[LegacyUG] marriages in order
When printing a report how do I get the individual's marriages to print in time order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report prints all information for the second marriage before the first one. Can I change the MRIN for these two marriages to reflect the first one followed by the second one? Judy Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages in order
On 09 Feb 2014 17:23, Judy Weber wrote: When printing a report how do I get the individual’s marriages to print in time order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report prints all information for the second marriage before the first one. Can I change the MRIN for these two marriages to reflect the first one followed by the second one? In Family View, bring up the the individual. Then, click on the icon representing the marriages of that individual. From the displayed marriage list you can either choose the option to sort them automatically, or rearrange them yourself using the up and down arrow icons. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages in order
Judy, In Family View click on the spouse icon (usually on the left) and use the arrows on the bottom right of the new screen to correct the order. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ Judy Weber jwe...@centurylink.net wrote: When printing a report how do I get the individual's marriages to print in time order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report prints all information for the second marriage before the first one. Can I change the MRIN for these two marriages to reflect the first one followed by the second one? Judy Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages in order
MikeFry wrote: On 09 Feb 2014 17:23, Judy Weber wrote: When printing a report how do I get the individual’s marriages to print in time order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report prints all information for the second marriage before the first one. Can I change the MRIN for these two marriages to reflect the first one followed by the second one? In Family View, bring up the the individual. Then, click on the icon representing the marriages of that individual. From the displayed marriage list you can either choose the option to sort them automatically, or rearrange them yourself using the up and down arrow icons. IS there a way to have it list all marriages before listing any of the children in reports? I've got numerous cases where the Descendant has 2+ spouses, and children with some of them. The 2nd wife is most likely to be mentioned in the obit, but she nearly disappears in the narratives. And when the Original Progenitor has a late-in-life 2nd wife, she DOES vanish on the non-narrative descendants report! First wife is on page 1, 2nd is on page 1209. Manually moving those ladies around is tedious; and some of 'em are blinkin' reluctant to be moved 6 pages. In a more perfect world ... Cheryl Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] Marriages
I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages. How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I try to create a report in Legacy Charting Companion the sorting does not appear. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Marriages
On 2013/09/29 13:17, Ray Butler wrote: I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages. How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I try to create a report in Legacy Charting Companion the sorting does not appear. This information is already available for you. Try opening the Help information and then search for the Sort topic. Under that, you'll see Marriages. QED -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Marriages
Ray, Under the individual who was several marriages, look for the marriage icon which should be the first one on the left. If you are looking at a male, than the marriage icon looks like a female. And vice versa. When you click on the marriage icon, a window opens which should show all the marriages of the person.Look at the right hand side of that window and below the buttons. You should see below the Help button the word Order and two buttons which show up and down arrows. You can use these arrow buttons to move a marriage partner up or down in the the listing of the marriages so that you place them in the correct order even when you don't have the actual date of marriage. Cathy-0 From: Ray Butler [mailto:rbutl...@neo.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:17 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Marriages I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages. How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I try to create a report in Legacy Charting Companion the sorting does not appear. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Marriages
Ray Butler wrote: I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages. How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I try to create a report in Legacy Charting Companion the sorting does not appear. I use 1st, 2nd, etc in the marriage date field in those cases. I started that when I received information that said His 4th wife was ... with no dates of any sort. Whether it shows up on the Charting Companion I dunno. Cheryl Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Marriages
Click on the Spouse icon for the person you want to sort spouses for. This will open up the Spouse List box. You can also use the view menu to open the spouse list. The Spouse list will show all of the spouses of the subject person. Click sort on the right side of the box and the spouse will be sorted by marriage date. If you don't know the marriage date of the first spouse enter Bef 1932, or whatever is the date of the next marriage for the subject person. Using the help menu, enter sort and then marriages. This will give you many other options about the spouse list. Al -Original Message- From: singhals [mailto:singh...@erols.com] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:03 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Marriages Ray Butler wrote: I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages. How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I try to create a report in Legacy Charting Companion the sorting does not appear. I use 1st, 2nd, etc in the marriage date field in those cases. I started that when I received information that said His 4th wife was ... with no dates of any sort. Whether it shows up on the Charting Companion I dunno. Cheryl Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
But it does seem to be a huge deal to you. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.commailto:pph...@gmail.com wrote: Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What makes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even know whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without also having to make a statement about offspring. That's all I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jenny M Benson ge...@cedarbank.me.ukmailto:ge...@cedarbank.me.uk wrote: On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
-- Original Message -- From: Ronald Bernier ronaldbern...@bernfrin.org To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 + But it does seem to be a huge deal to you. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. Whatmakes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even know whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without also having to make a statement about offspring. That's all I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jenny M Benson ge...@cedarbank.me.uk wrote: On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Virgin Mobile#174 Shop Virgin Mobile's No Contract Service Plans Sleek Devices Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51c99d05128b71d047dc4st01vuc Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
To me genealogy is all about connecting people. The software is just a tool to make it easier. Most people have one set of parents; some people have more than one father and/or mother due to adoption or other reasons, but in researching there is always at least the hope of finding at least one father and mother and extending the connection back an additional generation and the software allows for that. The question is can you connect someone forward to another person by marriage or parenthood? Having a ldquo;stop lookingrdquo; sign because the researcher has done an exhaustive search and is satisfied that the person was never married and because the researcher is satisfied that the person had no children is helpful, just as it is helpful to document that if they were married and they had no children. To me these are just signals to stop looking at trying to extend that line by marriage or parenthood. Now, if someone has a child, from a genealogy software perspective, it seems only nature that the system is going to allow for that child to have at least one set of parents. If the known man and woman that produced this child were not married then I just check the box that says ldquo;This couple did not marry.rdquo; To me that is just an indication to not look for a marriage record and to move on. -- Original Message -- From: Ronald Bernier ronaldbern...@bernfrin.org To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 + But it does seem to be a huge deal to you. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. Whatmakes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even know whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without also having to make a statement about offspring. That's all I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jenny M Benson ge...@cedarbank.me.uk wrote: On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Virgin Mobile#174 Shop Virgin Mobile's No Contract Service Plans Sleek Devices Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51c99df8e7ad91df81a68st01vuc Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Yep! ~Don On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:40 PM, geoffbr...@juno.com geoffbr...@juno.com wrote: To me genealogy is all about connecting people. The software is just a tool to make it easier. Most people have one set of parents; some people have more than one father and/or mother due to adoption or other reasons, but in researching there is always at least the hope of finding at least one father and mother and extending the connection back an additional generation and the software allows for that. The question is can you connect someone forward to another person by marriage or parenthood? Having a “stop looking” sign because the researcher has done an exhaustive search and is satisfied that the person was never married and because the researcher is satisfied that the person had no children is helpful, just as it is helpful to document that if they were married and they had no children. To me these are just signals to stop looking at trying to extend that line by marriage or parenthood. Now, if someone has a child, from a genealogy software perspective, it seems only nature that the system is going to allow for that child to have at least one set of parents. If the known man and woman that produced this child were not married then I just check the box that says “This couple did not marry.” To me that is just an indication to not look for a marriage record and to move on. -- Original Message -- From: Ronald Bernier ronaldbern...@bernfrin.org To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 + But it does seem to be a huge deal to you. