Designation of unmarried partners #unitedkingdom


Naomi Fellerman <nfellerman@...>
 

Dear all

I am sure this question has probably been asked before, but given that
in modern times a percentage of us live with our partners without being
married, how does one record this on the family tree? Any suggestions
welcome.

With warm regards

Naomi Fellerman
London UK


Evertjan. <exjxw.hannivoort@...>
 

Naomi Fellerman wrote on 13 mei 2005 in soc.genealogy.jewish:

I am sure this question has probably been asked before, but given that
in modern times a percentage of us live with our partners without being
married, how does one record this on the family tree? Any suggestions
welcome.
In my personal family tree programme,
marriage is just a common bond entry,
as could be what we in the Netherlands call
"[other forms of] registered partnership".

Genealogy is about offspring, so there the parents' bond is primarily
defined by that offspring, so in the record of the child[ren].

Adoption, and other forms of growing up in another family are important and
should be recorded, but are not the primary genealogical structure.

--
Evertjan Hannivoort.
The Netherlands.
(Replace all crosses with dots in my emailaddress)


Stan Goodman <SPAM_FOILER@...>
 

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:31:11 UTC, nfellerman@projectd2k.com (Naomi
Fellerman) opined:

Dear all

I am sure this question has probably been asked before, but given that
in modern times a percentage of us live with our partners without being
married, how does one record this on the family tree? Any suggestions
welcome.

With warm regards

Naomi Fellerman
London UK
If you stop to think about it, there really isn't much connection between
genealogy and marital status. Genealogy is all about family history and who
is whose descendant/ancestor. Nothing in that changes if a couple is married
or is not.

If there are no children, it probably doesn't matter much if you include the
spouse or not, but if the relationship is stable, and everyone regards them
as a permanent couple, you may feel you should show them as such. It's your
database, and the rules are yours too.

What does bring the question up is the fact that virtually all the family
trees that people have been making lo these many years have a rubric for
showing date and place of marriage (and so do my own trees). The tacit
assumption is that all couples are married, which was largely true,
certainly among traditional Jews, until quite recently. Now that it isn't a
given, the real question is what do you put in those blanks for an unmarried
couple in a stable relationship. If there is nothing to put in them, you
might just leave them empty.

--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Searching:
NEACHOWICZ/NOACHOWICZ, NEJMAN/NAJMAN, SURALSKI: >from Lomza Gubernia
ISMACH: >from Lomza Gubernia, Galicia, and Ukraina
HERTANU, ABRAMOVICI, LAUER: >from Dorohoi District, Romania
GRISARU, VATARU: >from Iasi, Dorohoi, and Mileanca, Romania

See my interactive family tree (requires Java 1.1.6 or better). the URL is:
http://www.hashkedim.com

For reasons connected with anti-spam/junk security, the return address is
not valid. To communicate with me, please visit my website (see the URL
above -- no Java required for this purpose) and fill in the email form
there.


Harvey <harvey@...>
 

My genealogy software won't "allow" a couple to be together if they are not
married! Can't be done. I have to amend the family tree outputs each time to
"annul" non-marriages.

Harvey L Kaplan

Glasgow, Scotland


KAPLAN,FAYN,FEIN,FINE,BARSD,GRADMAN
- Ariogala, Josvainiai, Kedainiai, Krakes, Seta, Veliuona, Lithuania
FELMAN,MIL(L)ER,ROSENBLOOM - Kamenets-Podolsk, Shatava, Balyn, Ukraine
TROPP,STORCH - Kolbuszowa, Cmolas,Galicia
LINDERMAN,SCHLACKMAN -Plock,Poland


Max & Bertha van Dam <berthavd@...>
 

My genealogy software won't "allow" a couple to be together if they are not
married! Can't be done. I have to amend the family tree outputs each time
to "annul" non-marriages.

Harvey L Kaplan

Glasgow, Scotland
If you have the genealogical program of Brother Keeper you can say either
married or not married for a couple. This solves the problem.

Bertha van Dam
Rechovot
Israel


Ann Rabinowitz <annrab@...>
 

Family Tree Maker software has the following options for couples under
"Beginning Status":

Friends
Married
Other
Partners
Private
Single
Unknown

These categories just about cover all situations and they are particularly
helpful when the couple share children, are lifelong partners, or you want
to keep track of their family genealogy as well.

If you don't want to handle the situation in any of those categories either
because the person did not share any children with your relative or they may
not have been the only partner or for religious or other reasons, you can
click on "More" next to where you input the information about your relative.
The first column is entitled "Fact" and you can fill in "Partner" or
whatever designation you want to use as a new fact and then in the
"Comment/Location" column you can put info about the partner.

Ann Rabinowitz
annrab@bellsouth.net


Harry Gross <harry144@...>
 

Stan Goodman wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:31:11 UTC, nfellerman@projectd2k.com (Naomi
Fellerman) opined:
<snip>
I am sure this question has probably been asked before, but given that
in modern times a percentage of us live with our partners without being
married, how does one record this on the family tree? Any suggestions
welcome.
<snip>
What does bring the question up is the fact that virtually all the family
trees that people have been making lo these many years have a rubric for
showing date and place of marriage (and so do my own trees). The tacit
assumption is that all couples are married, which was largely true,
certainly among traditional Jews, until quite recently. Now that it isn't a
given, the real question is what do you put in those blanks for an unmarried
couple in a stable relationship. If there is nothing to put in them, you
might just leave them empty.
I use a program called The Master Genealogist (which I'm sure many of
you have at least heard of:-). It is flexible enough that you can list
multiple names for people, tagging them with different purposes
(including religious, married, etc.).

It can default to creating a married name for a woman when a marriage
record is created, or not (at your discretion). Very flexible. Very
nice. Sort of solves the problem, too:-)

Harry


Alice Josephs
 

Sounds bad when software, Hitchhiker-Guide-to-the-Galaxy style, starts
making judgements like a virtual disapproving parent!!! <grin>. I
don't know whether this has already been said as I get the digest, but
there is certainly software which does have the option of "partners"
(I use Reunion for Mac and the now sadly defunct Windows equivalent
Generations) and there may be a way within the software of creating the
option of partners, I'm pretty certain Family Tree Maker does have an
option for partners as well. if it does not exist within the standard
family card of your software, check in the Help section, if you do not
have a printed manual, for information on creating a new option.

Alice Josephs UK
JABLUSZKO ROZENBERG Ciechanow DON GOLDMACHER GURMAN Pultusk, Poland.
STERN (STARR) Heppenheim HERZ Kochendorf MARKUS Otterstadt, Hainchen,
Roedelheim GRUEN GRUENEWALD Roedelheim HOCHSCHILD Gross Rohrheim
MAYERFELD Biebesheim, Germany
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~genealice/


Beverly Shulster <gettingbttr@...>
 

Naomi Fellerman wrote:

I am sure this question has probably been asked before, but given that
in modern times a percentage of us live with our partners without being
married, how does one record this on the family tree? Any suggestions
welcome.
My program allows for "partner", so that is the way my S.O. and I are
designated. As someone mentioned, as long as there aren't children it
doesn't really make much difference, and even if we had children I
wouldn't really care. It is only a computer program :-)

Something more interesting in my family is a cousin whose partner is
another woman.... The one partner shows up as female and the other
partner as male and there is nothing I can do to change that. So
whereas their prospective child will actually have two mothers, the
parents will show up in my program as being mother and father!

I have no doubt that just as "partner" showed up in the later versions
of my software, same-sex partnerships will also be fixed in later
versions of the various tree programs. Progress!!

Beverly Shulster
Yehud, Israel
bbevy@012.net.il


Dream Builder <dreambuilder@...>
 

I use "nm." vs. "m." Some computer genealogy programs allow for some type of
"not married" designation. In text, I use "didn't marry" rather than
"married". This method is clear about the relationship without drawing
unneccesary attention. I generally only note such a relationship when there
are children of the couple.

Examples (names fictitious):

David FRIEDMAN nm. Rebecca BENJAMIN
David FRIEDMAN m. Rebecca BENJAMIN

David FRIEDMAN didn't marry Rebecca BENJAMIN
David FRIEDMAN married Rebecca BENJAMIN

Vicki Ina Friedman
Ball Ground, GA, USA
dreambuilder@tds.net
Researching: BECK, CHORNEY, DUBIN(SKY), FRIEDMAN, LISANSKY, SK(O)LOFF,
THURLIN / TURCHIN, ZAYDELMAN / ZEIDELMAN - Russian Empire to USA abt. 1900


Israel P
 

Even the DOS program I use allows you to put Y or N in the marriage
field. If you say "N," the print-outs say "and" rather than "married."

