Several items for thought. Feel free to pick one or come up with your own:
1) You could add them as a child. 2) Then on the FAMILY tab, right click on any child in the list of children at the bottom, select CHILDREN SETTINGS 3) Select this person in the pop-up window, and in the RELATIONSHIP TO xxxx fields at the bottom click the DOWN ARROW 4) In the window that pops up, select ADD 5) Enter in a "relationship". Maybe something like ".unknown parent" or ".unsure of parent" or ".is this their child?" or something like that. (Note that I put a "." in front of any relationships I create. Helps me to realize it is one of my creations and may need tweaks in sentences, reports and such.) 6) Click SAVE 7) Now click on that relationship and click SELECT (Note in the future you obviously don't need to go through the ADD process - skips steps 4 and 5 and 6.) Unfortunately I'm not sure in which reports this relationship shows up. You could also add a "dummy event" (add a new event with a name of ".Is this their child" or some such thing). Then fill in the details in the event notes. Or you could just add an entry in the NOTES field of the person with an explanation that "The parenthood needs to be research. Person lived with xxx per record yyyy, but not sure if it was their child." Remember that you can think of "Genealogy" as "recording blood lines" or "recording families". Technically if you only record blood lines, you would not include adoptions and such, and would not include unknown relationships. But if you think of it as "recording families" - this person WAS obviously a part of this family in some fashion or another. They were in family records so they had SOME kind of "relationship" with the family. They may have been a classmate of one of the children and the classmate lived with this family for a few months (or a few years), or whatever. But the fact that they lived with them for even a short time, they were definitely a "part of the family, had an impact on the family life" and should be recorded. Bob On 08/27/2014 14:58, Mary Fowler Leek wrote: > I would probably add as a son (or daughter) of the family I felt might be > their family, then add a ? in the Title field. This would alert me to a > dubious connection; maintain notes in the research notes explaining why I > feel this person 'might' belong. If you find the person doesn't belong to the > family line, simply unlink from parents, delete and run file maintenance. If > you find they do belong but should be entered with another family, unlink > from parents, then reattach to correct set of parents. > > Mary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jane Sarles [mailto:[email protected]] > > > I have an ancestor from early Virginia, Timothy Redding. He is found in > early records along with others, Francis, John, William, Arthur, etc. > Their relationship is not named and there is no clue as to what it may be. I > know that I can put those other guys in as unlinked people, but they will not > show up when I study my data and am trying to fit clues together as to who > Timothy's parents or brothers are. Am I correct in thinking that it is not > possible to have the other Redding men to show up in family view or > individual chart (which is what I use to do my major work and thought.) If > they are in as 'unlinked"? I seldom think to go to the list of unlinked > people to compare with data I am discovering as I research. > > Wondering how others handle this? > > Jane Sarles > > > 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 Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
