TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-11 > 1036602240


From: "James P. Colgate" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] TIP OF THE DAY: Marking unmarrieds
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:04:00 -0500
References: <ea.30b2be5f.2af9d4dc@cs.com>


Ah, the Family Group Sheets. Now this makes so much sense -- I would like
to easily spot the information that a person was never married on this
sheet. So I think the custom tag I'm making now, will be linked to the
imaginary person "never married". Thanks for the great tip, Teresa. Let
the dust bunnies sit and multiply!

I also think my Tag will be called something line "Marr No/Child No" -- the
idea that this is tag is for people who were never married AND had no kids.
So I guess then I'll have a different tag for those who were married (or
marital status is unknown) but whom I know to have had no kids -- "Children-
No", or something like that.

Someone earlier asked "how do you know that the person was never married?"
This is always a concern. If the source I'm relying on simply doesn't list a
spouse, then I won't presume -- and I therefore won't add my custom tag
"Marr No/Child No". If the source actually states "never married", I'll
parrot that info and cite the source in my footnotes. But this is always an
issue -- in one major published genealogical opus, my Henry Laverty King is
said explicitly to have "never married", but I know from other sources that
he indeed was married and widowed. (the book that got it wrong was Cuyler
Reynolds's "Genealogical and Family History of Southern New York and the
Hudson River Valley").

Again, thanks for the tip.

James Colgate
Sharon, CT
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TMG] TIP OF THE DAY: Marking unmarrieds


In a message dated 11/5/2002 5:25:21 PM Central Standard Time,
writes:


> One question, though. It seems that linking the person to this
imaginary
> spouse has only the benefit of being easily able to discern that the
> subject person is never married when one sees the person in family view
> (I'm still on v.4.0(d)). Is that the only benefit -- i.e. versus a
simpler
> never married tag without attaching the imaginary spouse?
>

For me, there is the benefit of seeing it in the person view, and on
Family
Group sheets, and in reports since my sentence says this line is not
continued.
Teresa Ghee Elliott


==== TMG Mailing List ====
Send all messages and replies to <>.

This thread: