Child before wedlock to another

championi · Post by **championi** » 30 Sep 2006 13:04

I have just discovered that one of my relatives had a child before she got married to someone else before having d 2 otherkids in wedlock...how do I add the first one ,in order that it doesnt show to be related to the father of the
2 others after wedlock..thanks

ID:1876

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 30 Sep 2006 13:41

On the Main tab in the properties dialogue, click on a blank Spouse tab (half way down) as if to add a second husband... then click in the first child space to add a child without adding a spouse. Then you can use the up/down arrows beside the spouse tabs to re-order them

championi · Post by **championi** » 30 Sep 2006 20:43

Tried that I now have a blank box where the spouse should be ....on my old programme ..out of wedlock was shown by a small broken line..is it the same here..ta

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 01 Oct 2006 07:05

I think the blank box is right... the child has a father about whom you know nothing, though I usually use the (badly named) 'one box per marriage' view so you just get a blank name under the mother. Occasionally of course one does know the father's name.

There's been discussion elsewhere about broken lines and the like. I expect it's on the wish list somewhere.

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 01 Oct 2006 07:44

P.S.

If you'll pardon a bit of preaching... Personally I rather dislike the idea of highlighting people just because their parents didn't have (as far as you know) what you would think of (based on your, rather than their, cultural norms) as legitimate marriage. We've found it surprisingly common in these large Victorian families for the first child to be born before the marriage. Some are clearly of the same father, some clearly not, but in many cases, we'll never know... such things were not talked about.

championi · Post by **championi** » 01 Oct 2006 15:20

SORRY its not a moral thing about wedlock....it was the result of a one night stand during the war with a soldier...lol...[grin]

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 01 Oct 2006 16:57

Sorry, that sounded more aggressive than I meant it... When I said 'you' I meant 'we' i.e. genealogists in general... but it sort of proves the point. You do in fact know something about the father, in 194-something he was a soldier. Now you have a box to put that in.

Family Historian User Group