This Help forum is for issues relates to webtrees 1.7. For issues related to webtrees 2.0, please use that forum.
Before asking for help please read "How to request help" by clicking on that tab above here."
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #1

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
I have set to have _NMR before "ANUL:



And yet "Annulment" appears before "Not married":



Is there any way, I can control this?

If this is OK then how should I denote that a particular engagement or relationship has ceased and have it after start of that relationship, if I don't have dates for any of these events?
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #2

  • fisharebest
  • fisharebest's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13364
> I have set to have _NMR before "ANUL:

This is just a list of possible facts. The order here is not important.

> And yet "Annulment" appears before "Not married":

It does not make sense to use "Not married" and "Married" on the same family.

Either: they married, or they did not marry.

It does not make sense to use "Anulment" and "Divorce" together.
But these are correctly sorted after the marriage.

> how should I denote that a particular engagement or relationship has ceased

For an engagement, you could use a date-range. e.g.

1 ENGA
2 DATE FROM 2003 TO 2006
2 NOTE ...
2 SOUR ...
Greg Roach - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - fisharebest.webtrees.net

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #3

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
> It does not make sense to use "Not married" and "Married" on the same family.

I have never said that this denotes a single family. This appears on an individual and denotes two "families". One marked as married (for this family order on individual is correct -- first mariage then divorce) and other one marked as "not married" / "free relationship" (for this family order on individual is incorrect, annulment comes before "not married").

> It does not make sense to use "Anulment" and "Divorce" together.

I don't agree with you (with above claim). I can easily imagine situation about single family (two individuals) who live together informally some time (i.e. 2000-2005) then break / cancel their informal relationship (a pair of "not married" + "annulment" needed) then after some time decide that can't live separately and come back together, but this time they marry (i.e. 2010-2015), but finally decide to break again (a pair of "marry" and "divorce" needed).

But, again, this is just an example / speculation. For my actual case, I am talking about how these four facts are sorted on an individual (two families), not on a single family.

> But these are correctly sorted after the marriage.

If you see this that way then there's no point to argue. I see it that "annulment" (or any other tag, if exists) is a closing element for an informal relationship pair, in exactly the same way as "divorce" is a closing element for a formal marriage pair.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #4

  • fisharebest
  • fisharebest's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13364
> I have never said that this denotes a single family. This appears on an individual and denotes two "families".

Sorry. Your screenshot did not show enough information to know if this was a family or an individual.

On the individual page, family events are sorted by family.

So, you have all the events from family 1, then all the events from family 2.

> (a pair of "not married" + "annulment" needed)

Annulment means cancelling a marriage. If there was no marriage, then annulment is the wrong fact to use.

You cannot use ANUL with _NMR.

ANUL implies that a marriage exists.
_NMR implies that no marriage exists.


MARR, DIV, ANUL are all *events*. Events happen at an exact place/date.

_NMR is a *fact*. Similar to OCCU or RESI. Facts apply to an individual over period of time. Facts often do not have a place.

So, you can add a date-range to the _NMR. e.g.

1 _NMR
2 DATE FROM 2002 TO 2004
Greg Roach - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - fisharebest.webtrees.net

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #5

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
Thank you for a detailed explanation.

From what you have written it seems that there is no way to denote begin and end of informal relationship as just a facts. That they occurred some time in past.

Your date-range solutions works just perfect, if you know these dates. If you don't and just would like to denote begin-end pair of an informal relationship (as you'd with married-divorce pair for a formal relationship) then it seems impossible. Am I correct?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #6

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
If you need to record two individuals living together without the benefit (?) of marriage and you must document the duration of that event, the GEDCOM 5.5.1 Standard (a structure for recording genealogy) does not provide a good way of documenting this information.

The only tag available deal mostly with marriage.

Therefore you must create your own events using the structure provide.
  1. I would first add the available "User Defined" fact _NMR to document that no marriage existed.
  2. Create a New Custom Event using the GEDCOM EVEN tag

The EVEN tag could be constructed as follows (the terms I am using may not be correct for the situation you are creating.

A couple dated for a number of years and it was important to note that they had been together for a time period but never married or considered themselves married. Create an EVENt

1 EVEN
2 TYPE dated
2 DATE FROM x TO y

This would allow this information to be one way to document this situation. Dates don't have to be exact you can indicate a "BEF x", "BET x AND y". x and y can be just a year or a year and month.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by norwegian_sardines.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #7

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
trejder said:

If you don't and just would like to denote begin-end pair of an informal relationship (as you'd with married-divorce pair for a formal relationship)

If you don't have dates or even approximations of begin and end times then what would be the point of having a begin-end pair? Events are by definition something that happened either on a date or at some point in time ("about 1854"). So I think you need to rethink what you are trying to do with this couple.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #8

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
Read the previous entries I made, this is a stream of conscious reply.

