Topics

[BK] Re: A suggestion regarding spouse order.

John Steed
 

To GinaMarina

On the Edit screen, when the first man is showing as spouse, remove any Marriage event at the bottom and add the event "Not Married" (it is near the bottom of the drop down list of events.)

Then he will not be called Husband.

Also, show the second man in the Spouse position and from the top menu pick Edit, Make This Spouse Primary.   Then the husband will show first if you show the woman on Edit.

The printouts will list the two men in order, but will not call the first Husband.

John Steed

ginamarina
 

In one site I was recently on (familysearch maybe?) one could select “preferred spouse” if desired. My great grandma had her first child under unknown circumstances. Possibly a ‘unwanted’ union, she was 18 and the man was 35... in 1910. My great grandfather gave the baby his name and he was raised in the family with this bio father stuff never even known until their marriage date gave it away years later. When this man who fathered the child was discovered on the death certificate I put him in, and then designated adoptive father to my great grandpa, but I think I’m going to take the man out of my file and put him in the notes, as he defaults as the first “husband” and it always throws me off. I guess I’m being selfish wanting certain spouses that are *my* ancestors to be the default, but it’s my file, so there! LOL :)

TL;DR: I wouldn’t mind being able to choose a default or preferred spouse :)

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

In message <e185eff9-371e-35de-68f9-180ae662b2bc@...>, Ray Schmidt <rayschmidt@...> writes:
I also agree.  I find things make much more sense if they are all in chronological order.
[]
It would be helpful if _all_ children, at least, of a person showed - maybe greyed or in some similar way for the ones by the not-currently-selected spouse. (Similarly for pictures, and I guess media.) I understand (a) that something similar has already recently been added for siblings, and (b) changing the colour of text (including greying) is difficult (or impossible) with the current old graphic engine, but I'll ask for it anyway ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

(Posted to both lists [I hope]. Please do same with followups.)

In message <CACUafk2H_s5QaD5KHU-4a0MzNzjuBu1GSM_2Ly7-jA2PEMPoLg@...>, Robert Newman <robertjnewman@...> writes:
Hi,
I totally disagree, usually the first spouse is of the most interest I
find.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:15, David Youse <dhyouse@...> wrote:

I think it would be beneficial if the listing of multiple spouses on the
Edit screen defaulted to the most recent rather than the first. After all,
in most cases the last spouse is the one of greatest interest. I know the
order can be changed manually but I've had to change the Primary Spouse of
over twenty or so from the 1st to the 2nd, or 3rd. Just a suggestion to
make life a little easier.
[]
I don't disagree as vehemently as Robert, but I do disagree: I've got plenty of cases where either a man remarried because he needed someone to look after a brood after his wife had died (probably often in childbirth or as a result of complications arising therefrom), or because he desired companionship (and possibly care) in old age. (Sorry, it _is_ mostly man. Though woman needing father to provide for her brood after first husband has died young is also not uncommon.)

This all assumes you consider "most important" to equate to "with whom most children were had". (I did wonder about suggesting _that_ as the default, but decided that would cause confusion too.)

What I think would be a lot _more_ useful would be for BK to add the which-spouse to the back/forward list. I'm frequently in the situation where I'm looking at someone with the not-first spouse shown, then I go to one of their children or the spouse in question, then hit the back (<) button, and wonder (e. g.) where the children have gone! (Or pictures [the "couple/family" ones], if that's the tab I had open when I clicked on <.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker