Family Historian User Group

What is the best way to deal with this situation -

In both the 1871 Census my 3x g grandparents William and Susannah had living with them Sarah, shown as grandchild.

I have used AS to create sources for both census records, but I do not know who the linking parent is, other than (presumably) one of William and Susannah's children!

So Sarah currently shows as an orphan entry - what is the best way to link her to her grandparents, when I don't know the parents

Peter,
I’d add another (Phantom) child to her Grandparents, and attach her to them as her parent. I’d add copious notes to the Phantom parents, explaining the situation. Then, when you find the correct parent, simply link the child to the correct parents, and unlink her from the phantom, then tidy up by deleting the phantom!

One approach often used is to create a ‘dummy’ child of the grandparents, with no name and unknown sex, and make that person Sarah's parent. Add a note to both Sarah and the parent explaining that Sarah was with the grandparents in the census but the identity of the intermediate parent is as yet unknown. If you later discover the identity you can unlink Sarah from the dummy person and re-link her to the correct parent, then delete the dummy person.

If Sarah's surname in the census is different from the grandparents’ surname you can be fairly sure the ‘dummy’ parent was female and was probably married, so look for the marriage. But if Sarah's surname was the same as the grandparents’ name you can’t assume the dummy parent was male because the parent might have been an unmarried mother.

[Edit: Gowermick's reply just beat mine!]

Thanks both,

I have already made notes on Sarah's record, but at the moment she is just an orphan entry, the dummy child of William and Susannah sounds the best idea.

I think I have found her birth index record but, as she is not a direct line ancestor, I am reluctant to spend money on a copy certificate at this stage, when there a more important questions to answer!

Just to report back,

I created a dummy child of William and Susannah, but FH7 would not allow me to link Sarah as a child of someone with their sex set as "unknown".

I think it is probable that Sarah is an illegitimate child of one of the elder daughters of the family, so I have assigned their sex as Female for now.

Little.auk wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2022 10:59

...
I have used AS to create sources for both census records, but I do not know who the linking parent is, other than (presumably) one of William and Susannah's children!
...

Don't get caught out (as I have done) by William having married multiple times and Susannah not actually being Sarah's grandmother.

The relationship "grandchild" is relative to the Head of Household - so (in the absence of other data) you only know the Grandfather to grand-daughter relationship.

I would handle the above situation as others have described - adding a dummy wife to William and then hanging the unknown parent off that relationship just makes it unnecessarily complex - but I would include in the notes comments about how you are verifying that Susannah is the grandmother.

Although that old staple FreeBMD does not show Sarah's mother's maiden surname at that sort of date the GRO indices ( gro.gov.uk ) will give the mother's maiden name - which is often the key to unravelling gaps in a ancestor-descendant chain. Searching the indices is free but requires registration.

Thanks for the GRO indices tip, I am already registered, so I will search it this morning.

There is no question of multiple marriages for either William or Susannah I have their marriage details, their census records from 1841 to 1881 and both of their death certificates (they died within 5 weeks of each other in 1887)

The relationship to "Head of Household" is not always reliable - as I know to my cost with this same couple!

In the 1851 census William was away from home, so Susannah was recorded as "Head". Also listed was a William Farrand shown as Father. As a result Ancestry, Find My Past (etc. etc.), all transcribe her as Susannah Farrand. Most of the tree builder's on these sites have run with this and built completely incorrect family trees for both William and Susannah, despite the fact that they conflict with all the census data with respect to birth places and dates.

I spent more than 18 months searching for the births and marriage of William and Susannah but could find nothing that fitted using the names and places inferred from the census. However, I have now confirmed that William Farrand was not Susannah's father, he was William's (who was illegitimate and took his mother's surname).

Little.auk wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 10:52

... In the 1851 census William was away from home, so Susannah was recorded as "Head". Also listed was a William Farrand shown as Father. ... I have now confirmed that William Farrand was not Susannah's father, he was William's (who was illegitimate and took his mother's surname).

Ouch! That's complex in just about every step! Certainly you do have to think a bit creatively about some of those relationships on occasions but that one really is a bit off the wall...

Little.auk wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 10:52

n the 1851 census William was away from home, so Susannah was recorded as "Head". Also listed was a William Farrand shown as Father. As a result Ancestry, Find My Past (etc. etc.), all transcribe her as Susannah Farrand. Most of the tree builder's on these sites have run with this and built completely incorrect family trees for both William and Susannah, despite the fact that they conflict with all the census data with respect to birth places and dates.

I spent more than 18 months searching for the births and marriage of William and Susannah but could find nothing that fitted using the names and places inferred from the census. However, I have now confirmed that William Farrand was not Susannah's father, he was William's (who was illegitimate and took his mother's surname).

Another thinking ouch!

It is quite possible that when talking to the enumerator Susannah said William Farrand was her father, because if she said "father-in-law", the enumerator (given he had just written down Susannah's married name) would start realising that there was an illegitimacy or at least lack of frankness and that would cause far too many questions!

David,
I think your overthinking it, if what I’ve seen written on parish register is anything to go by! Sensitivity was not their strong point

She probably just used the affectionate term father when normally referring to him, so used the same term in answer to the enumerator.
Like a lot of husbands, who refer to their wives as mother

I think that the real lesson to learn from this is not to take every fact as gospel. Even "Official" documents can carry mistakes, misunderstandings and downright lies!

I have several examples in my family history, such as a baptism recorded as taking place 2 days before the birth, and a marriage certificate recording the groom's grandfather as his father and also showing him as deceased 9 years before he actually died.

Anyway thanks to the GRO tip. I have now found Sarah's parents, and answered the question as to why she was living with William and Susannah. She was the daughter of their eldest son George and his wife Elizabeth, and was born in 1865.

Elizabeth died in 1869 and George in 1870, so William and Susannah clearly took responsibility for her, as she was still with them in the 1881 census.

Gowermick wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 13:29

David,
I think your overthinking it, if what I’ve seen written on parish register is anything to go by! Sensitivity was not their strong point

More than possible, but I have scars from "under-thinking". "Never assume, it makes an ass / u & me"!

Parish registers can lack sensitivity - but I have found bishop's transcripts far worse - the person making the transcript sometimes think it his (/her?) duty to add a "commentary" - particularly for baptisms of illegitimate children! (Thinking of some Cumberland registers - Carlisle Diocese)

davidf wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 15:13

Parish registers can lack sensitivity - but I have found bishop's transcripts far worse - the person making the transcript sometimes think it his (/her?) duty to add a "commentary" - particularly for baptisms of illegitimate children! (Thinking of some Cumberland registers - Carlisle Diocese)

I came across similar in a rural Norfolk image. Of the 16 baptisms recorded on the two pages I think it was 6 or 7 that were marked illegitimate.

jelv wrote: ↑

30 Mar 2022 08:16

davidf wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 15:13

Parish registers can lack sensitivity - but I have found bishop's transcripts far worse - the person making the transcript sometimes think it his (/her?) duty to add a "commentary" - particularly for baptisms of illegitimate children! (Thinking of some Cumberland registers - Carlisle Diocese)

I came across similar in a rural Norfolk image. Of the 16 baptisms recorded on the two pages I think it was 6 or 7 that were marked illegitimate.

Oh in the transcriptions I was looking at the "natural" state was accurately transcribed - it was the "marginal" additional comments (not in the register) that the transcriber chose to add about his/her opinion of the mother and her morals!

This is not confined to parish records. I have even seen similar comments in a statutory registration of birth. The mother was recorded as "a widow whose husband died four years ago"!

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

30 Mar 2022 10:32

This is not confined to parish records. I have even seen similar comments in a statutory registration of birth. The mother was recorded as "a widow whose husband died four years ago"!

HaHa, must have been the longest pregnancy in history!

I dislike attaching people via the "dummy" parent method. It introduces an extra child, which causes confusion when I am tracking the child count.

I prefer to attach the child to the head of household as an Associated Person until I have more information about the child's relation to the household.

Do any programs have a sort of placeholder entity that can for instance sit between grandparents and grandchildren without messing with the child count - and where the sex does not have to be stated?

Possibly a way to tag an Individual Record to ensure that GEDCOM is not broken?