* A view please on placing GRO Sources

[donone]

I am tidying up and simplifying by using Expressions under the tutilage of tatewise's recent suggestions. In doing so I have been using Indices and that threw up the following question.
A GRO Marriage record consists of two parts, unlike a Church Record.
I would appreciate views on the placing of the Sources.
At present, for both partners I include both halves, A marries B and B marries A.
Is it better to only cite with A that A marries B and with B that B marries A?

Are there any foreseeable problems with either method or is one method correct and another wrong?
Thank you

[LornaCraig]

An entry in the GRO marriages index for A's marriage will show a Registration disctrict, Volume number and Page number. If A married B the entry for B's marriage will show exactly the same district, volume and page. (If they don't match, you have got the wrong people married to each other!). So you only need to cite the GRO index once, and record the district, volume and page somewhere. This could be recorded in the note field for the marriage or in the Source pane.

The marriage event is a family event, so the event and its source(s) will automatically be linked to both parties to the marriage.

[tatewise]

For a Marriage Event you cannot have one Citation for partner A, and a different Citation for partner B.
The reason being that a Marriage Event is a Family Fact linked to the Family Record of the couple.
So all Citations linked to that Marriage Event apply to both partners.

Essentially I have a single Marriage Source Record that is cited by the Marriage Event that records the Marriage Certificate details, and both GRO Index entries, often with Multimedia images for all three.
I presume you use Ancestral Sources to capture your Marriage Records.

MarriageRecord.png (23.14 KiB) Viewed 7060 times

[donone]

Thank you both very much for your input both of which I understand, however, although the GRO Records show the same Place and Book/Page, the two Records differ in the Name of the person printed on the page.
The reason I produced two Sources was precisely that the two 'images' are different and one needs both of them to actually 'prove' the marriage, one is not enough. To my mind I considered that I must be able to prove I had 'seen' both.

Is the suggestion that I enter a single Marriage Source but somehow include two 'images'? All good ideas come after the event and result in lots of changes.

No I have not used Ancestral Sources to capture this Event. I obtain the images and create a Source Record and then cite that entry to the two people involved; manually.
I have a need to be able to detect that a marriage, say for the Husband, is his 2nd but for the Wife, her 1st and for the other Wife, her 1st, etc. in order to attach icons via the excellent suggestion of Expressions rather than Flags. It means that I am marking the Source Record Type as GRO M1 or M2 and the Church Source Records as Church W1 or W2. The end purpose is to see easily what is missing and also detect when none are missing and show this by colouring the boxes via expressions.
It is going well and works, but I am having to use [<3] etc. to cover how many Source entries there are. That raised this question because there will always be two GRO Records per Marriage as I have done it.

I have not studied Ancestral Sources and have thus not become aware of any advantages that may be gained in this situation and of course there is always the concern of changing lots of data if it is different.
I enter everything manually in the appropriate boxes.

[LornaCraig]

Is the suggestion that I enter a single Marriage Source but somehow include two 'images'? All good ideas come after the event and result in lots of changes.

Personally I don't save images of the GRO index because I know I can easily find the entries again if I need to, once I have recorded the district, volume and page. (I do however always look at the images online to make sure the transcription I have found is accurate). If you do save the images then linking them to a single source for the marriage event is the way to go (as Tatewise has in his example, with the marriage certificate also linked). This is because the marriage is a family event linked to a family record, rather than to two separate individuals.

I have a need to be able to detect that a marriage, say for the Husband, is his 2nd but for the Wife, her 1st and for the other Wife, her 1st, etc. in order to attach icons via the excellent suggestion of Expressions rather than Flags. It means that I am marking the Source Record Type as GRO M1 or M2 and the Church Source Records as Church W1 or W2. The end purpose is to see easily what is missing and also detect when none are missing and show this by colouring the boxes via expressions.
It is going well and works, but I am having to use [<3] etc. to cover how many Source entries there are. That raised this question because there will always be two GRO Records per Marriage as I have done it.

This does make things more complicated, and I can see why you have created separate source records for the two GRO entries for each marriage. But what are the source records linked to? If they are both cited by the marriage event then both sources will apply to both parties. Perhaps you could also link each source directly to the appropriate individual, but this would be unconventional. No doubt Tatewise will come up with some neat solution!

[davidm_uk]

May be a bit long winded but here's what I do when capturing GRO Index entries:

From having the first entry displayed in your browser, open the second entry in a new browser window

(in Ancestry for example, where in the first entry it says "find spouse" I right click on that and select open in a new window, the in that window click on the spouse to display their index entry.)

Now resize the two windows so that the index parts display next to each other as nearly as possible, then use a screen capture program (Win7 comes with the Snipping Tool, there are free ones available for ealier versions of Windows) to just capture both the indexes together and save that as one picture file.

Marriage Index ANC - James Smith and Mary Totman (m1839) (1).jpg (62.2 KiB) Viewed 7036 times

That's now the multimedia record that I attach to the source. I create separate source records for index entries and certificates, but you could just have one source with both index image and a scanned image of a certificate attached.

Hope this helps.

[donone]

I thank you both for your useful comments and feel that I may be better served to be as conventional as possible, who knows what will occur down the line if I am not.
I think I will compromise on your comments, I do like having the images for completeness and be able to show others the evidence, but yes, despite my liking for where I was going, having both images in one appeals. I will then have a single citation.
I actually believed that I was attaching the citation to each partner of the marriage, that was until just now, when I deleted one and it disappeared from the other. There is much to learn.

Having said that I had better stop and read the manual for Ancestral Sources.
Gratefully
donone

[tatewise]

If you go back to my screenshot, and scroll to the bottom you will see both Index details in the Note field.
Perhaps what you have not realised is that you can link an unlimited number of images to the Multimedia tab of one Source Record.

Ancestral Sources eliminates much of that tedious & repetitious manual data entry, and ensures consistent data formats using a variety of Templates.
I would expect AS to achieve exactly what you do now, but with less effort. It is used by many FHUG members.
See the tutorials at ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources.

Check the how_to:using_flags_and_icons_and_expressions|> Using Flags and Icons and Expressions and towards the bottom there are examples for multiple Marriage Events.
You will have to expand them somewhat to test if a 1st, 2nd, 3rd,... MARR exists and if so does it have a suitable SOUR.
e.g.
=IsTrue(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.SOUR%) and IsTrue(Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR%)) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.SOUR%)) and IsTrue(Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR%)) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR.SOUR%)))

One thing to notice about Facts on the Facts tab of Property Box is the colour of the left-hand bullet.
Blue bullets signify an Individual Fact for this Individual.
Red bullets signify a Family Fact for the couple.
Silver bullets signify an Individual Fact for a Child Individual.

[donone]

Thank you for your further comments.

tatewise said: Perhaps what you have not realised is that you can link an unlimited number of images to the Multimedia tab of one Source Record.

It is becoming obvious to me that there is rather a lot that I have not realised. Certainly the above and also the colour of the dots red, blue, silver. This is probably due to falling into the trap of eagerness of being a hare and not a tortoise.

I have just read the AS manual and feel sure that it could save a lot of work, so I shall experiment.

Regarding multiple Marriages: As I said I added Source Type as GRO M1 etc. and then produced the following by testing with Format for a Text Box on the diagram...
=ContainsText(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.SOUR>_TYPE%,"GRO M1",STD)
=ContainsText(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.SOUR[<3]>_TYPE%,"Church W1",STD)
=ContainsText(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.SOUR>_TYPE%,"GRO M2",STD)
=ContainsText(%INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR.SOUR[<3]>_TYPE%,"Church W2",STD)
to place the icons on the diagram. I had to differentiate 'his' M2 with the two 'her' M1s. It does work but I had a few jiggles with the indices. I feel that with all the advice I have received today, I may have been heading into a maze, never to be seen again.

I take on board all I have been told and will read more so that I don't get caught by coloured dots and the like.
Thank you.

[tatewise]

Some pieces of advice.

As illustrated in how_to:using_flags_and_icons_and_expressions#more_example_query_icon_condition_expressions|> Using Flags and Icons and Expressions to test a Source Type use =IsTrue( %INDI.FAMS>MARR.SOUR>_TYPE% = "GRO M1" ) because it is shorter, and as Expressions get more complex, brevity is important as there is a limit to their length.

Work through the FH tutorials in Help > Book: "Getting the Most From Family Historian 5", where among many other things it explains about the coloured dots.

Experiment on the Family Historian Sample Project because it does not risk upsetting your main Project.

When wanting to detect if any sources are missing, you may find Query Reports &/or Record Window Columns are more convenient than Diagrams.
Essentially they use the same or sometimes simpler Expressions and the tabulated format is easier to inspect.
In particular Query Reports can just list the subset of Individuals with the missing sources, or any other criteria you choose.

[donone]

Not a question but I feel I must thank you tatewise, for your kind assistance and very valuable, sound advice which obviously comes from much time spent with the program. I shall morph from a hare to a tortoise.

As you will note I have been with this program since the early versions. My problem (not yours, the program's, or anyone else's) is that after learning I have gone away for a year or more at a time and upon return have forgotten what I learned.
I think I remember, but it is patchy and causes the problems I have.
I know I should read instead of asking, but some of the reading does not seem to answer what I try to do, which is probably wrong in the first place. Witness the business of trying to icon M1-M2 W1-W2 multiple Marriages, they now work perfectly (though your Expression is simpler). On the advice of others I changed the Sources from one per person, (how stupid using two) and now do not require the Sources to be annotated as M1 etc. simply GRO M or W for all.

Regards