* Partner (not spouse) designation

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile. If your question fits in one of these subject-specific sub-forums, please ask it there.
Post Reply
avatar
Kelly
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 Oct 2019 00:54
Family Historian: V6

Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by Kelly »

Hello,
I'm new to FH and to posting - so please forgive my lack of knowledge.

I see when I add a spouse or partner that the prompt actually says "Add Spouse/Partner" but the field label in the property box says "Spouse". That part poses no problem - I get that it's shortened and on-screen is just for me. But it appears as "Spouse" on reports. The status selection only seems to offer "unmarried couple" as the most appropriate designation. And when I publish an Individual Summary Report, it shows:
Spouse: (name)
Children: (names)
Status: Unmarried couple

Is there any way to change the report designation "Spouse" to "Partner" or even "Spouse/Partner" (to accommodate both)?
Is there any way to add a status selection called "Partner" that can be used instead of "Unmarried Couple"?

For those who are a bit sensitive about being "unmarried", "partner" is so much better - it indicates a choice rather than an inadequacy or a negative.

The Outline Descendant Report also shows "Sp" regardless of the status.

Would appreciate any help you can offer. Cheers, Kelly
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by tatewise »

Welcome to the FHUG Kelly.

Your observations are not new, but there is no easy way to change the Spouse labels in most Reports.

The Narrative Reports do get adjusted according to the Status value, and will say for example "had a relationship with" instead of "was married to" where appropriate.

In Descendant Outline Reports there is a Report > Options global setting to remove the Sp. prefix for spouses.

Otherwise, the only workaround is to use the Save Report As options for PDF File or Word-Processor Document (RTF) and manually edit the resulting document.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
Kelly
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 Oct 2019 00:54
Family Historian: V6

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by Kelly »

Thank you, Mike.

I'm a bit disappointed. FH is such a powerful and flexible program, with so much that I will probably never understand - I'd have thought that being able to make a customized status item would be an option. I figured I just didn't know how to do it. I'll use your work-around for my reports and continue to explore and enjoy FH.

Cheers, Kelly
avatar
Akersley
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 Jan 2022 13:31
Family Historian: V6

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by Akersley »

How do we make representations to calico pie about this matter? I find it offensive that my daughter's "partner" is marked as my "son-in-law" which he never was and never will be given that she has now married someone else?

Grateful for any help with this

Alex
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by tatewise »

Welcome to the FHUG Alex.

Where exactly are you seeing your daughter's partner being listed as "son-in-law"?

There are ways to affect such relationships, but the software default is to assume that a Family couple are married and you just have not found the Marriage details yet, unless you tell it otherwise.
In your daughter's Property Box, on the Spouse tab, where her partner is named, set the Status: to Never Married.
Then he should be listed as "daughter's partner".

You appear to be running FH V6 but in FH V7 there are now language translation features that can affect Reports, etc.
I have devised an English language pack that replaces Spouse with Partner, and similar translations, as appropriate.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
dbnut
Famous
Posts: 137
Joined: 05 Sep 2013 20:12
Family Historian: V7
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by dbnut »

Kelly wrote: 21 Oct 2019 19:59 I'm a bit disappointed. FH is such a powerful and flexible program, with so much that I will probably never understand - I'd have thought that being able to make a customized status item would be an option. I figured I just didn't know how to do it. I'll use your work-around for my reports and continue to explore and enjoy FH.
As a general observation, FH should not be the party to blame for inflexibility here.
It's a mantra of Calico (understandably and sensibly IMO) to stick to the current LDS GEDCOM specification.
Such *extensions* as they (Calico) provide help enormously to mitigate those limitations.
And it seems to me Mike Tate & The Team do a great job with custom workarounds for queries & reporting.

Until there is GEDCOM support for (legal) civil partnerships, and whatever new variants appear, we have only one marriage-type event - marriage itself.

Apart from those in a civil partnership, being unmarried is just that. Whatever the partners' sensitivities.
So censoring reports might be seen as untruthful. And ways to help in a "cover-up" could be a bit much to ask of Calico.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% sympathetic and generally unsatisfied with standard GEDCOM "partnership" events.
To paraphrase myself and expand on an earlier post:
  • A "family unit" does not necessarily get created only when partners marry (if at all). They may have children earlier.
    The unit does not necessarily end *only* at divorce or death of one partner. They may separate. (Even rejoin...!)
  • So, in my tree for example, I have a child or children born early and linked to parents before the marriage date.
    And children *apparently* (from the birth index detail) born to a husband a good while after his death.
    And who knows how to deal (from a genealogy tree perspective) with a wife's child by different biological father?
  • I have found it convenient to think of a GEDCOM family unit as just that - a pair of partners with the *biological* children they raised. To me that seems to be the essence of genealogy.
  • I have custom family events to record beginning *and end* dates for the "union", standing in for a possibly late marriage (or none) together with explicit termination by death, divorce or separation (if known or estimated).
    Of course, those dates almost certainly won't have the same precision as a marriage date, but for context I find it handy to list "families" with beginning and end "effective" dates.
  • "Complications" such as fostering and adoption don't really affect that picture.
    And a wife's children by a different father (when rarely identified) are linked to a different family (with possibly unknown father). There is no objection or barrier to such children being linked also to the main family unit with non-blood status.
Nerdy? Quirky? Sorry.
Paul White
"Family Historian is not just for Christmas, but for Life"
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by tatewise »

Paul, this is in danger of going off at a tangent and I may choose to start a new thread for that.
GEDCOM does support Civil Partnerships and any other type of partnership via the TYPE subsidiary tag to a Marriage Event.
GEDCOM 5.5.1:
Page 25 says:
The FAMily record is used to record marriages, common law marriages, and family unions caused by
two people becoming the parents of a child.
Page 29 says under EVENT_OR_FACT_CLASSIFICATION:
... Using the subordinate TYPE tag classification method with any of the other defined event tags provides a further classification of the parent tag but does not change the basic meaning of the parent tag. For example, a MARR tag could be subordinated with a TYPE tag with an EVENT_DESCRIPTOR value of 'Common Law'.
1 MARR
2 TYPE Common Law
This classifies the entry as a common law marriage but the event is still a marriage event. Other descriptor values might include, for example, 'stillborn' as a qualifier to BIRTh or 'Tribal Custom' as a qualifier to MARRiage.
See FHUG KB Recording a Civil Partnership that mentions the Fact Type Descriptor and a Wish List entry requesting CP to fully support the TYPE tag.

There is very little in your description of 'partnerships' that is not reasonably well supported by FH, except the TYPE tag.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
dbnut
Famous
Posts: 137
Joined: 05 Sep 2013 20:12
Family Historian: V7
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by dbnut »

tatewise wrote: 15 Jan 2022 17:12 Paul, this is in danger of going off at a tangent and I may choose to start a new thread for that.

GEDCOM does support Civil Partnerships and any other type of partnership via the TYPE subsidiary tag to a Marriage Event....

See FHUG KB Recording a Civil Partnership that mentions the Fact Type Descriptor and a Wish List entry requesting CP to fully support the TYPE tag.

There is very little in your description of 'partnerships' that is not reasonably well supported by FH, except the TYPE tag.
Thanks, Mike. I had intended to leave it at that, but by all means hive it off if you think that's better.

As usual you've spotted another big hole in my knowledge, which is more like a fishnet than anything substantial. And pointed me to highly valuable GEDCOM marriage "qualifiers" I knew nothing about and ought to use.

I would comment that to deal comprehensively with the issue of "common law" arrangements followed by marriage needs two MARR events in the family. Not a big deal, any more than adding banns, contracts, etc.

And I *suppose we could* use a differently-TYPEed MARR for becoming "unmarried". :D
Paul White
"Family Historian is not just for Christmas, but for Life"
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by tatewise »

No, you would NOT use a differently-TYPEed MARR for becoming "unmarried".
That would contravene the GEDCOM "event tags provide a further classification of the parent tag but does not change the basic meaning of the parent tag."
You would use the standard Divorce or Annulment events, or possibly the Extended Set, Separation event.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
dbnut
Famous
Posts: 137
Joined: 05 Sep 2013 20:12
Family Historian: V7
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Partner (not spouse) designation

Post by dbnut »

Thanks again, Mike, every day I try to get better & better. :lol:
Paul White
"Family Historian is not just for Christmas, but for Life"
Post Reply