, with Rawleigh and Margaret, can you specify in the "alleged" marriage date.... Bef 1723 and then make a notation NOT married in a comment line or something. I haven't gone in yet to look for myself. Between 1721-1732 was when Rawleigh and Margaret were charged/sited with all their offenses AND was the time frame of the birth of their boys. Aside from the "Unhappy Life of Easter Ball" I have copies of the originals where Easter filed for alimony and put a restraining order on Rawleigh that he not be allowed to sell her dad's property without her first being heard. It is dated 12 Sept. 1722. So we know that he was kinoodling with Margaret prior to that date but I think "bef 1723" would suffice as a date with additionally comment on NOT married. When I go in to look at it I will attach those documents. Janean -----Original Message----- From: va-northern-neck-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:va-northern-neck-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:06 PM To: va-northern-neck@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VA-NORTHERN-NECK] Illegal Marriages, How to Handle Jim, this is exactly how I've been doing it. I just wish it could be more self-explanatory. But, it is what it is. I put all of this stuff in the "description box" and if need, in comments and then, if I am really moved, as uploaded files. But still, the main frame just says, for example, that Rawleigh Chinn married (2) Margaret Ball widow of Rawleigh Downman when in fact that was never the case.