* Ambiguous Same Sex Relationships

[rfj1001]

Putting to one side the fact that genealogy research has its amusing moments and bizarre events, I've got a bit of a problem on how best to enter data so others seeing it don't get confused.

After a few years of searching for info on the wife of someone in my tree (who is named as Mrs K xxxx in a WW1 attestation record), I've come across a 1945 newspaper article that indicates that in 1901 the husband married 'Kate' not knowing he was a man. They did though stay together until at least 1945. The single name given of the wife is maori and it would have been a NZ wedding although I haven't found a record yet.

How best would I enter this info on FH, particularly the sex difference and their relationship which might not have been an actual marriage but a long lasting relationship.

Tx

[BillH]

I would probably enter them both as Male and set the marriage status to Unmarried Couple.

Bill

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'd enter them both as Male (which they ostensibly were, although we can't know for sure about Kate, medical science not being then what it is now) and as a Married Couple (which is what they believed they were and lived as for 40-odd years) and add a note describing the unusual aspect of the situation.

If you subsequently become convinced they never actually married, you can change the Marriage Status accordingly.

[deniselmf]

Putting to one side the fact that genealogy research has its amusing moments and bizarre events, I've got a bit of a problem on how best to enter data so others seeing it don't get confused.

After a few years of searching for info on the wife of someone in my tree (who is named as Mrs K xxxx in a WW1 attestation record), I've come across a 1945 newspaper article that indicates that in 1901 the husband married 'Kate' not knowing he was a man. They did though stay together until at least 1945. The single name given of the wife is maori and it would have been a NZ wedding although I haven't found a record yet.

How best would I enter this info on FH, particularly the sex difference and their relationship which might not have been an actual marriage but a long lasting relationship.

Tx

Wonderful! I've run across, or heard about, similar situations a couple of times over the years. There have even been genealogy software that specifically including additional gender designations that helped with similar situations -- Ancestors & Descendants (ended Jan 2000) had five gender designations and Genbox (ended late 2007) had an additional gender designation (Other).

Based upon the one item of information you identify, I would list the couple as 'married' and the wife as 'female' in FH. The source, at least at this point, would be the newspaper article. As you seem to know the general area of residence for the couple through the years, you will probably locate other records to support this relationship.

Not knowing the exact situation, locating information about Kate prior to the relationship (marriage), or after 1945 (to include death and burial) would certainly be interesting. Early information for Kate might however be difficult to locate. Locating early records would pose the same problems of locating pre-marriage records for a wife for whom you do not know her maiden name.

Best of luck with expanding this interesting family,

Denise Moss-Fritch

[rfj1001]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've now sourced the newspaper article on her death which was written following an interview with the husband. He describes his wife throughout as 'she' so it seems the best thing to record her sex as female but with a note to indicate she was biologically a man.