* Census - adding new individuals (2nd question)

[davidm_uk]

Fairly often, when adding census details, I come across an individual who is described as grandson/daughter, but who is not already in my FH data, and it's not obvious from the census entry who the parent(s) are. At this stage I have to add them as an unrelated individual, albeit with the relationship set as grandson/daughter.

They then seems to end up as an unconnected individual in FH, and it's quite easy to forget they are there, so later on if I find their parent(s) I end up entering them again as a new individual, and eventually might discover the duplication.

I've had similar problems when grandparents, cousins etc appear in the census.

How do others deal with this situation?

[tatewise]

While it is fresh in your mind, why not add them to a Named List of Unrelated Individuals.

I know you have to remember to run it from time to time, but there is the poorly named Standard Query Search For Orphans, which actually lists members of Relationship Pools, with smallest Pools first, so Unrelated Individuals who are in a Pool of size one, all get listed at the top.

[margarita]

With grandchildren I just add another (unnamed) child to the grandparents and add the grandchildren to him/her until I find out who they really belong to. I tend to choose the sex of the new child depending on the surname of the grandchild/ren.

As soon as I have completed adding that census entry to FH I try to identify who the new grandchildren belong to.

I hope this makes sense.

Maggie

[davidm_uk]

Mike,

Perhaps I'm not understanding the concept of Pools.

I ran the Search For Orphans query and it showed a huge number in pool 1. Selecting a random individual, double click to display their record, and they belong to quite a large family, with both parents, a lot of siblings, one grandparent, one set of gt grandparents.

The criteria for the query are all greyed out/blank, so I couldn't work out what it was actually doing.

[DavidNewton]

As an alternative you could associate the grandchild with the grandparent. The Associates Tab
fhugdownloads:contents:property_box_tabs_associated_persons|> Property Box Tabs Associated Persons
is pretty much essential to make this useful. The net result looks like this

Assoc1.PNG (5.67 KiB) Viewed 8018 times

and you can switch between the property boxes of the two associates using the record button on the right.
Also you can add associates to the list of entries in reports so that they show up in the main section

Assoc 2.PNG (16.95 KiB) Viewed 8018 times

[davidm_uk]

Maggie,

So if I understand correctly you are adding an unnamed child of the grandparents, plus the grandchild into FH (while in the middle of the AS data entry, or before you start it?) then selecting the grandchild from the list of individuals in AS to add them to the census?

Doesn't this mean that you can end up with multiple [unnamed person] entries in FH until you have found the parent, and then worked out which [unnamed person] to give a the real name to?

[tatewise]

OK, Relationship Pools are automatically maintained by FH.

Any Individuals who are related by blood or by marriage are assigned to the same Pool.

Your primary and probably largest family group will all be assigned to Pool number 1.

At the other extreme any Unrelated Individual or Orphan has a solitary Pool number that is among the largest numbers.

By default the Search For Orphans Query lists these largest Pool numbers first, so the Unrelated Individuals or Orphans, each with their own Pool number, will be listed at the top of the Result Set.

It is a Standard Query, which are Read-only, so cannot be edited, but all fields can be viewed. If you wanted to refine it, then copy it to a Custom Query named say Unrelated Individuals, and you can edit anything.


Regarding the dummy Individuals that are added, they can be given an explanatory name such as Dummy Son of /JONES/. The grandchild would take their name from the Census.

[davidm_uk]

Thanks Mike, I think I understand that now!

[margarita]

Maggie,

So if I understand correctly you are adding an unnamed child of the grandparents, plus the grandchild into FH (while in the middle of the AS data entry, or before you start it?) then selecting the grandchild from the list of individuals in AS to add them to the census?

Doesn't this mean that you can end up with multiple [unnamed person] entries in FH until you have found the parent, and then worked out which [unnamed person] to give a the real name to?

In a word - yes.

Yes - I add the extra child during the AS entry process. When I have found the parents(s) of the grandchild I delete the extra child from the records.

Yes - I do end up with unnamed individuals but I don't have a problem with that. I also have unnamed individuals who have come up in 1911 Censuses where the number of children born to the marriage is more than I have already found - I just add the required number of extra children to the marriage and try to trace them later.

As I said , it works for me. It may depend on how big a database they have as to whether it works for other people and whether or not they like loose ends.

Maggie

[jmurphy]

I add a dummy child for cases where a census gives me "mother of 10 children, 7 living" and I don't know all 10 children.

But I prefer NOT to add dummy children to the cases where I have grandparents/grandchildren in census records. I add the grandchild and link him or her to the grandparent who is head of household, via the "associated persons" feature.

My principle is to reflect as much as possible what the information in the record is. The statement of the 10/7 children is in itself an assertion that 10 children were born to that mother, and that 3 of them are deceased as of that Census Day.

In the second case, the census record asserts that the head of household calls the child in the household a grandchild. That the child's parent is actually a child of the head of the household is only implied. This may sound overly fussy, but I've learned over time that it is treacherous to take kinship terms too literally. First of all, the usage of the terms changes over time, and secondly, I come from a culture that uses "aunt" and "uncle" as courtesy titles. Plus, people aren't always precise when they use those terms even when they know the precise relationship.

For instance, if you asked me to identify my grandmother's sister, I would very likely use the title "aunt". I know she's my great-aunt, but I never addressed her or any of her sisters that way.

With so much wiggle room, especially with blended families, I find it easier not to lock in the child as a direct descendant of the grandparent without more evidence. Linking them as an associated person and adding them to a Named List of children whose parents need identification, makes it easier to keep track of them while I figure out where they belong.