Living Together But Not Married

[jonsaunders 0]

What tag are people using to show the topic relationship? The situation is becoming more common all the time, and the associated indivduals ane having children more often as well. I had someone get upset when I used the marriage tag, but I can't find another tag that accomplishes the same effect. I need a tag that functions just like the marriage tag but doesn't say married in the gedcom export. More like "unmarriage".

[magliz 0]

What tag are people using to show the topic relationship?

 

I copied the marriage tag and renamed it "Partners" with a corresponding change to the sentence.

[elevator 0]

I use the Residence tag, but depending on your need magliz's suggestion may work better, especially if you need a customized sentence to go with it.

 

Ken.

 

I copied the marriage tag and renamed it "Partners" with a corresponding change to the sentence.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I had someone get upset when I used the marriage tag, but I can't find another tag that accomplishes the same effect. I need a tag that functions just like the marriage tag but doesn't say married in the gedcom export. More like "unmarriage".

First question, what is it you want the tag to accomplish? If they have children together various reports treat them as if they are married, without saying they are (although the family group sheet will say "Spouse" I think). You don't actually need a "marriage" tag unless you want to say something about their relationship. Nor do you need a marriage tag in GEDCOM, necessarily.

 

Copying the Marriage tag with a suitable name and editing the sentence will solve the problem for TMG reports, but won't change what goes to a GEDCOM unless you also change the GEDCOM tag name on the Other tab of the Tag Type Definition screen. There is not a standard GEDCOM tag type for this, so choose the 1 EVEN option, with will output your tag label with the GEDCOM.

[RobinL 0]

First question, what is it you want the tag to accomplish? If they have children together various reports treat them as if they are married, without saying they are (although the family group sheet will say "Spouse" I think). You don't actually need a "marriage" tag unless you want to say something about their relationship.

 

However, there is one case where you need a "Marriage Group" tag.

 

If a person has multiple partners, whether they have children by them or not, then for Descendant (and Hourglass) Box Charts there needs to be a Marriage Group with a Sort Date for each partnership to be able to control the ordering of these partners on the Chart. Visual Chartform doesn't, and should not use, the birth dates of children to make an assumption about this ordering.

[jonsaunders 0]

First question, what is it you want the tag to accomplish?

 

When I export and upload to RootsWeb, I want both married and unmarried "partners" to show up in the same manner e.g.

 

Individual's Name

 

Marriage Partner's Name

 

Childrens' names

 

Unmarried Partner's Name

 

Childrens' names

 

It sounds as though the Partners tag documented above, will do the trick. I reached the same end-point earlier today through some experimenting with a different tag name, but I like Partners better. Next I'll have to refresh my tree on RootsWeb to see if it works.

Edited October 4, 2007 by jonsaunders

[Mike Talbot 0]

What tag are people using to show the topic relationship? The situation is becoming more common all the time, and the associated indivduals ane having children more often as well. I had someone get upset when I used the marriage tag, but I can't find another tag that accomplishes the same effect. I need a tag that functions just like the marriage tag but doesn't say married in the gedcom export. More like "unmarriage".

 

Yes, there is a lot of that going on, these days. <g> There has also been some of it throughout history.

 

I agree with the above replies and use a custom "unmarriage" tag in the marriage group, sometimes.

 

There is another way, using only TMG standard tags. The TMG standard NOTE tag allows you to link 2 people together and gives you a date and memo field to explain the relationship. The single NOTE will appear in both persons data and provides a one-click swiitch between the two parties.

 

Which tag and parameters to use, in a specific instance, depends on how and if you want that relationship to appear in reports and charts. Run a few brief experiments to see which method you like for whom. Remember, that if neither tag is perfect for a special case, you can easily hand edit reports output to a Word Processor file or to a VCF chart.

 

The main objective is to document what is important to you in your database.

 

Best wishes,

Mike Talbot

[Michael Hannah 0]

I made a custom "Marr Not" tag type within the Marriage group for people who are known to have mated (since they had identified offspring and I want to show that shared parental relationship) but are not considered married in the typical sense. I defined the sentences for the various roles as follows:

 

Role=Male (used only with P1)

Male sentence: [P] [M3] [PO]

Female sentence: --

 

Role=Female (used only with P2)

Male sentence: --

Female sentence: [P] [M1] [PO]

 

Role=Principal

[P] and [PO] [M]

 

Role=Witness

[W] witnessed [WM1] of [P]

 

I moved the standard roles Bride and Groom to the bottom of the list and do not use them.

 

TMG requires events in the Marriage group to exist to print reports with correct birth order sorting of the offspring of the mating. If the relationship is simple and reciprocal I use the standard Principal roles for both parties and the sentence just has their names followed by a required [M] with everything I want to say about this relationship. I choose to put the male as P1 and the female as P2. If I want to say something different from each point of view then I use a split memo. [M1] will specify the relationship from the “Female” point of view with optional Date (usually a date range) and Location and [M2] as her comment. (I have the female's split memo first as I commonly know about the mother but not the father.) Then [M3] specifies the relationship from the “Male” point of view with optional Date and Location and [M4] as his comment. Note that having both [P] and [PO] non-optional automatically produces the standard "an unknown person" text if either is not specified. [WM1] describes the relationship from the Witness’ point of view, with [WM2] for added comments.

 

Some have suggested other separate custom tag types, e.g. "Marr Coh" for known to have cohabited (lived together), and "Marr Rel" for known to have relations (sex) but not to have lived together. Most define these in the Marriage group, but you could define them in the Other group if they did not have offspring. My “lumper” preference seems served with my one "Marr Not" tag type in the Marriage group and using the memo to describe the nature of this relationship. However, having separate custom tag types may be of value for selecting which will print. Instead of separate tag types one could define appropriate roles for various specific relationships and associated different predefined sentences all in a similar single custom tag type.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

[retsof 0]

The Census Bureau called it "POSSLQ" "Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters".

 

After the 1980 Census, against all odds, the term gained currency in the wider culture for a time, with CBS commentator Charles Osgood memorably composing a verse which began

 

There's nothing that I wouldn't do

If you would be my POSSLQ

You live with me and I with you,

And you will be my POSSLQ.

I'll be your friend and so much more;

That's what a POSSLQ is for.

 

Elliot Sperber, the writer of the Hartford Courant's weekly cryptogram, invented a cryptogram that (when solved) said:

"Roses are Red,

Violets are Blue,

Won't you be my POSSLQ?"

 

 

I was following the Fundamentalist LDS doings in AZ, CO, UT and TX just wondering how genealogy handles polygamy. The women are known individually as "sister-wives" and to the children as "sister-mothers".

 

Commune life also has the many-to-many group marriages.

Edited October 15, 2007 by retsof