* Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

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
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

With the recent DNA discoveries I'm getting to the point where I want to integrate both, as I feel both are important to a "family" tree. However as discussed many times here before, it is fraught with complications, and even more so when exporting to other platforms.

I have been trying to find SIMPLE AND EXPORTABLE way to do this. For instance, I don't think all facets of FH transport to other platforms.

One interesting idea came from another forum (I think Geneanet):

"In order to include both sets of parents, I have entered the individual twice. She appears as Letty Rachel GILES with her birth parents, and also as Lettie Rachel CLOTHIER, with her adoptive parents. I was able to link these 2 names, and included notes to try and explain the situation....".

I can only think the "linking" was done by creating a "partner" as ASSOciations are poorly catered for in most programs. The creation of a partner would then tie them together, lose the "island", and provide a clickable link to the other "family"

Is there any other way to link them other than by Partner or Associations? Witness is a possibility, but not very exportable.

This should also work for step children, which might be a little easier as there is already a "cross link" via one of the parents.

The obvious downside to this is the doubling up of INDIviduals, and the unusual "partners" so naming of the individual say;
Joe (COPY for Adoption)/ Smith or Joe (FAM2)/ Smith
and explanatory notes would be important.

Any observations gratefully received (especially the messy linking), otherwise just another suggestion.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

Have you discounted multiple sets of parents as in how_to:recording_children_with_foster_adoptive_parents|> Recording Children with Foster/Adoptive Parents?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

Mike, I did have a play with that, perhaps I did it wrong but I got some strange results. I will check out again, especially to check exporting to Ancestry and Geneanet (my current favourite free sharing tree).
The other issue I have with various trees is having to keep "swapping" the "currently preferred" family.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by AdrianBruce »

Jim - not sure what you mean by "partner" but GEDCOM 5.5 does have
ALIA {ALIAS}:=
An indicator to link different record descriptions of a person who may be the same person
This is a cross reference to another individual and can be inserted in FH using the All Tab for a person, then Add Miscellaneous / Add Alias

But quite what that would look like in FH if you did it, what would happen to Pools, etc, I've no idea because I've never tried it.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

Nothing happens to the Pools, and anyway they are just an FH invention not a GEDCOM feature.

Also ALIAS links are virtually 'invisible' in FH Diagrams, Reports, etc.

And ALIAS links are not implemented in the majority of genealogy products as shown by https://www.gedcomassessment.com/en/com ... -chart.htm
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by AdrianBruce »

tatewise wrote: 07 Feb 2020 00:35 ... ALIAS links are virtually 'invisible' in FH Diagrams, Reports, etc.
... And ALIAS links are not implemented in the majority of genealogy products ...
Invisibility in FH was pretty much what I suspected - I'd seen no sign of the things anywhere but hadn't thoroughly checked.

Not being generally implemented elsewhere? Well, that's disappointing but not surprising (cue for various people popping up to say that the software that they used or wrote did implement them... Good for them!)

My one case where I have two individuals in FH that I suspect will turn out to be the same, I have covered by an Association, which, in my case, is documented with extra text in their boxes in the charts.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

Associations are also virtually 'invisible' in FH Diagrams, Reports, etc.
They have slightly better support in other products (3 more in https://www.gedcomassessment.com/en/com ... -chart.htm).
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

Thanks for those observations. I think I will experiment with "potential" lines first e.g.
Joe (FAM POSSIBLE 1) / Smith
Joe (FAM POSSIBLE 2) / Smith
Joe (FAM POSSIBLE 3) / Smith
then create PARTNERships to enable quick links.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by AdrianBruce »

tatewise wrote: 07 Feb 2020 11:48 Associations are also virtually 'invisible' in FH Diagrams, Reports, etc. ...
Indeed - I can get them onto a custom tab for individuals and into my text scheme for diagrams easy enough - though I needed some experimenting to work out which way the relationship text should appear (e.g. Masters and Apprentices would need to have the associative text the right way round if I used it for them) but I don't know of any way to get them into Narrative Reports. Maybe there is some code that could be written but I'm not sure what fact(?) it could be hung off to ensure a printed appearance...

Nor am I actually sure I need them in reports as the associations tend to be more notes for me than genealogical facts, if that makes sense.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

Yes, I understand, and to get Associations into Narratives you would have to adjust the Sentence Template of a fact that always exists such as Birth or add a custom Associations fact with its own Sentence Template.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

That's what I do with my associations. Works well. But as mentioned. Does not export well.

Also works well in a diagram.

