Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
I've come across a tricky relationship that I would welcome some opinions on how to best enter into FH.
I have a woman whose father was also her grand-father!
To explain, this is what happened.
An unmarried couple had a daughter. The mother then married someone else (not the child's father).
The marriage failed for some reason.
The man then married his wife's daughter.
They had a daughter. So, this daughter's father would have also been her step-grandfather (I think!)
Apart for anything else, I'm pretty sure that's not legal, certainly in the UK, at least! (or is it; after all, the man is not a blood relative of the step-daughter!).
On 21 September 2010 14:20, Andrew Jolly <asjolly(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Why can't I view this, just a blank screen?
If you are still having trouble viewing; I've uploaded them as a PDF
On 21/09/2010 13:43, Roger Mitchell wrote:
> Apart for anything else, I'm pretty sure that's not legal, certainly in the UK, at least! (or is it; after all, the man is not a blood relative of the step-daughter!).
It is not legal (surprisingly, because as you say there is no blood
relationship) but I seem to remember a few years ago there was a case
where a man wanted to marry his late wife's daughter and the matter got
as far as parliament. I think there was some talk of a special act
being passed which would cover those particular people making it legal
for them, but not generally. Not sure what happened in the end.
Anyway, you might find the following site quite interesting (it sets out
details of various illegal marriage relationships):
On 21 September 2010 13:43, Roger Mitchell <rdm(a)mfo.me.uk> wrote:
> Apart for anything else, I'm pretty sure that's not legal, certainly in the
> UK, at least! (or is it; after all, the man is not a blood relative of the
I don't think there is a problem legally and Family Historian will cope just
fine. I did a quick experiment and to get all the complexities to show I
needed to centre the diagram on "Mark Second and Mary Jones", it was also
clearer to not combine the duplicate lines but leave the lines separate. I
also added the second relationship to file root line to the text scheme.
You can see the result here:
Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk
I must agree with Ralph's view. My experience of many years researching has come to *almost* the same conclusion. The Genealogist is by far the least accurate/complete although they do have some quite interesting ancillary records. I like FindMyPast's transcripts and find them reasonably accurate (a glance at the original is always advisable though as there are lots of mis-transcriptions). Ancestry, I think, has the most reliable search utilities. I have often found that a search on FindMyPast has not produced the records I require, whereas Ancestry does at least provide me with a large range (sometime too large!) of potential matches.
With regard to the quality of the originals, FMP has photographed the census records and some of them are quite blurred whereas Ancestry's scans are sometimes better and easier to read where records are unclear. I use both together for particularly bad examples.
FMP's migration records and shipping manifests are very good and easy to search whereas I think that Ancestry's military research facilities are better.
The bottom line? Again, full agreement with Ralph. I subscribe to both, it's well worth it and although some may argue, a bit pricey, it's really not a lot more than a few good nights out. Take the world membership option if you can afford (or justify it to the "significant other"!) and your records on Ancestry will include some very good stuff from the USA and Australia to name but 2! I prefer to have a few good nights in and have access to an excellent set of the (combined) resources that these 2 suppliers provide.
Hope that helps
From: family-historian-users-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Colin Stevens
Sent: 20 September 2010 14:30
Subject: Re: [FHU] Adding photographs
Many thanks for your prompt reply. One question, there are so many Ancestor on line search programs.
I have used Ancestry.co.uk. Perhaps you are not able to recommend, but I would like to know if there is much to choose between them? Is there a site which gives reviews of these sites?
On 16 September 2010 15:44, Jane Taubman <janetaubman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> For the "Master" Photograph, I would attach it to the Family Record,
> and then link the "cut out" images to the people in the Photograph.
> That way if you print a Family Group sheet the faces will (if the
> options is set), be taken from the Family Photograph for as many people as possible.
> You can attach the image to the marriage as well if you want, but
> personally I would simply attach it to the Family Record.
> On 16 September 2010 14:53, Colin Stevens <colin.stevens(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am using Historian 4.1 My query, I have been married on two
>> occasions, my first wife having died.
>> There is a difference of 18yrs between my two wedding photographs. I
>> have been trying to add the different photographs to the appropriate
>> wedding details. Is this possible, and if so how?
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I recently carried out a detailed analytical comparison of Ancestry,
Findmypast and The Genealogist for publication in Family Tree magazine. I
concentrated on the 1841-1901 censuses for various parts of England
searching for about 25 census entries, which I had already found and
transcribed myself over many years. Findmypast and Ancestry were both very
good with Findmypast "winning" by a short head, although I would recommend
subscribing to both. The Genealogist was a huge disappointment and any
people who only subscribe to that site will be unaware that the reason why
they are not finding their ancestors is because many of the
transcriptions are unfit for purpose (if it was not a serious matter, some
were quite unbelievably hilarious), or missing entirely. I assume that The
Genealogist has had transcriptions done abroad by people who are unfamiliar
with English Victorian handwriting, geography and names. The Company claims
that all its transcriptions are checked by local experts. As a result of my
study, Family Tree discussed the matter with The Genealogist, declined to
publish my detailed study, but in the May 2010 issue (p89) published a
statement "that the double checking of census return indexes by the team of
volunteers on TheGenealogist.co.uk is not yet complete"! The Genealogist
refunded my subscription.