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What makes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even know whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without also having to make a statement about offspring. That's all I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jenny M Benson ge...@cedarbank.me.uk wrote: On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Virgin Mobile® Shop Virgin Mobile's No Contract Service Plans Sleek Devices Now! virginmobileusa.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Anyone who has spent any time doing research in medieval genealogy knows that parentage is being changed constantly as new documents, land descents, and the like, and discovered. Many persons thought not to have had children turn out to have been the parents of children whose parents were previously unknown or incorrectly linked to person(s) who were not parents. For those who deal with more recent times may not have this problem, but the endeavor is ongoing in earlier centuries. And these errors are among the aristocracy, among persons for whom there is much legal, judicial, and royal evidence. Luckily for history and genealogy, researchers did not take someone else's word for it and move on. If you are at all familiar with the era, corrections and additions to Complete Peerage (14 vols), the epitome of reliable secondary sources, are constantly being made because research kept researching. CE From: geoffbr...@juno.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:40:07 + To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages To me genealogy is all about connecting people. The software is just a tool to make it easier. Most people have one set of parents; some people have more than one father and/or mother due to adoption or other reasons, but in researching there is always at least the hope of finding at least one father and mother and extending the connection back an additional generation and the software allows for that. The question is can you connect someone forward to another person by marriage or parenthood? Having a “stop looking” sign because the researcher has done an exhaustive search and is satisfied that the person was never married and because the researcher is satisfied that the person had no children is helpful, just as it is helpful to document that if they were married and they had no children. To me these are just signals to stop looking at trying to extend that line by marriage or parenthood. Now, if someone has a child, from a genealogy software perspective, it seems only nature that the system is going to allow for that child to have at least one set of parents. If the known man and woman that produced this child were not married then I just check the box that says “This couple did not marry.” To me that is just an indication to not look for a marriage record and to move on. -- Original Message -- From: Ronald Bernier ronaldbern...@bernfrin.org To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 + But it does seem to be a huge deal to you. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. Whatmakes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even know whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without also having to make a statement about offspring. That's all I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
I agree, and we all have things we would like for the Legacy software to do, but when we buy/build a house or buy a car we have that option to look for what we like, but most of the time there is something lacking, and it's time we should realize that this Legacy software is not going to fit all of us. Lots of us have made suggestions to Legacy and the rest should be up to them, no one is making anyone buy the software. Syble On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:40 PM, geoffbr...@juno.com geoffbr...@juno.com wrote: To me genealogy is all about connecting people. The software is just a tool to make it easier. Most people have one set of parents; some people have more than one father and/or mother due to adoption or other reasons, but in researching there is always at least the hope of finding at least one father and mother and extending the connection back an additional generation and the software allows for that. The question is can you connect someone forward to another person by marriage or parenthood? Having a “stop looking” sign because the researcher has done an exhaustive search and is satisfied that the person was never married and because the researcher is satisfied that the person had no children is helpful, just as it is helpful to document that if they were married and they had no children. To me these are just signals to stop looking at trying to extend that line by marriage or parenthood. Now, if someone has a child, from a genealogy software perspective, it seems only nature that the system is going to allow for that child to have at least one set of parents. If the known man and woman that produced this child were not married then I just check the box that says “This couple did not marry.” To me that is just an indication to not look for a marriage record and to move on. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Virgin Mobile® Shop Virgin Mobile's No Contract Service Plans Sleek Devices Now! virginmobileusa.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
But if there is no *known* relationship that resulted in a marriage or in any *known* children, you don't *have* a marriage screen. *All* I am asking for is the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married *without* making any kind of statement in regard to children, since I have *no way* of *knowing* (especially for a man and most especially for one long since dead) whether he fathered children. It seems so obvious to me!! As for those of you who are weary of this discussion, just don't bother to read the correspondence on the subject -- !! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tony Slunka eas-...@pacbell.net wrote: Tony As a programmer you know that for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be true both parts of the statement must be true. If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the you would mark the This person did not marry and had no children If either part is false than either a child was born or a marriage occurred. If a child was born than a marriage/relationship occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark did not marry if this is the case. If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark no children if this is the case. Tony S. -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Pat, You say “if there is no known relationship that resulted in a marriage” and continue “the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married”. So if there is no *known* relationship then the person never married? Really – bigamists with an unknown first marriage for example? And I could give a number of others. I have no particular objection to your request, but even by itself for somebody over marriageable age to be declared as to “never have married” because records cannot be found does not make sense. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: Pat Hickin Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:15 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages But if there is no known relationship that resulted in a marriage or in any known children, you don't have a marriage screen. All I am asking for is the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married without making any kind of statement in regard to children, since I have no way of knowing (especially for a man and most especially for one long since dead) whether he fathered children. It seems so obvious to me!! As for those of you who are weary of this discussion, just don't bother to read the correspondence on the subject -- !! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tony Slunka eas-...@pacbell.net wrote: Tony As a programmer you know that for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be true both parts of the statement must be true. If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the you would mark the This person did not marry and had no children If either part is false than either a child was born or a marriage occurred. If a child was born than a marriage/relationship occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark did not marry if this is the case. If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark no children if this is the case. Tony S. -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
omg! Please stop! ~Don On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Ron Ferguson ronfergy@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Pat, You say “if there is no known relationship that resulted in a marriage” and continue “the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married”. So if there is no *known* relationship then the person never married? Really – bigamists with an unknown first marriage for example? And I could give a number of others. I have no particular objection to your request, but even by itself for somebody over marriageable age to be declared as to “never have married” because records cannot be found does not make sense. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: Pat Hickin Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:15 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages But if there is no known relationship that resulted in a marriage or in any known children, you don't have a marriage screen. All I am asking for is the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married without making any kind of statement in regard to children, since I have no way of knowing (especially for a man and most especially for one long since dead) whether he fathered children. It seems so obvious to me!! As for those of you who are weary of this discussion, just don't bother to read the correspondence on the subject -- !! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tony Slunka eas-...@pacbell.net wrote: Tony As a programmer you know that for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be true both parts of the statement must be true. If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the you would mark the This person did not marry and had no children If either part is false than either a child was born or a marriage occurred. If a child was born than a marriage/relationship occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark did not marry if this is the case. If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark no children if this is the case. Tony S. -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't useit. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Nor have you any conceivable (sorry about the pun) way to know /definitely/ any given fact in your database. We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What makes this one require special treatment? On a much lower level, yes, I do sort of object to adding *more* clicks and clutter to a screen -- any screen. Cheryl Pat Hickin wrote: But if there is no /known/ relationship that resulted in a marriage or in any /known/ children, you don't /have/ a marriage screen. /All/ I am asking for is the ability to say (on the individual screen) that the individual never married /without/ making any kind of statement in regard to children, since I have /no way/ of /knowing/ (especially for a man and most especially for one long since dead) whether he fathered children. It seems so obvious to me!! As for those of you who are weary of this discussion, just don't bother to read the correspondence on the subject -- !! