* Empty boxes on a diagram

[mezentia]

I have several instances of illegitimate children in my tree, and when I display, say, a descendent chart, the "fathers" for these children appear as empty boxes alongside the mother's box on the diagram. Rather than having to hide them every time I refresh the diagram (frequently if using AS), is there a way for the empty box not to be displayed at all?

[mezentia]

I have just noticed that this behaviour only seems to occur if the child is added when the mother is recorded as married.

[tatewise]

This is a well know 'feature' that has been discussed many times before.
See Wish List Ref 517 Option to Omit Blank Boxes in Diagrams when only one parent that you can Vote for.

I don't understand how the mother can be Married (i.e. have a Marriage Event) if the child is illegitimate and has no father.

[neil40]

This is a well know 'feature' that has been discussed many times before.
See Wish List Ref 517 Option to Omit Blank Boxes in Diagrams when only one parent that you can Vote for.

I don't understand how the mother can be Married (i.e. have a Marriage Event) if the child is illegitimate and has no father.

I sort of understand this, as I have a family of 3x great uncle and aunt, who I found in a census with several children, all with his surname, so I'd recorded the family with him as the father.
At a later date, I found the youngest daugher was born before the marriage and baptism was with her surname.
I have now adjusted the record to show her name with the mothers maiden.
I have no definitive proof of the father being the man she married.
I unlinked the father I had thought it was and don't get blank boxes on diagrams

[LornaCraig]

I don't understand how the mother can be Married (i.e. have a Marriage Event) if the child is illegitimate and has no father.

Perhaps mezentia means that when the mother is married to another partner the illegitimate child can only be added by creating another (unnamed) partner as the father. That unnamed partner then appears as an empty box in diagrams. Although if these empty boxes are hidden in diagrams their offspring are also hidden, so perhaps this is not what he means.

However when the mother does not have any other partners it is possible to add the child without any father at all. This can be done in a diagram, by dragging the mouse down from the mother's box to Add Son/Daughter. There is then no box in the diagram for the father. If the mother subsequently acquires a partner who is not the child's father this partner needs to be added on the second spouse tab of the Property Box, otherwise the illegitimate child will automatically be linked as his child.

[tatewise]

Lorna, mezentia has not yet replied to my comment, only neil40 has offered some other scenarios.

I think as discussed before, the 'proxy' missing father box rules are somewhat vague.
The Wish List request would make the box display a specific option.

If the missing father box is hidden the offspring are still shown descending from the single parent.

Yes, if the single parent with offspring never has another Family partnership with a Marriage event then the missing father box is not displayed. However, as soon as they marry somebody then the box appears!

[mezentia]

Oops, I did do a quick search but didn't pick up on earlier conversations about this.

Illegitimate means, in my cases so far, child of an unnamed father before the mother marries, or the child of an unnamed father when the mother is married; Lorna's analysis is quite correct. If the empty box is hidden on the diagram then the illegitimate child does not appear directly connected to the mother, but I have not yet checked all chart scenarios for this to say that the behaviour is consistent.

[LornaCraig]

Lorna's analysis is quite correct. If the empty box is hidden on the diagram then the illegitimate child does not appear directly connected to the mother, but I have not yet checked all chart scenarios for this to say that the behaviour is consistent.

Perhaps Mike can tell us which scenario he has found where the offspring are still shown after the empty box is hidden?

(BTW sorry I didn't spot that it was Neil, not you, who posted just before I did.)

[ColeValleyGirl]

The behaviour depends on ordering as well as on what sort of empty box we're talking about.

Case 1:

A marries A1 and has a children, has another child with a 'missing person', and another child with 'unnamed person'.

If I hide the box for 'missing person' the child is shown linked to the single parent.

If I hide the box for 'unnamed person', the child vanishes.

Case 2:

A marries A1 and has a children, has another child with 'unnamed person', and another child with 'missing person'.

If I hide the box for 'missing person', the child vanishes.

If I hide the box for unnamed person, the child is shown linked to the visible parent.

[tatewise]

I did say:

as discussed before, the 'proxy' missing father box rules are somewhat vague.

[LornaCraig]

Well that's certainly an added complication! I hadn't realised the order of 'unnamed person' and 'missing person' made a difference.

I have just discovered another complication. Because I work with diagrams I add a child of a single parent (who has no other partner) using the drag-and-drop method described in my previous post. This works fine, and there is no box displayed for the 'missing person' at all. As long as the mother never acquires another partner the 'missing person' never has a box. It doesn't need to be hidden because it was never there. However I now find that if the mother later acquires another partner a box does appear for the 'missing person' and it has to be hidden.

Intuitively I feel that 'missing person' should never have a box (and the child of the missing person should always be displayed attached to the single parent) , while 'unnamed person' should have an empty box, such that when their box is hidden the child is also hidden. The order in which the various children are added should not affect this. Nor should the existence or otherwise of any other partners.

[ColeValleyGirl]

However I now find that if the mother later acquires another partner a box does appear for the 'missing person' and it has to be hidden.

Yes, I spotted that when I was experimenting. I wonder if it's because there 'has' to be a way to make a distinction between two children with different parentages

Intuitively I feel that 'missing person' should never have a box (and the child of the missing person should always be displayed attached to the single parent) , while 'unnamed person' should have an empty box, such that when their box is hidden the child is also hidden. The order in which the various children are added should not affect this. Nor should the existence or otherwise of any other partners.

Except how would you display two children of the same mother and two different (but both missing) fathers, to make it clear that they're half-siblings and not full siblings?

[LornaCraig]

Yes, I spotted that when I was experimenting. I wonder if it's because there 'has' to be a way to make a distinction between two children with different parentages

In that particular scenario after the 'missing person' box appears it can be hidden and the child remains attached to just the mother in the diagram, so there is still a distinction between that child and any children from the later partner.

Except how would you display two children of the same mother and two different (but both missing) fathers, to make it clear that they're half-siblings and not full siblings?

Not sure, but I think I would have the two children descending from separate vertical lines from the mother, instead of a single vertical line descending to a horizontal line which links the children. However I can see that leaves great scope for ambiguity!

[AdrianBruce]

... Except how would you display two children of the same mother and two different (but both missing) fathers, to make it clear that they're half-siblings and not full siblings?

I must admit that in a case like that I'd either create two individual records with empty data apart from a note that says "Not the same person as the father of X" or just leave it and insert a note somewhere saying that "Father of X apparently not the father of Y". If the two fathers are unknown, I struggle to see how I could justify claiming that they are different people. (Emigration between child X and child Y might be a good basis for that claim... Or DNA?)

I know that there are those who regard my creation of dummy, empty (aside from notes) individual records as naughty...

[mezentia]

I have an instance of 5 children being born to one mother all by different fathers. The identity of only two fathers is known for certain: of the others one is reputed to be a native American, but that is family legend, and probably not true; one is reputed to be Czech, but probably Polish; and the third a steelworker whose identity is surmised but not definitfively. However, this is an unusual case and as such I have created records for the fathers in case their identity does come to light, e.g. via DNA testing.

I have no issue with recording the childrens' birth with a blank father to denote that a father's identity is not known. This would clearly indicate what is known at the time and create a separate paternal lineage for each child. If it can be subsequently proved that two of the unknown fathers are the same, then this can be remedied by merging the two father's records. For display purposes however, it would be useful to have the option to show or hide boxes for unknown fathers, and if the boxes are hidden, then all the children with unkown fathers collated into a single stem from the mother.

[tatewise]

So please Vote for Wish List Ref 517 Option to Omit Blank Boxes in Diagrams when only one parent as I notice you have not done so yet.

[mezentia]

Vote cast.