I also have a property tab just for associations.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by AdrianBruce »

tatewise wrote: 08 Feb 2020 12:17 ... or add a custom Associations fact with its own Sentence Template.
An interesting thought... I had vaguely thought about hanging such a construct off the Birth event - because I always have one - errors & ommissions excepted! But chronologically that's possibly all wrong for associations alluding to real world events. But a custom fact could go into the appropriate place.
Adrian
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

back home now so here are my examples for ASSOciation.

<> Birth Sentence Template, not sure why I stopped at 10, I think there might be some restriction on the Sentence length, or I got fed up adding!
(the [] ____ etc is for later in my Word Macro for text formatting).

[][]____ {individual} ____[][] ::Parents= {%CUR_PRIN.~FATH[1]>NAME[1]%}({=LifeDates2(%CUR_PRIN.~FATH[1]>%,STD)}), {%CUR_PRIN.~MOTH[1]>NAME[1]%}({=LifeDates2(%CUR_PRIN.~MOTH[1]>%,STD)})<br> [] BIRTH: <{date:COMPACT}><: {_place}> < <br> {note}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[10]%}>

<> Property Box Tab see attached file "FH Property Box - Assoc tab for Individuals.fhpbt"

<> Diagram, add 2 lines to text scheme:
[1]
Description: text if association
=ExistsText(%INDI.ASSO[1+]%,"Assoc")
[2]
:%INDI.ASSO[1+]>%

1 is just to add some text if there is 1 or more associations
2 lists the associations separated by :
Attachments
FH Property Box - Assoc tab for Individuals.fhpbt
(1.57 KiB) Downloaded 135 times
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

Why does your Birth Sentence Template contain phrases for the following?
::Parents={father} (lifedates), {mother} (lifedates)
BIRTH: {date}: {place}

The standard Narrative Reports start each person with:
, son of {father} (lifedates) and {mother} (lifedates), was born {date} {place}

so your sentence will just repeat all that?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

Mike, its a while since I did this, but I think it was that "for my concise" fact by fact list I did not like the standard format, so when I run my word macro it deletes the standard.
So yes, not really needed.

The example was of course to show the ASSO usage.

EDIT: Just checked this out, later in the report there are situations where parents are not detailed with birth (I think the last set of descendants), so my addition does. In hindsight not sure if it is worth the effort and may remove it.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

just for interest I have produced:

[1] diagram picture showing the ASSOciations
FH ASSOciation in Diagram.png
FH ASSOciation in Diagram.png (16.56 KiB) Viewed 8338 times

[2] a stripped down report,
FH ASSOciation in report.pdf
(14.15 KiB) Downloaded 135 times
- showing ASSOCiations
- also where the parents details are not displayed e.g.:

2. [][]____ William Gollop, son of William Gollop and Hannah Culverwell, ____[][]
[] BIRTH: bef 22 Sep 1793: Angersleigh, Pitminster, Somerset, England


yet for her children (italics section below it in the report) there is no parent info. One could argue it is not needed, but I could not find an option to include. I would rather have the ability to exclude from the default:

10 Charlotte Gollop (bef1825- ). [][]____ Charlotte ____[][]
[] BIRTH: bef 21 Aug 1825: West Monkton, Taunton Deane, Somerset, England.
11 Elizabeth Gollop (bef1828- ). [][]____ Elizabeth ____[][]
[] BIRTH: bef 10 Feb 1828: West Monkton, Taunton Deane, Somerset, England.

etc


- using this revised Birth Sentence Template (without the extra parent section in my previous example)
[][]____ {individual} ____[][] <br> [] BIRTH: <{date:COMPACT}><: {_place}> < <br> {note}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[10]%}>

Edit P.S. My previous Birth Sentence with extra Parents option also gave the option to include birth-death years etc for them, rather than the limited default, particularly helpful for spouses.
Last edited by jimlad68 on 09 Feb 2020 14:55, edited 1 time in total.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by tatewise »

For that italics section the report should say immediately above it something like:
<mother> and <father> had the following children:
So why repeat that in the italics section?
Although it does not include the (life dates)
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
jimlad68
Megastar
Posts: 921
Joined: 18 May 2014 21:01
Family Historian: V7
Location: Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK (but from Lancashire)
Contact:

Re: Mixed "Biological", "cultural" etc and "potential" families.

Post by jimlad68 »

Mike, yes it does. But if there are say 2 spouses and/or there are a lot of facts to display, it is a long way to track back as the "auto" narrative is just something like "She and Joe Blogs had the following children".

We have to live with what is offered, and for all the flexibilities, there are "compulsory" bits that cannot be overridden.

As ever a compromise, as one thing might work well for 1 individual, but be cumbersome for another.
Jim Orrell - researching: see - but probably out of date https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68
Post Reply