If Joe had a fling with a famous person, this would not to be recorded as a "FAMily" event at all.

This would be an event associated with Joe not a family. Families are for coupling of two individuals that generally has a duration and may either produce children -or- some form of stable relationship. So a fling would be an event on the individual only!
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Do you need a web hosting solution for your webtrees site?
If you prefer a host that specialises in webtrees, the following page lists some suppliers able to provide one for you: 

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #9

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
More in this stream of thinking about your assertions.

You said:

I can easily imagine situation about single family (two individuals) who live together informally some time (i.e. 2000-2005) then break / cancel their informal relationship (a pair of "not married" + "annulment" needed) then after some time decide that can't live separately and come back together, but this time they marry (i.e. 2010-2015), but finally decide to break again (a pair of "marry" and "divorce" needed).


If a couple were to marry then divorce.

Then 10 years later marry again, you should create two separate “Family“ records. By rule:

The occurrence of equal level numbers and equal tags within the same context imply that multiple opinions or multiple values of the data exist. The significance of the order in these cases is interpreted as the submitter's preference. The most preferred value being the first with the least preferred data listed in subsequent lines by order of decreasing preference.

. Therefore, two marriage tags would not indicate two marriage events but a conflict in data where the first tag is the preferred event. I would hold true that living together, parting for some period then recouping would required two family records as well.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by norwegian_sardines.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #10

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
Thank you for your long and detailed "stream of thoughts" :) Let me address just the most important (in my opinion) issues in it. This is just to conclude your findings, because you have correctly answered by question that it seems that GEDCOM does not have an out-of-the-box solution for me.

> If a couple were to marry then divorce. Then 10 years later marry again, you should create two separate “Family“ records.

This was just a theoretical example to address fisharebest's answer. In my "real" example I have, just as you said, two separate family records -- A + B and A +C -- where one is a marriage and second one is an informal relationship. Both had children (but that doesn't matter here).

We have slip into a discussion on what I want to achieve (a kind of natural thing here), but in fact I have already achieved it and I was only asking about a technical glitch, which turned out to be my misunderstanding.

> If you don't have dates or even approximations of begin and end times then what would be the point of having a begin-end pair?

The counter-question is similar: What is the point of having begin-end pair for a marriage, if you don't have dates? Some are using them (without dates) some are not. Some want to keep a track of the fact that a couple was married and then divorced (to distinguish them for a couples that were married until grave) and I wanted to do exactly the same with an informal relationship.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 5 days ago #11

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
trejder asked:

The counter-question is similar: What is the point of having begin-end pair for a marriage, if you don't have dates?

If you don't have dates you can still denote that they were married: 1 MARR Y Mark the yes box on the married fact. If they were divorced but you know not when, add a NOTE indicating that they were divorced. If they were divorced before one of them died, then you have a date to deal with "BEF x"
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by norwegian_sardines.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #12

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
And this brings us, all the way round, to the beginning of this question.

I know. I know that I can do this. For the marriage only. I cannot do this for an unofficial relationship. Because there is no corresponding "end" marker (like DIV), that would be a "closing" marker to "_NMR".

In other words, to summarize this discussion: It seems that GEDCOM does not have a way to denote begin and end of informal relationship, if you don't have date, in the same way is it allows to denote begin and end of formal relationship (marriage).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #13

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
If you don’t know dates (Or calculate a date) then start and stop “book-ends” make no sense for both formal and informal relationships. It is illogical to have and event that has no place or time.

Genealogy and in particular GEDCOM does not care about informal relationships unless a child came from that relationship.

_NMR is not GEDCOM it is a non-standard way of indicating that a couple never married. This is helpful to a genealogist that wants to show parents of a child born out of wedlock.

As Greg indicated previously, _NMR is a “fact” not an “event”. MARR and DIV are events. Facts are informative attributes of a person or relationship they don’t start and stop with dates. Events happen at a time and place, and generally have a duration.

An occupation is a fact, a death is an event. Family Records have only events in GEDCOM.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by norwegian_sardines.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #14

  • bertkoor
  • bertkoor's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Greetings from Utrecht, Holland
  • Posts: 1986
On the family: record an engagement until date of marriage, and put in a note with the romantic story of how they met etc etc.
1 ENGA
2 DATE TO MAY 1950
2 NOTE they were highschool sweethearts
1 MARR
2 DATE JUN 1950
stamboom.BertKoor.nl runs on webtrees v1.7.13

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #15

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
No! Because engagement / informal relationship and marriage are TWO SEPARATE families, i.e. A + B and A +C.

It cannot be recorded on a single family record. It is like second marriage (with even additional child), only it was informal relationship.