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tony Slunka eas-...@pacbell.net mailto:eas-...@pacbell.net wrote: Tony As a programmer you know that for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be true both parts of the statement must be true. If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the you would mark the This person did not marry and had no children If either part is false than either a child was born or a marriage occurred. If a child was born than a marriage/relationship occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark did not marry if this is the case. If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark no children if this is the case. Tony S. -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Shingals wrote We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What makes this one require special treatment? I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not necessarily even *know* whether they've produced offspring. I just think there should be a way to say (on the individual screen) that an individual never married without *also * having to make a statement about offspring. That's *all* I'm asking for. To me it seems utterly reasonable. It really does not seem such a big deal to me! Pat On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jenny M Benson ge...@cedarbank.me.ukwrote: On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote: omg! Please stop! The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something which falls within the remit of the list and is not offensive. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
OK, if we are reasonably clear on the underlying database structure and the use of a 'marriage' record for any relationship that produces a child, let me ask this: what would be the precise meaning of adding a specific database flag (i.e., a checkbox for the individual) that says the person did not marry? Such a flag could not have a biological context, but rather would have a cultural meaning, certainly subject to interpretation. Wouldn't some people interpret it as referring to religious weddings, only. Other people would include official civil weddings. What about couples that have lived together common law for 40 years, with no wedding? Would checking the box include or exclude that? What about a marriage that is annulled after 10 days? My point is that such observations belong in Notes or Event/Facts, where they can be explained in context. Having a database construct is only useful for such things as generating a symbol next to the name in Family view, or for automatically adding a statement in a report (with hard-coded wording), or possibly for a search criterion. Such a database construct/checkbox should only be used for a fact that is well-defined and not subject to personal interpretation. To me, even the current checkbox has limited usefulness, for the same reasons. It is helpful for the 'no children' part of it. And perhaps the 'not marry' part can sometimes be a helpful research aid to save me from searching records for an official marriage that is somehow already known not to exist. But notes can do that too. Ward -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:27 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. ~Don On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Ward Walker wnkwal...@rogers.com wrote: OK, if we are reasonably clear on the underlying database structure and the use of a 'marriage' record for any relationship that produces a child, let me ask this: what would be the precise meaning of adding a specific database flag (i.e., a checkbox for the individual) that says the person did not marry? Such a flag could not have a biological context, but rather would have a cultural meaning, certainly subject to interpretation. Wouldn't some people interpret it as referring to religious weddings, only. Other people would include official civil weddings. What about couples that have lived together common law for 40 years, with no wedding? Would checking the box include or exclude that? What about a marriage that is annulled after 10 days? My point is that such observations belong in Notes or Event/Facts, where they can be explained in context. Having a database construct is only useful for such things as generating a symbol next to the name in Family view, or for automatically adding a statement in a report (with hard-coded wording), or possibly for a search criterion. Such a database construct/checkbox should only be used for a fact that is well-defined and not subject to personal interpretation. To me, even the current checkbox has limited usefulness, for the same reasons. It is helpful for the 'no children' part of it. And perhaps the 'not marry' part can sometimes be a helpful research aid to save me from searching records for an official marriage that is somehow already known not to exist. But notes can do that too. Ward -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:27 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
That's basically what I've been asking for since I started to use Legacy, a very short while after Virtual Roots was sold. Just to split the day, month and year into separate fields. I'm not a programmer but if Howard Nurse could do it with the old Roots programs why can't it be done now? All I get is gee we've not had any one ask about that or not me you should be talking to. Marie Marie Varrelman Melchiori, CG, CGL Melchiori Research Services, L.L.C. --- CG, Certified Genealogist and CGL, Certified Genealogical Lecturer are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists ® , used under license by Board-certified associates after periodic competency evaluations. In a message dated 6/23/2013 12:27:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, geneal...@gillandtony.com writes: All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 2013/06/23 17:40, mvmc...@aol.com wrote: That's basically what I've been asking for since I started to use Legacy, a very short while after Virtual Roots was sold. Just to split the day, month and year into separate fields. I'm not a programmer but if Howard Nurse could do it with the old Roots programs why can't it be done now? I don't believe that particular change is necessary. You can always add 3 different dates entered 3 different ways and source them separately. For example, you can have a Birth date and two Alt. Birth events. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Ward, The optional check boxes are opitonal. If you don't want to designate a person as having no marriage records linked (and therefore no offspring linked) then don't check the optional box in the individual record. If there are marriage records linked and those unions produced no children but you don't want to designate that for the marriage then don't check the optional box in the marriage record. No one is forcing you to use those optional boxes. The point of the box in the individual record is to state that there are no marriage records connected and therefore no offspring. The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring resulted from the union. If you don't have evidence for that information, don't use the optional check boxes. Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages (misspellings)
My favorite is an amazed Viola! On 6/23/2013 1:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
or seeing mizspelt misspelled On 6/23/2013 12:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages (misspellings)
The length of time that this subject has continued is ridiculous. Now we have the spelling/grammar experts jumping in to correct people Sent from my iPhone On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Bob Bashford older...@rochester.rr.com wrote: My favorite is an amazed Viola! On 6/23/2013 1:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages (misspellings)
Here here This site is getting ridicules not sure if this is the right spelling (of RIDICULES) but let us get back to discussing Legacy or sign up to an educational site. Regards Bob Cunningham I am Researching:- Cunningham...Prestonpans, East Lothian Marr.Prestonpans, East Lothian Ritchie..Prestonpans, East Lothian Thomson..Prestonpans, East Lothian Taylor...Dunbar, East Lothian Catleugh.Haddington, East Lothian SharpTorryburn/Cowdenbeath, Fife Simpson..Torryburn/Cowdenbeath, Fife Stuart...Inverallan, Moray Dooley...Midlothian Garriock.Midlothian/Orkney BrassMidlothian/Orkney Nelson/Ward..New Zealand From: Ronald Bernier ronaldbern...@bernfrin.org To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2013, 21:02 Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages (misspellings) The length of time that this subject has continued is ridiculous. Now we have the spelling/grammar experts jumping in to correct people Sent from my iPhone On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Bob Bashford older...@rochester.rr.com wrote: My favorite is an amazed Viola! On 6/23/2013 1:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages -- going off-list
Sorry, Don. I thought that we were not yet converging on clarity (much less on agreement), and I thought I was adding something that had not yet been expressed. But I'll reply off-list to Ron Taylor's response (which is a fair point but I still disagree). -Original Message- From: Don Hendershot Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:33 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Cc: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. ~Don On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Ward Walker wnkwal...@rogers.com wrote: OK, if we are reasonably clear on the underlying database structure and the use of a 'marriage' record for any relationship that produces a child, let me ask this: what would be the precise meaning of adding a specific database flag (i.e., a checkbox for the individual) that says the person did not marry? Such a flag could not have a biological context, but rather would have a cultural meaning, certainly subject to interpretation. Wouldn't some people interpret it as referring to religious weddings, only. Other people would include official civil weddings. What about couples that have lived together common law for 40 years, with no wedding? Would checking the box include or exclude that? What about a marriage that is annulled after 10 days? My point is that such observations belong in Notes or Event/Facts, where they can be explained in context. Having a database construct is only useful for such things as generating a symbol next to the name in Family view, or for automatically adding a statement in a report (with hard-coded wording), or possibly for a search criterion. Such a database construct/checkbox should only be used for a fact that is well-defined and not subject to personal interpretation. To me, even the current checkbox has limited usefulness, for the same reasons. It is helpful for the 'no children' part of it. And perhaps the 'not marry' part can sometimes be a helpful research aid to save me from searching records for an official marriage that is somehow already known not to exist. But notes can do that too. Ward -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages -- going off-list
Thanks Ward and all for understanding! -Don Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages -- going off-list
