GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2007-04 > 1175526587


From: "Cheri Casper" <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] unknown spouse
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:09:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001501c774b7$f94f27e0$031211ac@tower>


Pierre - If you want to spin off a small sample of your database including
the problem people and sending it to me, I'll see if I can pinpoint the
problem.

CheriC

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]On
Behalf Of Pierre Vivequin
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 4:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] unknown spouse


Bonjour Linda,
Many thanks your reply, which will be especially useful in present day
scenarios.
I tried replacing the missing (unknown spouse) by a bogus one as you
suggest,
used the Married-Not event to link them
Single box for couples set to NO,
DropAlignment to LinkCentre
Contents Events to include Married--Not
But I still get exactly the same chart as before except that the blank
absent partner is now identified.
The descendants dont emanate from the lady, nor even from the LinkCentre as
all others do, but still from the guy!
The problem gets deeper as I tried marrying them and deleted the Married-Not
event, but I still get the same link anomaly.
Repair, CheckLinks, CheckFiledCodes, RefreshData, Reboot - still the same...
Do you sometimes get this? I've seen it before but cant recall the
circumstances.
But this no longer seems to be related to illegitimacy!
I'll keep trying... but thanks again your help.
Pierre

----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Bridge" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] unknown spouse


> Pierre
>
> I too have this occurring several times in my tree, although I don't
> perhaps perceive it as a problem in the same way that you do. As I see it
> every child has two parents. Without wishing to get into the areas of egg
> or sperm donation (which will no doubt cause endless problems for future
> researchers) every child has to have two parents, so I would not want to
> record a solo birth. I tend to use the "not married" event and enter the
> father's name, giving a sort date prior to the birth of the illegitemate
> child. If the father's name is unknown I would give him an identifier of
> something like unknown partner of the mother's name. Creating a
> descendant chart with the option for a single box for couples set to No,
> shows the child coming from the Mother's box, although it does show the
> father's name below her.
>
> Best Wishes
> Linda
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Pierre Vivequin <>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 1 April, 2007 3:42:23 AM
> Subject: [GENBOX] unknown spouse
>
>
> I love Genbox for its powerful graphics, but I've got a wee problem with
> this one:
> Madeleine had an illegitimate son in 1795, got married some 15 years later
> and then had legitimate children.
>
> In Genbox, Madeleine's family1 shows (unknown spouse) and Family2: the
> name of her ultimate husband.
> This is all correct, except that (unknown spouse) gives the wrong
> impression that with additional research, a spouse for family1 may
> eventually turn up.
>
> On Madeleine's descendants graph, its worse because the link to her son's
> branch emanates from a blank spouse box (as if the unknown father was the
> solo parent!), whereas I consider it should be directly from Madeleine's
> box who gave her maiden name to that branch. In fact, the blank spouse
> box should not even be there.
>
> Is there a way to record a known solo birth by opposition to a birth from
> a yet unknown spouse?
> Deleting that marriage event does not seem to help.
> Regards
> Pierre
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: