For a relationship that only has the female entered (ie. unmarried when a child was born)
I could choose ‘unmarried’ which is true
But also could choose ‘none’ (no relationship is known), which is also true
what do you think.
I would only use “None” for a sperm donor or results from an act of sexual violence.
“Unmarried” for where both parents did parenting activities but did not live in the same household.
Thank you. remain the majority of cases where the father (or the happenstance of the union between donor and recipient) simply goes unrecorded. I would regard ‘evidence given during birthing’ as unreliable. In all these cases the mother was at least unmarried (or the relation of the parents unknown)
Two people can be Unmarried, living together, and have children.
They just lack the official legal governmental recognition.
Unfortunately, “None” is not one of the options. It is not a drop-down list where we can add custom options.
I use “Unmarried” especially when the child is given the mother’s maiden name. I also put “[unknown]” in the father’s given name slot. Someone unknown, currently and maybe never knowable, is the child’s father.
Dave it seems I can add whatever I like for the ‘Type’ in the family and it will add it to the list.
Would that [unknown] father be a person-record for every child that has only a known mother? (in my research at this moment about 50 families without known father)
My Bad! I was thinking Gender which is limited. As a drop-down, custom entries can be added to the relationship type. Unfortunately, Gramps will treat any custom entry the same as Unknown.
Each [unknown] person is their own record. And an [unknown] person can also be female. I have run into information that a son married, but with no information. The son gets an [unknown] wife.
Sometimes there will be an [unknown] father with a Surname especially when a wife brings stepchildren to a marriage. Hopefully at some point additional information becomes available to fill out the record.
Ok, that’s clear. I understand how it works for you. In my case I think it wouldn’t so easily. Most of those cases are pre-1900 and some go back to 17th century. In which case I’m happy enough I found a mother to such a child to begin with. But will let it simmer for a bit and see what I can come up with. For now I leave them as ‘unmarried’ and no partner.
In the case you describe I create the family record with the child and mother or father. I leave the marriage relationship as unknown. I only add the parent that is know. The other I leave blank. In some cases only the given name is known, the given name unknown is used. I don’t create personal records if neither name is known.
Thanks Dave, this is how I do it since long. But was curious if there was an other way that would suit me better. I’ll keep it as is.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.