My impression is that there will NEVER be convergence on this topic. It's just going round and round, with little or no compromise and new understanding. I'm making great use of the delete key, and barely reading the posts in this thread now, after the first line or so. If there have been any pearls of wisdom at the end of longer posts, they've been lost to me. Such is life. Legacy staff - can we have an end to this thread, please? It's going nowhere, yet is not ending of its own accord. Wendy Ward Walker said the following on 24/06/2013 8:50 a.m.: Sorry, Don. I thought that we were not yet converging on clarity (much less on agreement), and I thought I was adding something that had not yet been expressed. But I'll reply off-list to Ron Taylor's response (which is a fair point but I still disagree). -Original Message- From: Don Hendershot Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:33 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Cc: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. ~Don On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Ward Walker wnkwal...@rogers.com wrote: OK, if we are reasonably clear on the underlying database structure and the use of a 'marriage' record for any relationship that produces a child, let me ask this: what would be the precise meaning of adding a specific database flag (i.e., a checkbox for the individual) that says the person did not marry? Such a flag could not have a biological context, but rather would have a cultural meaning, certainly subject to interpretation. Wouldn't some people interpret it as referring to religious weddings, only. Other people would include official civil weddings. What about couples that have lived together common law for 40 years, with no wedding? Would checking the box include or exclude that? What about a marriage that is annulled after 10 days? My point is that such observations belong in Notes or Event/Facts, where they can be explained in context. Having a database construct is only useful for such things as generating a symbol next to the name in Family view, or for automatically adding a statement in a report (with hard-coded wording), or possibly for a search criterion. Such a database construct/checkbox should only be used for a fact that is well-defined and not subject to personal interpretation. To me, even the current checkbox has limited usefulness, for the same reasons. It is helpful for the 'no children' part of it. And perhaps the 'not marry' part can sometimes be a helpful research aid to save me from searching records for an official marriage that is somehow already known not to exist. But notes can do that too. Ward -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Splitting Dates [was: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages]
Marie, I think you are concerned about situations where some sources only tell you the year, while other sources perhaps only the month, and maybe others give the full date. I'm trying to imagine how this would look in a report with footnotes/endnotes. Would your proposal require superscripts after each component of, say, 23 June 2013? If a source gives the full date, how would that superscript be distinguished from these component superscripts? Perhaps you intend that the source superscripts all go together at the end of the fact, and one must drill down within Legacy to see which components were sourced? If so, that's fair, but I think my preference would be to use the current system of adding a note to the source detail Comments field to clarify which part of a fact the citation applies to. (Or optionally adding a short note to source detail text and making that text printable in reports.) Ward -Original Message- From: Mike Fry Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:09 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages On 2013/06/23 17:40, mvmc...@aol.com wrote: That's basically what I've been asking for since I started to use Legacy, a very short while after Virtual Roots was sold. Just to split the day, month and year into separate fields. I'm not a programmer but if Howard Nurse could do it with the old Roots programs why can't it be done now? I don't believe that particular change is necessary. You can always add 3 different dates entered 3 different ways and source them separately. For example, you can have a Birth date and two Alt. Birth events. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Ron Taylor wrote: The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring resulted from the union. It seems to me that the point of the marriage record box (in the individual window) should be to say that the person was never married. The whole matter of whether there were children is and should be a separate issue. The point I am *trying* to make is that I object to saying there were no children when it is *almost impossible to know for certain *that an individual --a man especially --had no children. People are not addressing this point but are talking about other issues which are not my main concern. Pat On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Laura Johnson rngad...@madisontelco.comwrote: or seeing mizspelt misspelled On 6/23/2013 12:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Pat, I agree with you. Larry Lee ldlee...@gmail.com On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Ron Taylor wrote: The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring resulted from the union. It seems to me that the point of the marriage record box (in the individual window) should be to say that the person was never married. The whole matter of whether there were children is and should be a separate issue. The point I am *trying* to make is that I object to saying there were no children when it is *almost impossible to know for certain *that an individual --a man especially --had no children. People are not addressing this point but are talking about other issues which are not my main concern. Pat On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Laura Johnson rngad...@madisontelco.comwrote: or seeing mizspelt misspelled On 6/23/2013 12:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote: Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up. Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it off-line! It was already old last week. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Will somebody please put a stop to this? (I hope everything is spelled correctly) Bobby From: Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:01 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Ron Taylor wrote: The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring resulted from the union. It seems to me that the point of the marriage record box (in the individual window) should be to say that the person was never married. The whole matter of whether there were children is and should be a separate issue. The point I am trying to make is that I object to saying there were no children when it is almost impossible to know for certain that an individual --a man especially --had no children. People are not addressing this point but are talking about other issues which are not my main concern. Pat Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Tony As a programmer you know that for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be true both parts of the statement must be true. If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the you would mark the This person did not marry and had no children If either part is false than either a child was born or a marriage occurred. If a child was born than a marriage/relationship occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark did not marry if this is the case. If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark no children if this is the case. Tony S. -Original Message- From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote: I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a marriage really isn't what is usually called a marriage. Legacy's use of the word marriage appears to just mean the linking of people, and it may or may not signify a formal marriage. At last! Someone else has finally grasped the fact that a Legacy-marriage is *not* a marriage (civil, religious or otherwise) between two people. At its' basic level, it's just a coupling that produced a child. And as Ron Taylor painstakingly tries to explain, it's the device used to construct the beginnings of a family group. As I said much earlier in the piece, the choice of the word Marriage for this linkage between two people, is poor. In earlier days, the choice was okay and didn't give rise to all this confusion. As evidenced by this discussion, there is much confusion out there. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Much ado about nothing. From: Mike Fry emjay...@gmail.com To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote: I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a marriage really isn't what is usually called a marriage. Legacy's use of the word marriage appears to just mean the linking of people, and it may or may not signify a formal marriage. At last! Someone else has finally grasped the fact that a Legacy-marriage is *not* a marriage (civil, religious or otherwise) between two people. At its' basic level, it's just a coupling that produced a child. And as Ron Taylor painstakingly tries to explain, it's the device used to construct the beginnings of a family group. As I said much earlier in the piece, the choice of the word Marriage for this linkage between two people, is poor. In earlier days, the choice was okay and didn't give rise to all this confusion. As evidenced by this discussion, there is much confusion out there. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Yes ~Don On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:32 AM, Duane Baker dbake...@yahoo.com wrote: Much ado about nothing. From: Mike Fry emjay...@gmail.com To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote: I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a marriage really isn't what is usually called a marriage. Legacy's use of the word marriage appears to just mean the linking of people, and it may or may not signify a formal marriage. At last! Someone else has finally grasped the fact that a Legacy-marriage is *not* a marriage (civil, religious or otherwise) between two people. At its' basic level, it's just a coupling that produced a child. And as Ron Taylor painstakingly tries to explain, it's the device used to construct the beginnings of a family group. As I said much earlier in the piece, the choice of the word Marriage for this linkage between two people, is poor. In earlier days, the choice was okay and didn't give rise to all this confusion. As evidenced by this discussion, there is much confusion out there. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Amen...exactly what I was trying to say, but didn't say nearly as well. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Ron Taylor doit4...@yahoo.com wrote: Pat (and others), It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables. One for individuals and another for marriages. There are many other tables that also come into play to store various things. If a person is linked to another person it is done with the marriage record. That record can link spouses and children of the marriage. Without a marriage record there are no connections to other individuals. It's that simple. The check box in the individual record can be used to indicate that there are no marriage records linked for the purpose of connecting a spouse. If a marriage record is linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a marriage record makes the option invalid. An individual cannot be linked to offspring without a marriage record. Thus an individual with This individual never married and had no children checked is shown with the exclamation mark to indicate end-of-line. The check box in the marriage record can be used to indicate that there are no children linked to the marriage. If there are children linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a child makes the option invalid. If an individual has marriage records and every one of them has the This couple had no children checked, then that individual is end-of-line but there is no symbol to indicate that like it does for the never married individual. In summary...Legacy already allows both situations to be recorded but does not display an end-of-line symbol for someone with marriage records and no offspring. Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp -- Mary LeClerc quiltingm...@gmail.com My Blog: http://quiltinginoz.blogspot.com/ My Photos: http://tinyurl.com/3aylx7 Forgiveness is giving up the hope that the past could have been any different.” ~ Oprah Winfrey The desire to create is one of the deepest yearnings of the human soul. No matter our talents, education, backgrounds, or abilities, we each have an inherent wish to create something that did not exist before. Dieter Uchtdorf Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] marriages