And both relationships ended before death of A or B or C. That's why I was looking for informal relationship's counterpart of DIV. To denote end of it.

I am not sure, if there's any point in continuing this discussion? :D

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #16

  • bertkoor
  • bertkoor's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Greetings from Utrecht, Holland
  • Posts: 1986
> A + B and A +C.

Ah sorry, missed that little detail.
Still, webtrees (or any other program) shouldn't complain if you have eg A&B ENGA BEF 1950 and A&C MARR 1950.
Why wouldn't that make sense to the reader? You can still put in notes for explanation:
1 ENGA
2 DATE BEF 1950
2 NOTE Jane had a quite serious yet informal relation with John before she married Paul in May 1950
stamboom.BertKoor.nl runs on webtrees v1.7.13

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by bertkoor.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #17

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
> Still, webtrees (or any other program) shouldn't complain if you have eg A&B ENGA BEF 1950 and A&C MARR 1950.
> Why wouldn't that make sense to the reader? You can still put in notes for explanation:

Because I don't have dates.

It was suggested above to use single record with date range. But, when I don't have dates this becomes quite problematic.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #18

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
Trejder,

What exactly are you trying to do with this?

Bert has indicated some options.

If A&B were friends but A&C married.

What was A&B’s relationship? Engaged, Living Together, Friends?

If A&B were engaged before A&C married, then Bert has a solution. If they dated or lived together but separated before the marriage of A&C they you can based a GEDCOM only have a NOTE that indicates the story. A family historian would/could add the _NMR (Combined with the NOTE) to further cement the understanding they were never married.

But the reality for me is, “why is it important to document this fact?” What is the driving force for tracking this fact?

Historically I would not use _NMR unless this fact produced children AND I knew for sure that the couple could not be married (i.e. he or she was currently married to another).
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #19

  • trejder
  • trejder's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior
  • Junior
  • Posts: 147
> What exactly are you trying to do with this?

Look at the screenshot that started this discussion. It reads (when looking at A's individual page):

- marriage,
- divorce,
- annulment (taken by me mistakenly as end of free relationship)
- not married.

I want to achieve the correct order:

- marriage,
- divorce,
- not married,
- annulment (or any other way to mark end of free relationship).

I have no dates for any of these events.

> What was A&B’s relationship? Engaged, Living Together, Friends?

A&B -- married. A&C -- living together.

Course of history for A:

- birth
- marry with B,
- divorce with B,
- free relation with C,
- separation / end of free relation with C,
- death.

> But the reality for me is, “why is it important to document this fact?” What is the driving force for tracking this fact?

I wanted to mark that A's separation / end of free relation with C happened at all and before both A and C death. Without this at all, it would suggest that the second (informal) relation lasted till the end of A's live. That's incorrect.

In other words: "Suppose I have no dates at all. How can I denote that both relations -- both marriage with B and informal with C -- ended before A's death, since using ANUL is incorrect in this context".

Two things happened here:

- incorrect order of events on A's biogram,
- incorrect usage (by me) of ANUL to denote above.

This is very, very, very small problem for me. I can ignore it and live on. But, you keep asking, so I keep answering! :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

"Annulment" before "Not married" 1 week 4 days ago #20

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold
  • Gold
  • Posts: 1716
I put to work on me test server you problem as if I had the same needs and data.

Caveat: I would not enter this data (or allow this data to be entered) without supporting source information and date/place, but this was not my quest just my way of doing it.

So what I came up with was two GEDCOM solutions both work for me! The only issues I have are that technically the DIV tag does not allow a "Y" but webtrees does and a fact can not have an ASSO but webtrees allow that as well.

1)
Individual A

1 NAME Person /A/
2 GIVN Person
2 SURN A
1 SEX F
1 FACT Cohabitation
2 TYPE Not Married
2 _ASSO @X83@ <= Association to "C"
2 NOTE They began this relationship after Person A divorced Person B, and ended this relationship before the parties died.
1 FAMS @X84@ <= Family of A/B

Family of A/B

0 @X84@ FAM
1 WIFE @X81@
1 HUSB @X82@
1 MARR Y
1 DIV Y

2)
Individual A

1 NAME Person /A/
2 GIVN Person
2 SURN A
1 SEX F
1 FAMS @X85@ <= Family of A/C
1 FAMS @X84@ <= Family of A/B

Family of A/B

0 @X84@ FAM
1 WIFE @X81@
1 HUSB @X82@
1 MARR Y
1 DIV Y

Family of A/C

0 @X85@ FAM
1 WIFE @X81@
1 HUSB @X83@
1 _NMR Y
2 NOTE Started the relationship after Person A divorced previous spouse, but they ended this relationship before the parties died.


A third option of using an ASSO tag right off the INDI record was rejected because it did not document as well as a custom fact.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1
Powered by Kunena Forum