Ron, my response was in my own work. Because I'm working a descendancy, I
nearly always have a marriage before I have children (I cannot recall a time
when this wasn't true, but surely I have an unmarried parents somewhere!).
My primary exception is in adding the parents of a newly acquired spouse, at
which time I know both parents.
My response in this thread was really to address your statement: "I haven't
been able to pin it down but the order in which one adds partners now seems
to be more important than it once was, eg to avoid problems 'marry' the
couple before giving them children!"
Because most people are working backwards, searching ancestors, most data
entry will be from the child to the parent, rather than having a marriage
and adding children. It appears people are having a problem when they try to
add one parent without knowing both parents, then running a report to see
what things look like. I also rarely run reports for my own use, but have
tried them when problems arise here, so I don't run into as many problems as
others.
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
----- Original Message -----
From: "ronald ferguson" <ronfe...@msn.com>
To: <legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Someone
Correction please see below:
Ron Ferguson
_____________________________________________________________________
Now completely revised
http://www.fergys.co.uk
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_____________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------
From: ronfe...@msn.com
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Someone
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:59:01 +0000
Elizabeth,
The procedure which you adopt should not, in my experience, lead to any
problems. In fact it is pretty much the order in which I also enter data.
I cannot see how the wife is "always" after the father - I have examples
of having a father and not knowing the mother.
should read "of having a mother and not knowing the father" (of course)
However, that is an aside, the point being that one should excercise care
when adding a partner to an individual with children. As far as I can see
the sexes of the parent/partner does not matter.
Others may have found the situation arising under circumstances different
to those I have examined but I have only reproduced it when there is an
unknown partner and a new partner is being added. As I said, I cannot pin
point the exact conditions.
I have not experienced it in my own work.
Ron Ferguson
_____________________________________________________________________
Now completely revised
http://www.fergys.co.uk
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_____________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------
From: erich...@worldnet.att.net
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Someone
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0900
Ron said:
As is known, should an individual have a child and there is no existing
'marriage' then Legacy creates one, and unless told otherwise will enter
"Joe Bloggs married Unknown/someone" in reports. However there now seems
to
be a change in the way that this is treated if a partner is subsequently
added. I haven't been able to pin it down but the order in which one adds
partners now seems to be more important than it once was, eg to avoid
problems 'marry' the couple before giving them children!
Ron, in v7, a very routine procedure for me:
1. I add a wife to a fellow already in my database
2. I add the wife's father
3. I add the wife's mother
Never do I go to add new individual without knowing the relationship
ahead
of time, so I would never add the wife's mother and father and then link
to
an existing child. The wife, by the way, is always added subsequent to
the
father. Not knowing how to add more than one person at a time, one is
always
subsequent to the other. I just tested several of my people in an
ancestor
book report and nowhere does the name "someone" appear. I'm aware that
what
we are discussing is the case of knowing the mother, but not knowing the
father, then later learning the name of the father. Are people creating a
new person, or are they changing the name of the unknown person already
linked to the mother?
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