I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all censuses for which she was alive and her death certificate. All censuses show her under her maiden name and, when she is an adult, as head of the household. Her death certificate was issued under her maiden name. Two years before her death she was awarded the probate of her father's will and was described in the probate index as a spinster. As far is as humanly possible, I am certain that this lady did not marry. She did, however, have a child. This child's birth certificate gives no indication of the father's name. All I am asking is to be able, on the individual's detail page, to record the fact that this lady never married. I don't want to mark the marriage record as This couple never married - there is no record of a couple. If ever there was a case when there is a need to record the absence of the marriage, this is it. However, I cannot do it because Legacy greys out the one item which would allow me to do this is a standardised way. Even if they didn't, I still couldn't use it because This person never married but did have a child. Split the fact into two facts that enable us to reflect reality. I realise that Legacy has to have a database record linking the child to the parent. That they choose to call it a marriage record instead of something like an interpersonal linkage record is unfortunate. That they choose to treat it as though it shows that a marriage actually occurred is simply a bug. QED Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Tony, I suggest you either learn how to write the programming code yourself, and volunteer to help Legacy with implementing a change or else join the rest of us patiently waiting quietly. The software cannot be all things to all people and by comparison overall Legacy by far comes closest. The issue continues to frustrate many of us, but lets not call a feature not yet available a bug Look at it from the software writers point of view, how would you do it?? It's not just as easy as you seem to think. I hope you have at least posted your request properly on the wish list for future changes. This subject does not need a life of its own. Jay On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.comwrote: I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all censuses for which she was alive and her death certificate. All censuses show her under her maiden name and, when she is an adult, as head of the household. Her death certificate was issued under her maiden name. Two years before her death she was awarded the probate of her father's will and was described in the probate index as a spinster. As far is as humanly possible, I am certain that this lady did not marry. She did, however, have a child. This child's birth certificate gives no indication of the father's name. All I am asking is to be able, on the individual's detail page, to record the fact that this lady never married. I don't want to mark the marriage record as This couple never married - there is no record of a couple. If ever there was a case when there is a need to record the absence of the marriage, this is it. However, I cannot do it because Legacy greys out the one item which would allow me to do this is a standardised way. Even if they didn't, I still couldn't use it because This person never married but did have a child. Split the fact into two facts that enable us to reflect reality. I realise that Legacy has to have a database record linking the child to the parent. That they choose to call it a marriage record instead of something like an interpersonal linkage record is unfortunate. That they choose to treat it as though it shows that a marriage actually occurred is simply a bug. QED Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Read Marriage as relationship. There had to be one for a child to be born. The reality as you put it is that she DID have a relationship. There for there has to be a marriage (read Relationship). Having said that the only place you can mark her as never married is in the Marriage screen. The individual page is for information about a person only not about relationships. -- Original Message -- From: Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.com To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com Sent: 23/06/2013 10:42:14 Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all censuses for which she was alive and her death certificate. All censuses show her under her maiden name and, when she is an adult, as head of the household. Her death certificate was issued under her maiden name. Two years before her death she was awarded the probate of her father's will and was described in the probate index as a spinster. As far is as humanly possible, I am certain that this lady did not marry. She did, however, have a child. This child's birth certificate gives no indication of the father's name. All I am asking is to be able, on the individual's detail page, to record the fact that this lady never married. I don't want to mark the marriage record as This couple never married - there is no record of a couple. If ever there was a case when there is a need to record the absence of the marriage, this is it. However, I cannot do it because Legacy greys out the one item which would allow me to do this is a standardised way. Even if they didn't, I still couldn't use it because This person never married but did have a child. Split the fact into two facts that enable us to reflect reality. I realise that Legacy has to have a database record linking the child to the parent. That they choose to call it a marriage record instead of something like an interpersonal linkage record is unfortunate. That they choose to treat it as though it shows that a marriage actually occurred is simply a bug. QED Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
The Marriage Information is the place to enter this information, ESPECIALLY if there is a child! That is the place to indicate that this couple did not marry. Forget whether they got married; they did as far as genealogy is concerned! They had a relationship; they did it; there was a child as a result. They never married! As I said, ESPECIALLY since they DID have a child, there was a marriage. Don't get hung up on the words. Geez. This couple had a child, but they never married. The information is vital to the child. The father is not known. Common occurrence. The place to indicate that the parents of the child never married is on the Marriage Information page, which is the page with the information about the child's parentage. Tracing parentage is what genealogy is about, after all! So, that is the logical place to indicate that the parents of the child never married; the individual's page is not the place to do that. CE From: geneal...@gillandtony.com To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:42:14 +1000 I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all censuses for which she was alive and her death certificate. All censuses show her under her maiden name and, when she is an adult, as head of the household. Her death certificate was issued under her maiden name. Two years before her death she was awarded the probate of her father's will and was described in the probate index as a spinster. As far is as humanly possible, I am certain that this lady did not marry. She did, however, have a child. This child's birth certificate gives no indication of the father's name. All I am asking is to be able, on the individual's detail page, to record the fact that this lady never married. I don't want to mark the marriage record as This couple never married - there is no record of a couple. If ever there was a case when there is a need to record the absence of the marriage, this is it. However, I cannot do it because Legacy greys out the one item which would allow me to do this is a standardised way. Even if they didn't, I still couldn't use it because This person never married but did have a child. Split the fact into two facts that enable us to reflect reality. I realise that Legacy has to have a database record linking the child to the parent. That they choose to call it a marriage record instead of something like an interpersonal linkage record is unfortunate. That they choose to treat it as though it shows that a marriage actually occurred is simply a bug. QED Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
I do not see how any of this is relevant to my desire to say that an individual never married without having to *also* say what I have no way of knowing, i.e., that an individual had no children. That seems so simple and obvious to me. I am *not* talking about relationships and children. Pat On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Mary LeClerc quiltingm...@gmail.comwrote: Amen...exactly what I was trying to say, but didn't say nearly as well. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Ron Taylor doit4...@yahoo.com wrote: Pat (and others), It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables. One for individuals and another for marriages. There are many other tables that also come into play to store various things. If a person is linked to another person it is done with the marriage record. That record can link spouses and children of the marriage. Without a marriage record there are no connections to other individuals. It's that simple. The check box in the individual record can be used to indicate that there are no marriage records linked for the purpose of connecting a spouse. If a marriage record is linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a marriage record makes the option invalid. An individual cannot be linked to offspring without a marriage record. Thus an individual with This individual never married and had no children checked is shown with the exclamation mark to indicate end-of-line. The check box in the marriage record can be used to indicate that there are no children linked to the marriage. If there are children linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a child makes the option invalid. If an individual has marriage records and every one of them has the This couple had no children checked, then that individual is end-of-line but there is no symbol to indicate that like it does for the never married individual. In summary...Legacy already allows both situations to be recorded but does not display an end-of-line symbol for someone with marriage records and no offspring. Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp -- Mary LeClerc quiltingm...@gmail.com My Blog: http://quiltinginoz.blogspot.com/ My Photos: http://tinyurl.com/3aylx7 Forgiveness is giving up the hope that the past could have been any different.” ~ Oprah Winfrey The desire to create is one of the deepest yearnings of the human soul. No matter our talents, education, backgrounds, or abilities, we each have an inherent wish to create something that did not exist before. Dieter Uchtdorf Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] marriages
