In the Marriage Staus drop down menu please add Bigamous.
Edit - Admin:
This is covered by
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=399
ID:4539
* Minor Addition Required
-
barbara348
- Diamond
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 03 May 2010 19:23
- Family Historian: None
Minor Addition Required
Hi, would it be possible to also add Widow/Widower in the Marriage Status drop down menu please?
Just wondered.
barbara.
Just wondered.
barbara.
-
ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 4854
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Minor Addition Required
As I understand it, the marriage status is associated with a family (couple) not an individual, so it wouldn't be appropriate to include widow/widower. Also, 'widow/widower' doesn't make much sense on its own without the dates for which it applies.
I could however make good use of 'bigamous' as a marriage status.
I could however make good use of 'bigamous' as a marriage status.
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
-
PeterR
- Megastar
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: 10 Jul 2006 16:55
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Northumberland, UK
Minor Addition Required
I agree with Cole Valley Girl.
However, since this field is not standard GEDCOM, but is merely an FH extension, I can see no reason why users should not be able to enter any appropriate text, e.g. 'Bigamous', 'Civil Partnership', etc.
In fact there has been a Wish-List item for Editable marriage status drop-down list (399) since 22/07/09, but it has not yet had many votes.
See: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=399
However, since this field is not standard GEDCOM, but is merely an FH extension, I can see no reason why users should not be able to enter any appropriate text, e.g. 'Bigamous', 'Civil Partnership', etc.
In fact there has been a Wish-List item for Editable marriage status drop-down list (399) since 22/07/09, but it has not yet had many votes.
See: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=399
Peter Richmond (researching Richmond, Bulman, Martin, Driscoll, Baxter, Hall, Dales, Tyrer)
-
PeterR
- Megastar
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: 10 Jul 2006 16:55
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Northumberland, UK
Minor Addition Required
I've added the following comment to the above-mentioned wish-list item:
Strictly speaking 'Marriage Status' in FH is implemented by using the GEDCOM extension tag '_STAT' which links directly to the FAMily record, not to a MARRiage event linked to the FAMily record. It is possible for a given FAMily record (representing the partnership of couple of INDIviduals) to have more than one MARRiage event, e.g. Burton & Taylor. It may also be the case that a couple could have two MARRiages, the first of which was bigamous, and the second was regular, e.g. following divorce or death of the earlier spouse. In such cases, a status of 'bigamous' would apply only to the first MARRiage, not to the entire FAMily record (as would be the case if the _STAT tag were used). Perhaps it would be best just to use a NOTE or TYPE (aka 'Descriptor') attached to the relevant MARRiage event?
Strictly speaking 'Marriage Status' in FH is implemented by using the GEDCOM extension tag '_STAT' which links directly to the FAMily record, not to a MARRiage event linked to the FAMily record. It is possible for a given FAMily record (representing the partnership of couple of INDIviduals) to have more than one MARRiage event, e.g. Burton & Taylor. It may also be the case that a couple could have two MARRiages, the first of which was bigamous, and the second was regular, e.g. following divorce or death of the earlier spouse. In such cases, a status of 'bigamous' would apply only to the first MARRiage, not to the entire FAMily record (as would be the case if the _STAT tag were used). Perhaps it would be best just to use a NOTE or TYPE (aka 'Descriptor') attached to the relevant MARRiage event?
Peter Richmond (researching Richmond, Bulman, Martin, Driscoll, Baxter, Hall, Dales, Tyrer)