It does not however allow certain modern devices such as gender changes and
unigender relationships.

(Perhaps in anticipation of the future, it doesn't disallow sibling marriages.)

Israel Pickholtz


Sally Bruckheimer <sallybru@...>
 

This is actually 2 possible questions:

1. The Genealogy Program Question: If the couple has no children, the
'non-family' partner could be indicated in notes rather than in the 'Spouse'
position - which would require the person to be assigned the opposite sex,
offending same sex partners. I am reminded of a friends Uncle and his
friend, Dickie, who was his partner for more than 20 years - everyone knew,
so there would be no point in keeping it secret, but you couldn't easily fit
Dickie in as the 'wife' of the Uncle.

If the couple has children, then you might want to make the partner a
'Spouse' despite the sex/marriage issues, but I would suggest the notes
instead; in the Spouse position, I would put simply 'See Notes'. This way
there is a 'couple' (ie marriage) where you can assign children, otherwise
children would apparently be the offspring of another existing marriage.
The program that I use allows one to include dates for User-Specified
Events, so you could even include a 'Commitment Ceremony' or 'Civil Union'
where appropriate.

2. The Family Question: How much do you spread the word that cousin Whatsis
is in a Unmarried/Same Sex/Whatever relationship or has children by whoever
or no known person. It depends on how open the immediate family is about
this; today there is little stigma in some families, so include all these
notes when you include other notes.

However, there are more sensitive situations in which you might make
yourself notes, but mark them (as you genealogy program might allow) not to
print; this way, you can simply say Whoever had the following kids, and
forget about the sensitive details about the partner or whatever is
sensitive. If you print things for someone, obviously kids need to be
included, but not the circumstances of their birth. I use this for the sad
details that I know of for a distant cousin who escaped the Holocaust but
had a difficult time adjusting in the US. His close family does not talk
about it (I don't know if they know somebody told me), so I don't spread it
around.

Sally Bruckheimer
Chatham, NJ


jeremy frankel
 

Dear Listers,

Many people have responded about whether a genealogy software program
can accommodate an unmarried couple. However, the technical aspects
of the program are of secondary nature when compared to the
sociological and personal preferences of the family genealogist.
Apart >from the potential sensitivity of the issue if "broadcasting"
the issue in a printout (or not), there is the issue of what does
married or unmarried mean? Is one married if only a religious
ceremony is carried out, or does it have to include a civil "union"
process as recognized by civil law?

Secondly, this issue has been raised before and people have generally
come down firmly on one side of the fence or the other. I think it is
important to record all the facts and all pertinent information "just
in case." One could end up in a situation if your connection to the
couple was via the female (if it is a heterosexual couple), one could
argue that by not recording the information we would be reverting to
the situation of the "missing female." The couple, be they same sex
or not, may not be married, but they may have created a legal
situation whereby one partner is to become the executor or have legal
responsibility in the case of medical illness.

Hence I think there are many good reasons for denoting the
information. I think that we as genealogists ought to be the last
ones to deciding what is or what isn't a relationship.

Jeremy G Frankel
ex-London, England
Berkeley, CA, USA


Yisrael Asper
 

I disagree. The job of a genealogist is to decide who is related to who.
Just living together is a piece of information to be included in the family
tree or not, but was not setup to be a relationship for genealogy neither
can a close friend be listed as a relative and you can be as close a friend
as any two friends can be, close or even closer than family. The only time
marriage has been recognized by a community as not needing to be recognized
by the state is when there has been persecution involved. Whether we like it
or not however if the state accepts gay marriage that is a relationship of
some sort like adoption.

Yisrael Asper
Pittsburgh PA USA
yisraelasper@comcast.net

Dear Listers,

Many people have responded about whether a genealogy software program
can accommodate an unmarried couple. However, the technical aspects
of the program are of secondary nature when compared to the
sociological and personal preferences of the family genealogist.
Apart >from the potential sensitivity of the issue if "broadcasting"
the issue in a printout (or not), there is the issue of what does
married or unmarried mean? Is one married if only a religious
ceremony is carried out, or does it have to include a civil "union"
process as recognized by civil law?