Jay I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No database should be any more complex than necessary. If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did not reflect the reality of the situation we were emulating, then we would consider it a bug. All Pat and I want is for the statement This person did not marry and had no children to be split into two halves, and for the did not marry half to be available when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment about them. If a person did not marry, then that is something which should be recorded at the individual level. It is a little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper channels. Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Pat, with all due respect – Legacy isn’t forcing you or anyone else to do anything. If you are not happy with the way that Legacy works for you, then maybe Legacy isn’t the program for you. Ron Bernier From: Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:28 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not possiby know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.commailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
The ability in Legacy to indicate no children is already there for both single and those with marrige records. A single person with the This individual never married and had no children checked cannot have a marriage record linked and when that individual is displayed in the child position the exclamation mark is shown to indicate end-of-line or DSP. That works well. A person with marriage records, cannot have the individual box checked because there is at least one marriage record. If every linked marriage record to that individual has the This couple had no children checked, the database has the information to show end-of-line. What is missing is a symbol to indicate that situation when the individual is displayed in the child position. The only symbol that shows is the double S which indicates that the child has marriage records in the database but does not indicate that all of them have the This couple had no children box checked. Please note that there is no mention of one-night-stands, etc. in this explanation. The only thing missing is a symbol to indicate that all marriage records for an individual have This couple had no children checked when that individual is displayed in the child position to make clear that it is an end-of-line. Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
This cuts to the heart of the matter, and I agree with the request. -Original Message- From: Boyd Miller bo...@vodafone.net.nz Sent: Jun 21, 2013 5:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
Along this line, IF you have a person with multi marriages and only one of these marriages produce a child, can these Not married and NO children, be used with the non child producing marriages? Thanks, David C Abernathy Email disclaimers This message represents the official view of the voices in my head. http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus == -Original Message- From: Boyd Miller [mailto:bo...@vodafone.net.nz] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Yes, indeed. We're not required to use that box or any other; if you want to use it, use it; if you don't, don't. And, yes, there are situations where you can state with absolute certainly that someone died unmarried and without issue: what about my great-aunt who died of pneumonia at the age of 6 months? Or the 10-year-old cousin who drowned? Both too young to marry and too young to be a parent. The difference between not known to have married and known not to have married is more than style. Cheryl Singhal Mary LeClerc wrote: Finally have to jump in here. While I agree that there are a myriad of ways to describe what constitutes a family, all I expect from a software program is to be able to chart the relationships and link them together. In my opinion Legacy already offers all of the options we need to label these relationships any way we want. Aside from getting hung up over the words marriage or relationship I just view the marriage information window as the system that lets me link two people (or more) to a child. Consider the following situtations: Person A and Person B marry and have a child clearly we don't need to use the boxes never married and never had children whether in the individual windows or marriage window Person A has a child with Person B. Buut they never married so we check the box this couple did not marry in the marriage information window. Never had children does not apply to either. It's a separate box on this screen as it needs to be. Person B above now marries Person C and they have a child and you proceed as usual, or don't have children together and we check the this couple had no children in the marriage information window. Again, it's separated here in the MARRIAGE WINDOW as it needs to be. If Person A never marries and never has children, the combined box is appropriately located in the personal information screen. I certainly have no problem checking this if I want to indicate to myself that AS FAR AS I KNOW this person had no issue and this is a dead end. To me it's just taking up valuable screen space to separate the two on this screen. Of course we may not know for sure if someone ever had children. We also may not know for sure if they ever married. I also don't know whether they like spinach or are vegetarian! We record what we know or what we feel comfortable recording. If you are not sure then DON'T CHECK THE COMBINED BOX. Isn't that simple. I'm trying hard to imagine a situation where I would be comfortable say checking never married but then saying gee I don't know if he fathered any kids here and there. Maybe I shouldn't check that combined box. If you don't know and it bothers you, don't check it then. Just my two cents worth. Mary On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Ellen kramer...@comcast.net mailto:kramer...@comcast.net wrote: . Are you looking for something other than the marriage box where you can say that the couple never married and separately you can say that they never had children? We already have that on the upper left corner of the marriage editing box. Or is there something else that you are referring to? God bless, Ellen On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Pat Hickin wrote: Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split the two statements, at least it could say, never married and had no known children. Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com mailto:pph...@gmail.com wrote: Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not /possiby/ know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.com mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
With your examples, I would do nothing as it is appears very clearly that they did not marry or have children. Thanks, David C Abernathy Email disclaimers This message represents the official view of the voices in my head. http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus == -Original Message- From: singhals [mailto:singh...@erols.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 7:33 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Yes, indeed. We're not required to use that box or any other; if you want to use it, use it; if you don't, don't. And, yes, there are situations where you can state with absolute certainly that someone died unmarried and without issue: what about my great-aunt who died of pneumonia at the age of 6 months? Or the 10-year-old cousin who drowned? Both too young to marry and too young to be a parent. The difference between not known to have married and known not to have married is more than style. Cheryl Singhal Mary LeClerc wrote: Finally have to jump in here. While I agree that there are a myriad of ways to describe what constitutes a family, all I expect from a software program is to be able to chart the relationships and link them together. In my opinion Legacy already offers all of the options we need to label these relationships any way we want. Aside from getting hung up over the words marriage or relationship I just view the marriage information window as the system that lets me link two people (or more) to a child. Consider the following situtations: Person A and Person B marry and have a child clearly we don't need to use the boxes never married and never had children whether in the individual windows or marriage window Person A has a child with Person B. Buut they never married so we check the box this couple did not marry in the marriage information window. Never had children does not apply to either. It's a separate box on this screen as it needs to be. Person B above now marries Person C and they have a child and you proceed as usual, or don't have children together and we check the this couple had no children in the marriage information window. Again, it's separated here in the MARRIAGE WINDOW as it needs to be. If Person A never marries and never has children, the combined box is appropriately located in the personal information screen. I certainly have no problem checking this if I want to indicate to myself that AS FAR AS I KNOW this person had no issue and this is a dead end. To me it's just taking up valuable screen space to separate the two on this screen. Of course we may not know for sure if someone ever had children. We also may not know for sure if they ever married. I also don't know whether they like spinach or are vegetarian! We record what we know or what we feel comfortable recording. If you are not sure then DON'T CHECK THE COMBINED BOX. Isn't that simple. I'm trying hard to imagine a situation where I would be comfortable say checking never married but then saying gee I don't know if he fathered any kids here and there. Maybe I shouldn't check that combined box. If you don't know and it bothers you, don't check it then. Just my two cents worth. Mary On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Ellen kramer...@comcast.net mailto:kramer...@comcast.net wrote: . Are you looking for something other than the marriage box where you can say that the couple never married and separately you can say that they never had children? We already have that on the upper left corner of the marriage editing box. Or is there something else that you are referring to? God bless, Ellen On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Pat Hickin wrote: Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split the two statements, at least it could say, never married and had no known children. Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com mailto:pph...@gmail.com wrote: Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not /possiby/ know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.com mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 2013/06/21 16:24, David Abernathy wrote: Along this line, IF you have a person with multi marriages and only one of these marriages produce a child, can these Not married and NO children, be used with the non child producing marriages? Semantics, schmantics :-) -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
