Gary, I don't think that the point is can it be done, but rather, should it be done. In my view it shouldn't; my reasoning being that if one has decided to keep the families separate then that is how they should be, and that is how they should be presented.
It is possible to have both worlds, as the option is there to have multiple parents, and hence have the children treated as if they are all from the same family with all birth dates being considered. In my files, whilst I have some families formally linked with the step and natural kids being treated as though they have the same parents, in the main I do not make the link and would not wish to. In some cases it is clear that the step kids were treated as though the new parent was their "real" parent eg. their names have been changed, in general this is not true and I would not wish to put my consideration about that of the family at that time. Sometimes it seems clear that the step kids were never part of the new family, they may have left home for example. To conclude, I believe it should be a conscious decision as to whether step kids should be integrated into a family, and not one made lightly. I consider that the current system offers this. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ *New* Tutorial: Add Location Pins to Google Earth http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw And the Fergusons of N.W. England ____________________________________________________ Gary Elder wrote: > Ron, thanks for your reply. I did see the earlier post about linking > children to both sets of parents. > > I'm sure there is some underlying reason why linking to both sets of > parents is necessary, but it seems to me Legacy be able to list all > children in the appropriate birth order without having to manually > link them to their step parent. As they say, it is what it is. > > Thanks again for your help. > > > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ron Ferguson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Gary Elder wrote: >>> Is there a setting in which the combination of children and >>> step-children are sorted by birth date? >>> >>> Currently, Legacy shows step-children at the bottom of the children >>> listings, even though their birth date precedes those of the other >>> children of the current spouse. Doing a Sort in the Children's >>> Settings doesn't appear to do the job. Perhaps there is a preference >>> setting that I'm missing? >>> >> >> Gary, >> >> Provided that the Step children are linked to both sets of parents >> then all children will sort in date of birth order. If they are only >> linked to their natural parents then top children will be those of >> the parents in the main panel of Family View. >> >> How to link to more than one set of parents was described in 3 posts >> earlier today. >> >> Ron Ferguson >> _____________________________________________________ >> >> *New* Tutorial: Add Location Pins to Google Earth >> http://www.fergys.co.uk >> Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw >> And the Fergusons of N.W. England >> ____________________________________________________ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
