Family Historian User Group

Quick question, although it probably has 100 different answers. What is the best/easiest way to build a templated tree? Is it best to use the DEA / AS to add the person or to have the person already in the tree? I ask as I often find that when I am inputting a marriage certificate that some of the people that are on the certificates are relatives who are not already on the tree but will be (say a cousin) or in the case of a Scottish marriage cert the mothers. Obviously it’s mainly the cousins who are the problem as there will be an automatic place for the mother in the tree, but the cousins parents may not already be there. Any views on this.

I think it's less work to add them using AS or a DEA, although you might have to add parents etc. afterwards.

That was what I had been doing, but I was just wondering whether adding the parents and persons name was better that way you are always using an individual from the tree. I had started making my tree using templates and realised that when I added my marriage certificate witnesses, that all bridesmaids and best man were all relatives but their parents still hadn’t been added and that was when I started wondering what was the best way.

If you know they're cousins, don't you usually know who their parents are? And if you do, wouldn't you have added the parents and child to your tree already?

Sometimes working from a Newspaper report to see "the Bride's cousins Susan and Mary were the bridesmaids" - even if referred to as Miss X or Miss Y, you are sometimes no better off and you may well not know who their parents were?

In those cases, I'd add them as individuals liked to the relevant source (for the whole record as well as the name), and add a Research Note that I needed to identify their parents. They'd also be witnesses to the marriage.

Helen, I was originally trying to build a tree without adding anyone that I didn’t have a source for, so starting with my birth certificate and moving on from there. I got quite far, especially direct descendants but it fell apart a bit with the examples I gave I guess I’ll need to start looking into research notes a bit more and give up on my attempt.

In David's example, you *would* have a Source for them -- the newspaper report. It might be of questionable accuracy, so would need verification from other sources, but you wouldn't be adding a random name to your tree without any evidence at all