Secondly, this issue has been raised before and people have generally
come down firmly on one side of the fence or the other. I think it is
important to record all the facts and all pertinent information "just
in case." One could end up in a situation if your connection to the
couple was via the female (if it is a heterosexual couple), one could
argue that by not recording the information we would be reverting to
the situation of the "missing female." The couple, be they same sex
or not, may not be married, but they may have created a legal
situation whereby one partner is to become the executor or have legal
responsibility in the case of medical illness.

Hence I think there are many good reasons for denoting the
information. I think that we as genealogists ought to be the last
ones to deciding what is or what isn't a relationship.

Jeremy G Frankel


Sally Bruckheimer <sallybru@...>
 

"The job of a genealogist is to decide who is related to who"

I disagree with this statement. It isn't our job to decide who is related, but to
record the lives of our ancestors (and their assorted families which affect them).
As such, living with an unmarried 'significant other' is a part of an ancestor (or
cousins) life. Exactly how far into 'cousins' of various degrees we reach is a
matter of preference - I know of a genealogist who keeps track of those who live
next door and upstairs of relatives - theyalso affect the ancestor's life.

Similarly, I don't think it is our place to decide what is a marriage. If a couple
married only religiously or only civilly, we record what went on in the person's
life - assuming the person is related in such a degree that we would record
his/her life. If they married not at all, that is still what happened in their
lives.

Similarly, adoption is not our decision; in the past children were sent off to
relatives at times, nobody asked for a court order; my gr grandmother was sent by
herself >from Pommerania in 1859, first class at age 11, to what I assume were an
aunt and uncle (after her mother's death). Do you think that I would ignore this
important part of her life for lack of adoption papers? She inherited their
considerable wealth - they obviously thought that she was family, closer than the
'provable' family that didn't inherit.

I don't think that anyone can decide for anyone else what 'should' be recorded,
those are personal decisions, but if we want a valid record of what affected our
ancestors, that included the Holocaust, all sorts of wars and disasters, and
different marriage customs and adoption customs.

We must not allow our prejudice as to what is 'proper' today, like court adoption
papers, to stand in the way of what was perfectly proper (or even improper, but
done) in the past. We record what did happen as best we can.

Sally Bruckheimer
Chatham, NJ


Yisrael Asper
 

I did not say that a genealogist should not record the lives of their
relatives. I wish more of it was done when I do research sometimes. The fact
I was referring to is that if a genealogist wants to although to me it
removes too much of the joy of genealogical research is that he or she (see
I am inclusive of female genealogists) can just note who is related to who.
Sometimes a case of living by someone is not what you would want to include.
My mother was a hidden child. If the war had ended a moment later her mother
(her first father was killed in the Holocaust) would have taken her back at
that moment rather than later. My mother lived by others not in the sense of
being sent to be raised partially by others but out of the fact that she was
to be saved. It was not meant to make an impact. With some it helps talking
about the Holocaust. With others it is best to let the past be the past. I
like to try and penetrate as much as I can but the fact that she was not
adopted puts a wall I need to have. I cannot meet those she stayed by
assuming any are still alive. It would be too much for me and too much for
my mother.

Yisrael Asper

Pittsburgh PA

yisraelasper@comcast.com

<We must not allow our prejudice as to what is 'proper' today, like court adoption
papers, to stand in the way of what was perfectly proper (or even improper, but
done) in the past. We record what did happen as best we can.

Sally Bruckheimer
Chatham, NJ>


Naomi Fellerman <nfellerman@...>
 

I want to thank everyone for their comments on this subject, I feel
personally that it is important to record relationships that are
marriages in all but name even if there are no children involved. The
partners do effectively become part of each others families, and imagine
future generations looking at photos asking "Who's that with Aunt/Uncle
....?" and no-one knowing even if they had spent 20 or more years
together. I will be looking at changing the software I use to one that
allows me to add "partners".

Regards to all

Naomi Fellerman


Naomi Fellerman <nfellerman@...>
 

I want to thank everyone for their comments on this subject, I feel
personally that it is important to record relationships that are
marriages in all but name even if there are no children involved. The
partners do effectively become part of each others families, and imagine
future generations looking at photos asking "Who's that with Aunt/Uncle
....?" and no-one knowing even if they had spent 20 or more years
together. I will be looking at changing the software I use to one that
allows me to add "partners".

Regards to all

Naomi Fellerman