I think the programmer is correct and only one checkbox is required. Since it is causing confusion, perhaps the label for the checkbox needs to be enhanced (or use a pop-up help) -- something along the lines of This person never married nor had any relationship that produced a child. If the person did marry (officially or common-law), then you don't need this checkbox at all as you can state in the 'marriage' window(s) that the couple had no children. If the person had a child from a non-marriage relationship, do we really need to have a field that states that the person is known to have never had an official marriage (or long-time commitment)? That can always go in Notes, if it is important for some reason. I think it would be odd to find a source that proves the negative: that a person never did something. One can source that the person died young or had some debilitating illness. Isn't that sufficient? The only problematic case that has come up so far is the single-parent adoption example. You might want to show that the person never married nor had any relationship that produced a biological child, but Legacy presumably disables the current checkbox once you add the adopted child. It would probably get too fancy for Legacy to detect the adopted status and enable the checkbox. I would just use Notes. Ward -Original Message- From: mbstx Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:18 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This cuts to the heart of the matter, and I agree with the request. -Original Message- From: Boyd Miller bo...@vodafone.net.nz Sent: Jun 21, 2013 5:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
I am still with v5.0.0.97 and I like the way that version handles this situation. On the Individual Information screen there is check box for This individual Never Married which shows as Never Married on the Marriage Information bar in Family View. This check box is greyed out if there is a child, but you can, in that case, mark the Marriage Status box as Unmarried if the couple didn't marry. In cases where a relationship never really occured (adoption, say) you could the listed status Other or add your own, say, Single Parent. In the case where you may know for sure that the individual never married, make a notation in the General or Research notes. If you MUST have (for your own satisfaction) the fact of never marrired out where you can see it, you could put it in the Title Suffix box maybe on the Individual Information screen (not sure how this would look in reports/charts). In short, I like the seperation of the two facts (guess that wasn't so short after all). - Original Message - From: Ward Walker wnkwal...@rogers.com To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:07pm Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages I think the programmer is correct and only one checkbox is required. Since it is causing confusion, perhaps the label for the checkbox needs to be enhanced (or use a pop-up help) -- something along the lines of This person never married nor had any relationship that produced a child. If the person did marry (officially or common-law), then you don't need this checkbox at all as you can state in the 'marriage' window(s) that the couple had no children. If the person had a child from a non-marriage relationship, do we really need to have a field that states that the person is known to have never had an official marriage (or long-time commitment)? That can always go in Notes, if it is important for some reason. I think it would be odd to find a source that proves the negative: that a person never did something. One can source that the person died young or had some debilitating illness. Isn't that sufficient? The only problematic case that has come up so far is the single-parent adoption example. You might want to show that the person never married nor had any relationship that produced a biological child, but Legacy presumably disables the current checkbox once you add the adopted child. It would probably get too fancy for Legacy to detect the adopted status and enable the checkbox. I would just use Notes. Ward -Original Message- From: mbstx Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:18 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This cuts to the heart of the matter, and I agree with the request. -Original Message- From: Boyd Miller bo...@vodafone.net.nz Sent: Jun 21, 2013 5:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
All I want to do is to be able to say that an individual never married, without having to also say s/he had no children!! Really, that to me does not seem like an outlandish request!! And I do not understand why I need to switch genealogy programs, as one user has suggested!! It is common knowledge that it is perfectly possible to have children and not be married, so why does Legacy insist (on the individual screen) that the two must be inextricably linked? It makes no sense whatsoever to me, especially in light of the fact that no genealogist can say with certainty that an individual had no children. We know that a man can have children and not even know it himself!! And a woman can have children in some secrecy so that not even her family members know!! As someone has said, you can add Had no children elsewhere. On the marriage screen, there are two separate options for did not marry and had no children. Why can there not be those two separate options on the individual screen? (When I was a child and knew nothing of birds and bees, I thought God knew when people got married and arranged for them to have children only if they were married. Maybe Legacy has the same mindset?? :-) ) Pat On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM, R.Dickson rdi...@copper.net wrote: I am still with v5.0.0.97 and I like the way that version handles this situation. On the Individual Information screen there is check box for This individual Never Married which shows as Never Married on the Marriage Information bar in Family View. This check box is greyed out if there is a child, but you can, in that case, mark the Marriage Status box as Unmarried if the couple didn't marry. In cases where a relationship never really occured (adoption, say) you could the listed status Other or add your own, say, Single Parent. In the case where you may know for sure that the individual never married, make a notation in the General or Research notes. If you MUST have (for your own satisfaction) the fact of never marrired out where you can see it, you could put it in the Title Suffix box maybe on the Individual Information screen (not sure how this would look in reports/charts). In short, I like the seperation of the two facts (guess that wasn't so short after all). - Original Message - From: Ward Walker wnkwal...@rogers.com To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:07pm Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages I think the programmer is correct and only one checkbox is required. Since it is causing confusion, perhaps the label for the checkbox needs to be enhanced (or use a pop-up help) -- something along the lines of This person never married nor had any relationship that produced a child. If the person did marry (officially or common-law), then you don't need this checkbox at all as you can state in the 'marriage' window(s) that the couple had no children. If the person had a child from a non-marriage relationship, do we really need to have a field that states that the person is known to have never had an official marriage (or long-time commitment)? That can always go in Notes, if it is important for some reason. I think it would be odd to find a source that proves the negative: that a person never did something. One can source that the person died young or had some debilitating illness. Isn't that sufficient? The only problematic case that has come up so far is the single-parent adoption example. You might want to show that the person never married nor had any relationship that produced a biological child, but Legacy presumably disables the current checkbox once you add the adopted child. It would probably get too fancy for Legacy to detect the adopted status and enable the checkbox. I would just use Notes. Ward -Original Message- From: mbstx Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:18 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This cuts to the heart of the matter, and I agree with the request. -Original Message- From: Boyd Miller bo...@vodafone.net.nz Sent: Jun 21, 2013 5:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the fact separately. Boyd On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Pat (and others), It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables. One for individuals and another for marriages. There are many other tables that also come into play to store various things. If a person is linked to another person it is done with the marriage record. That record can link spouses and children of the marriage. Without a marriage record there are no connections to other individuals. It's that simple. The check box in the individual record can be used to indicate that there are no marriage records linked for the purpose of connecting a spouse. If a marriage record is linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a marriage record makes the option invalid. An individual cannot be linked to offspring without a marriage record. Thus an individual with This individual never married and had no children checked is shown with the exclamation mark to indicate end-of-line. The check box in the marriage record can be used to indicate that there are no children linked to the marriage. If there are children linked, then that box is grayed-out because the presence of a child makes the option invalid. If an individual has marriage records and every one of them has the This couple had no children checked, then that individual is end-of-line but there is no symbol to indicate that like it does for the never married individual. In summary...Legacy already allows both situations to be recorded but does not display an end-of-line symbol for someone with marriage records and no offspring. Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
It's unfortunate that the linking occurs via the marriage record. Many children both throughout history and currently are born without a marriage. But it sounds like it may be imbedded deep in the coding. I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a marriage really isn't what is usually called a marriage. Legacy's use of the word marriage appears to just mean the linking of people, and it may or may not signify a formal marriage. Lee -Original Message- From: Ron Taylor [mailto:doit4...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:40 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages Pat (and others), It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables. One for individuals and another for marriages. There are many other tables that also come into play to store various things. If a person is linked to another person it is done with the marriage record. That record can link spouses and children of the marriage. Without a marriage record there are no connections to other individuals. It's that simple. snip Ron Taylor Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] marriages
