To split a file with ancestors that are common to the two lines, I'd try unlinking them from one line before splitting the files. Not sure what you do with these links, once the files are split, though. I gues you duplicate an individual (in both files) and then link to that person. I've tried splitting my file, which doesn't have any intermarriage between lines, and it worked fine. I decided to persist with one file, though, based on advice from this forum, mainly due to the potential problems with handling intermarriage between ancestors.
Rob On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:03:50 -0800, Carol Wait <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ed, > > Sorry for not answering sooner. I have been sick with the flu and > couldn't think clearly enough to answer you. I know I should be > condensing this letter but the flu bug is still here and I am half brain > dead...... > > I had the same problem with my father's family file that you are having > with your file. I was very inexperienced and merged a file from a > relative that really messed up my file......live and learn I guess. I > also have the problem with intermarriages that you have, starting with > my grandparents who are 6th cousins. I didn't know for a long time that > they were related. I was trying to keep the two files separate, that is > the paternal and maternal side, which I was able to do. Then I > realized my grandparents were related and realized that having two > files was just duplicating everything and was a "work project". I > haven't counted the number of intermarriages, and one group is even > more convoluted than that. > > . I have not done the descendants yet as I have to clean up the file I > received from my relative. It has about 4 pages of unknowns, 3 of child > 1, some child 2, several with x, or xx, or xxx. Some of them are in > families that have 6 or more unknown children. There are also many > "Living". I am putting in general notes or marriage notes may be better, > " this couple had 10 children, names unknown". See answers below . > Ed Barnard wrote: > > >Hi everyone, > > > >I tried splitting off a section of the family tree according to the Tips > >and Tricks article. Any time I choose all ancestors, I end up with the > >entire original file. Here is what I am trying to do. The family tree is > >this: > > > >George Barnard - married Sally Higley > >they had son George Allen Barnard > > > >I want three separate files: > > > >1. All ancestors of George Barnard Do a gedcom of " add ancestors of > >George" using the focus group, choose add individual and ancestors. If you > >don't get it right the first time it's easy to delete the file. Don't > >choose "all ancestors" or you will have everyone in the file....I did that > >too.... > >2. All ancestors of Sally Higley Do the same here as George's ancestors. > >3. All descendants of George Allen Barnard > >Do a gedcom using the focus group, choose " add individual and decendants". > > > > As for the "hodgepodge" file I have left it as a "hodgepodge". When I > go to add descendants I will do gedcom file focus groups, maybe one for > each different family as my grandmother had 44 great great grandchildren > when she died around 1964, so imagine how many more people there are > now. Then I will make fdb files to check them out or learn how to use > gedviewer, which I haven't had time to learn. It's supposed to be good > for scanning files....Not sure though. Small files are easier to work > with anyway, then when I have what I want I will merge this with the > main file (keeping a record of the main file on it's own as well.) > > I am wishing I could find a way to get a family file of several hundred > people into Legacy without having to "cut and paste" but no such luck...... > > I thing you had another request re sources but can't seem to find that > e-mail. I'm not sure . I hope I have helped somewhat and again > apologize for not answering sooner. > Carol > > >Each of those three items represents about 200 names from the whole > >database of about 5000 names. The general database is unreliable (no > >sources, many merges). But I have reliable sources for those three > >areas, and therefore wish to maintain them separately. (And keep Sally > >Higley research separate from George Allen Barnard research.) > > > >I'm guessing my problem in splitting, is that George's ancestors have > >people in common with Sally's ancestors (they do). Anyone tried to do > >this? > > > >As a side issue, is there a "best" way to print off all records, so that > >I can compare them (eyeball them) to my sources? The primary sources are > >in the same form of the published family genealogy books. > > > >Thanks for the help, > > > > Ed > > > >Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > > >To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > > >To unsubscribe please visit: > >http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > > > > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
