Family Historian User Group

I want to do a quick query to show all known burials in my tree for a certain location.

Since most people are buried once I do an Individual Query and pull in the burial details and put a parameter query into the rows tab:

%INDI.BURI[1].PLAC>% is ["Burial"]

And that works ...

Except married women tend to be buried under their married names! So I am doing battle with the FH functions and expressions again (which seem to behave logically but in a completely different way to any other coding system I have met) which gives me serious brain ache!

So in pseudo code create a column expression:
1) If a Husband exists use the last husband's surname, otherwise use birth surname
2) Then concatenate ", " and the given names.
then sort on that column

For line (1) I can specify "a spouse" or "the husband of a specified couple", but to explicitly say if an individual had a husband you seem to have to say if (female and has a spouse):
Which seems messy? There must be a cleaner way to deduce someone's "final name" (ignoring deed polls etc!)

For line (2) %INDI.NAME:GIVEN_ALL% should do the trick, but how do you concatenate it? This should be the simplest bit:
. ? No (although this seems to work elsewhere)
+ ? No
& ? No
space ? No
And I am not even sure what to look for in help!
Do they not work in column expressions?

(You can't change :SURNAME in part 1 to :SURNAME_FIRST because in some cases you want the husband's surname and the wife's given names!)

If I could get into the right brain warp, I'm sure this should be easy!

Try this approach.

If last Spouse is Male then use his Surname concatenated with her Given names,
otherwise use Surname_First for men and unmarried women. You were nearly correct with using dot to concatenate text, but it must be inside a Text(...) function.

Yup, that does it!

Originally so near yet so far.

Thanks

Sometimes you have to use inverted logic.
Instead of checking this person is Female and has a Spouse, check if this person's last Spouse is Male.
That excludes men and unmarried women as required, but with one test instead of two.
Text concatenation is just one of those things you have to commit memory.
Sometimes you even have to enclose a simple data reference within Text(...) to force say a Date into Text format.

Yet I use an RPN calculator!

One enhancement now I can see my way:

Wow! I'd forgotten about RPN.

Does not adding 'Burial Place' to the record list provide the same answer?

I presume you mean the Records Window for Individuals?
No, just adding Burial Place (%INDI.BURI.PLAC%) does not help, because David wants to see the burial name of the person, and for married women that involves the Surname of her last Husband instead of her Maiden Surname.

Correct,
I am doing a series of one-name type mini-studies to try and break down a few C18th brick walls. This involves using Family Search to review parish records (In Cumbria I have found their transcriptions to be generally reliable).

So using the batch number filter I can call up all Baptisms/Marriages/Burials for a particular parish and check using these queries, which ones are not known to me.

Using a query allows me to Browse "Place" and filter according to that place.

• Baptisms are the easiest as you usually only have one and most of the time the surname is the family surname
• Marriages are trickier as you can have multiple marriages, so it has to be a fact based query. Getting the Fact Owner sorted by Surname is a bit tricky but

  Code: Select all

  =FieldText(FactOwner(%FACT%,1,MALES_FIRST),'INDI.NAME:SURNAME_FIRST')

  does the trick. I have however yet to adapt it to reflect a woman having a second marriage under her first married surname (etc.). There are are a number of such in my relatives tree, but only one in my direct ancestral tree and she had the good sense to choose a second husband with the same surname as her first (yet to prove if they were related).
• Burials again should be one off events so you can do an individual query but the tricky bit is to handle women's burials under their last husband's surname - hence this topic.

Within a cluster of parishes I am likely to find no more than a dozen distinct families, but I need to trace them back as much as I can to see if they link either to each other or to families in Dumfries which is where the family to rumoured to have come from. (I have a similar puzzle with a family that comes from Colchester but is rumoured to have Huguenot roots despite the surname appearing to be deep rooted in Essex)