The Genealogy & Family History Social Network
Defining Today's Family
Writing in her Blog today, Lynn Palermo questions the ability of genealogy software to cope with modern relationships.
Our society is very welcoming to all varying degrees of blended families. We have traditional marriages with a husband and wife. We have gay marriages or relationships, as gay marriage is not yet legal everywhere. We have children conceived in test tubes, with unknown fathers. The list goes on; there are as many different styles of families today as there are people. I have no problem with any one of these styles of families. Love is love. However, my genealogy software certainly does.
Will a future edition of Legacy address this key issue? And are there suggested work arounds now?
Our society is very welcoming to all varying degrees of blended families. We have traditional marriages with a husband and wife. We have gay marriages or relationships, as gay marriage is not yet legal everywhere. We have children conceived in test tubes, with unknown fathers. The list goes on; there are as many different styles of families today as there are people. I have no problem with any one of these styles of families. Love is love. However, my genealogy software certainly does.
Will a future edition of Legacy address this key issue? And are there suggested work arounds now?
Views: 194
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Florence Romeo Stoneberg on
-
I heartily agree with Ian. I think it is important to provide as much factual information as possible, as one never knows when those following after us may find a clue or an answer to some question they may have. How many times I wish I could have a conversation with one of my ancestors to find out the who, why, what, when, etc. I think an ancestry program rich in detail would be as exciting as finding a diary, letters, or journal would be to us.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Renate Sanders on
-
First, I guess I have to thank Barbara for the clarification about the actual definition of genealogy. I guess, as a family historian, I'm guilty of calling myself a "genealogist", but yet I include any and everyone who has been born, adopted, or otherwise added into my family as a part of my ancestry. Of course, I am aware and make note of any non-blood relations, but I've never really taken the time to think about how important it might be to stay true to the scientific definition of "genealogy" when I refer to my work as such.
That said, I must say that like Ellen, I have a variety of family relationships in my tree for which I often find there not to be definitions for in genealogy software. Not only that, but I've struggled with the thought of not including one of my brothers, who was adopted, in the family tree. After all, he is my brother, and forever will be. He has children, and a grandchild who deserve to be included, and so they are. I do think it is important though, to be able to notate that my brother was adopted. Like Ian, and others have said, those who come behind us deserve to have factual information passed on to them. Also, it's very frustrating in some software programs, to see two people who parented a child (or children) together listed as married, if they weren't. My vote is that all of the programs should included options to denote actual relationships amongst the members of the tree. -
-
Permalink Reply by George Geder on
-
Renate,
You have a witness and get an AMEN!
The scientific definition of genealogy needs to be broadened.
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
-
-
Hi Florence,
I agree.
Do you think such an ancestry program exists today?
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
-
-
George, I definitely do! Any genealogy program will do the trick...we just have to enter the information. I am pretty detailed and I put every bit of knowledge I find into the notes.
-
-
-
Florence,
I hear you!
I just think that the coders can help us put some of the non-traditional aspects of our family data as drop-down menu choices. That would show that they are thinking about the real world and not just 'bloodlines'.
Notes, great as they are, have that 'back of the book, out of the way' feeling. It sends a subtle message to non-traditional families that they are not considered worthy enough of being an 'input field' in the front of the program. I've been told, in so many words, that they feel disenfranchised. That's what troubles me.
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
-
Permalink Reply by MsFoxRider on
-
I have had this struggle myself. Mostly because I wasn't sure how to handle a case of molestation resulting in a child. It seems a bit odd to have my program say they "met" so and so and had a child, but that was the closest thing to accurate I managed to get. The struggle with what family do you follow and settling on being a "genea-historian" seems like the best idea to me, but when I think about it... if it weren't for the fact that someone still living was able to tell me of this particular situation, I would probably never have known the "true" parentage anyway, and with the lack of existing records for my family I can see just how easily my "pedigree" can get messed up - making me wonder just how "accurate" genealogists are anyway. I continue to plug away because I think genea-history is fun and a wonderful distraction, but I fear my database has a lot of "mythology" when it really boils down to it.
-
-
-
The story goes that Maliser, wife of my Granduncle Jim Hancock, was the child of Jane Morgan who was openly raped by a Tom Green. He saw her, told her to come down off a wagon, and had his way with her. Jane married a Brayboy and to this day, Brayboys are part of the family history.
According to the precepts of Genealogy, the bloodline is with the Greens. If that's so, then the genealogy program should allow you to input 'Rapist' instead of father. Now, even for me, that's a hard line to take - but we want our research to be accurate and truthful. Don't we?
Regardless, we continue to love Maliser. She is our family.
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
-
Permalink Reply by William Douglas on
-
George, That is quite a moving tale, and well put.
An unrelated question qusetion for you.
The relationship 'Granduncle' and 'Wife of Granduncle' appear on your screenshot. How do you get those to show up?
Yours aye,
William
www.douglashistory.co.uk -
-
-
William,
I'll let George tell you how to do that, but I love that feature. It keeps me straight when I've been staring at censuses too long and my brain gets fuzzy! =)
Jen -
-
-
Hi Jen,
LOL!
I sometimes get a crick in my neck moving back & forth between screens and paper.
"... now, how are we related?.."
'Set Relationships' is one of my FAVORITE features.
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
-
-
Hi William,
Brian Kelly has the answer for you. Thanks Brian.
Thanks for initially bringing the issue of non-traditional families and genealogy software's ability to handle them. It has turned out to be a much larger concern.
In case you didn't see my blog where I tested Legacy 7.4 to see how it would/could handle same sex marriages, here's the link: http://bit.ly/93IkXp
Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors" -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by IIGSExecDirector.
Powered by