Y'all are making such a fuss. Do the other database programs have options to have the relationship as domestic partner, lover, live-in boyfriend, wife-wife, husband-husband etc? If so, then switch to one of those if it serves your purposes. I have had no problem with Legacy in this regard. I agree with Don. When you start changing the traditional definitions you are opening a can of worms. Legal definitions vary from state to state (and country to country). Most of our research occurs in the past when traditional definitions were in place. You can easily edit sentence definitions to accommodate anything you want. Each child has a set of biological parents no matter if you know who they are or not. A child can have adoptive parents which is easily handled. You can easily have a single parent that raised a child with or without the benefit of a marriage certificate. If you have a couple of the same sex that have adopted a child (or perhaps one of those is the biological parent as well) you can easily arrange that in Legacy with some wording changes. Even if you have this type of relationship, it will be the exception not the rule. The overwhelming majority of the relationships in your database will be a more traditional situation. Bottom line, if Legacy doesn't meet your needs then switch to something that does. You can make suggestions to Legacy but they are under no obligation to act of these suggestions (trust me I know, I have suggested several things that haven't been implemented). If I felt that strongly about these suggestions I would switch to another software that has what I need. That is the nice thing about having different options to choose from. michele Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] marriages
michele Well said, and “That’s about all there’s to be said.” Thanks, David C Abernathy Email disclaimers This message represents the official view of the voices in my head. http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus == From: Michele Lewis [mailto:ancestor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages Y’all are making such a fuss. Do the other database programs have options to have the relationship as domestic partner, lover, live-in boyfriend, wife-wife, husband-husband etc? If so, then switch to one of those if it serves your purposes. I have had no problem with Legacy in this regard. I agree with Don. When you start changing the traditional definitions you are opening a can of worms. Legal definitions vary from state to state (and country to country). Most of our research occurs in the past when traditional definitions were in place. You can easily edit sentence definitions to accommodate anything you want. Each child has a set of biological parents no matter if you know who they are or not. A child can have adoptive parents which is easily handled. You can easily have a single parent that raised a child with or without the benefit of a marriage certificate. If you have a couple of the same sex that have adopted a child (or perhaps one of those is the biological parent as well) you can easily arrange that in Legacy with some wording changes. Even if you have this type of relationship, it will be the exception not the rule. The overwhelming majority of the relationships in your database will be a more traditional situation. Bottom line, if Legacy doesn’t meet your needs then switch to something that does. You can make suggestions to Legacy but they are under no obligation to act of these suggestions (trust me I know, I have suggested several things that haven’t been implemented). If I felt that strongly about these suggestions I would switch to another software that has what I need. That is the nice thing about having different options to choose from. michele Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] marriages
Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not *possiby* know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.comwrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split the two statements, at least it could say, never married and had no known children. Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not *possiby* know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.comwrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Are you looking for something other than the marriage box where you can say that the couple never married and separately you can say that they never had children? We already have that on the upper left corner of the marriage editing box. Or is there something else that you are referring to? God bless, Ellen On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Pat Hickin wrote: Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split the two statements, at least it could say, never married and had no known children. Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not possiby know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.com wrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Finally have to jump in here. While I agree that there are a myriad of ways to describe what constitutes a family, all I expect from a software program is to be able to chart the relationships and link them together. In my opinion Legacy already offers all of the options we need to label these relationships any way we want. Aside from getting hung up over the words marriage or relationship I just view the marriage information window as the system that lets me link two people (or more) to a child. Consider the following situtations: Person A and Person B marry and have a child clearly we don't need to use the boxes never married and never had children whether in the individual windows or marriage window Person A has a child with Person B. Buut they never married so we check the box this couple did not marry in the marriage information window. Never had children does not apply to either. It's a separate box on this screen as it needs to be. Person B above now marries Person C and they have a child and you proceed as usual, or don't have children together and we check the this couple had no children in the marriage information window. Again, it's separated here in the MARRIAGE WINDOW as it needs to be. If Person A never marries and never has children, the combined box is appropriately located in the personal information screen. I certainly have no problem checking this if I want to indicate to myself that AS FAR AS I KNOW this person had no issue and this is a dead end. To me it's just taking up valuable screen space to separate the two on this screen. Of course we may not know for sure if someone ever had children. We also may not know for sure if they ever married. I also don't know whether they like spinach or are vegetarian! We record what we know or what we feel comfortable recording. If you are not sure then DON'T CHECK THE COMBINED BOX. Isn't that simple. I'm trying hard to imagine a situation where I would be comfortable say checking never married but then saying gee I don't know if he fathered any kids here and there. Maybe I shouldn't check that combined box. If you don't know and it bothers you, don't check it then. Just my two cents worth. Mary On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Ellen kramer...@comcast.net wrote: . Are you looking for something other than the marriage box where you can say that the couple never married and separately you can say that they never had children? We already have that on the upper left corner of the marriage editing box. Or is there something else that you are referring to? God bless, Ellen On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Pat Hickin wrote: Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split the two statements, at least it could say, never married and had no known children. Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com wrote: Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact something that we can not *possiby* know!! Pat On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe geneal...@gillandtony.comwrote: Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because Legacy must create a marriage record whenever a child is added to a parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred. It is frequently easy to tell that a person never married. It is usually impossible to state with any certainty that someone had no children. Can we please split the This person never married and had no children fact into two separate facts? Thanks Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages duplicating
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:26:08 -0800, rfvanwasshn...@gmail.com wrote: By the way am I double posting? My Gmail shows my 2 previous posts on the thread doubled (One with my name and one with my email). This is something new. I am not seeing a double post. You can always check the archives to make sure. -- Dennis Kowallek (LTools) http://zippersoftware.com/ltools http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ltools Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages duplicating
Since you are using gmail to send the message you may be seeing your sent message, from the sent folder, and the email from the list, from the in box, in the same conversation as gmail terms it. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com We are changing the world of genealogy! When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence. Thanks. hstov...@gmail.com wrote: hm - well, it isn't from sending it in HTML, as I made complete sure I sent this in plain text - and I'm seeing the two again. I suspect still that for some reason, Gmail is seeing it as a different message than the one originally sent. I wouldn't worry about it. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] marriages duplicating
I have had this problem before, but don't recall why. My Legacy 7 file began to have two and three instances of the marriages of couples. I can remove the second and third instance by using the unlink button - not the delete. So I am cleaning it up. But it is annoying and time-consuming to do so, and I don't want to put the database out to anyone else until it is cleaned up. What did I do that caused this to happen? Thanks, Mary E. V. Hill -- maryevh...@gmail.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] marriages duplicating
I've had this too after merging duplicate husbands and wives. The 2 extra RINs are deleted but the extra MRIN remains after the merge. -- Richard Van Wasshnova http://www.gencircles.com/users/vanwasshnova http://gw.geneanet.org/vanwasshnova On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, maryevh...@gmail.com wrote: I have had this problem before, but don't recall why. My Legacy 7 file began to have two and three instances of the marriages of couples. I can remove the second and third instance by using the unlink button - not the delete. So I am cleaning it up. But it is annoying and time-consuming to do so, and I don't want to put the database out to anyone else until it is cleaned up. What did I do that caused this to happen? Thanks, Mary E. V. Hill -- maryevh...@gmail.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