On 20 September 2010 14:29, Colin Stevens <colin.stevens(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Jane
> Many thanks for your prompt reply. One question, there are so many
> Ancestor on line search programs.
> I have used Ancestry.co.uk <http://ancestry.co.uk/>. Perhaps you are not
> able to recommend, but
> I would like to know if there is much to choose between them? Is there
> a site which gives reviews of these sites?
> Thank you.
On 20/09/2010 09:57, Pat Molloy wrote:
> I checked back on the Female Ancestors Fact Box and the marriages are in the
> right order, but I discovered that the two small arrows are greyed out. When
> I checked other box's, they are all the same.
You don't use the arrows in the fact tab for this . Go to the MAIN tab
of the female ancestor's property box and look at the spouse section.
You should see the two spouses there, with up/down arrows beside them.
> Now it gets complicated. I'm descended from the First marriage. The second
> husband was a widower, so when I found the details of the his first marriage
> I entered these in. Should this marriage show on my "All Relatives" diagram?
FH defines a relative as any descendant, ancestor, or descendant of an
ancestor (in summary, any blood relative) plus a spouse of any of these
people. The 'second husband' will be in your All Relatives diagram
because he is a spouse of a blood relative. However his own previous
spouse is not one of your relatives, according to the definition, so
will not be in your All Relatives diagram.
> When I open an All Relatives Diagram for this person, both the marriages
> appear but in between the two marriages is a pink box with a number two
> inside. This I think is for a remarriage which is incorrect. I cannot find
> how to delete this box.
If you are certain the extra box (with no name?) is a mistake, just
click on that box in the diagram and hit the delete key. You will be
asked whether you just want to delete the box from the diagram or
whether you want to delete the underlying record as well, so make sure
it really is a mistake before you delete it!
Hope this helps,
I have been using Family Historian for about 6 weeks and am slowly learning how it operates. As a previous Brother's Keeper user you can appreciate the difference. However the following problem has me really stumped and I need help.
When attempting to make a 'Narrative Report' and 'Descendant by generation' I find I am not able to go beyond 3 generations even though there are 6 generations.
I have read the information on how to increase the generations by going to 'report options' at the bottom of the list but this option is 'grey' and I cannot seem to bring it up to use it.
Can someone please explain to me (in simple terms please) how I can open this report option up to enable me to increase the number of generations.
On 19 September 2010 11:24, Philippa Stout <
> Many thanks to Ian and Margaret for their replies to my query re. ordering
> wives and children.
Have you tried adjusting the Diagram setting for spouses, i.e. the Spouse
My next query also involves moving things around and that is with
> Multimedia. I can't see any arrows next to the list of entries to enable me
> to rearrange the order of photographs. Does anyone know if there is a way of
> doing this?
Assuming you are on the Multimedia tab of the Property Box, at the bottom
are two buttons with + and - on, you use those to change the preferences on
Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk
Many thanks to Ian and Margaret for their replies to my query re. ordering wives and children.
I have tried to do what you have both suggested many times before but with no success. I think that I must be stuck with it.
My next query also involves moving things around and that is with Multimedia. I can't see any arrows next to the list of entries to enable me to rearrange the order of photographs. Does anyone know if there is a way of doing this?
All the best
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
I have only just read the previous postings and thought I would have my two
If you look up "cousin" in Wikipedia - no, don't laugh - you will find that
not only are there half cousins, but also threequarter, one and a half and
double cousins. Put crudely, it is done by evaluating the genetic
similarity of two individuals.
Incidentally, the article also carries a VERY simple arithmetical way of
determining relationships like (x)th cousin (y) times removed.
Open the properties window for the ancestor and check the order of the
spouse tabs. You can swap them around using the arrows to the right of the
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippa Stout" <philippa.stout(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:48 PM
Subject: [FHU] Re. ordering wives and children of first and second marriages
> I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me why sometimes, not always,
> an ancestor's first wife appears on the right and his second wife appears
> on the left, so that the details of the children of the second wife appear
> before the children of the first wife. I don't know what I'm doing wrong,
> if anyone knows how I can correct this please let me know.
> Philippa S
I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me why sometimes, not always, an ancestor's first wife appears on the right and his second wife appears on the left, so that the details of the children of the second wife appear before the children of the first wife. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, if anyone knows how I can correct this please let me know.
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
A will may be proved several years after death. When I am viewing events under the Facts tab the Will fact date computes a 'false' age for the person who made the will. Is there a way to prevent this?
Sorry, I did not say I was only referring to blood-relations. Descendants of your Father's
step-sister would not be categorised as such.
On 16/09/2010 15:30, Steve Bye wrote:
> I have a half cousin through my Fathers Step-Sister.
I can easily demonstrate in a sample gedcom that the grandchildren from two different marriages of
one person, are described by FH as being half-cousins.
Before I send off the sample gedcom to FH Support showing this 'problem', I should say that I have
read that there can only be half-brothers and half-sisters. There is no such relationship as a
half-cousin. Do readers think that is correct?
On 16/09/2010 14:29, Jane Taubman wrote:
> I am not seeing this effect, is it possible the relationship is more complex
> than the one you are explaining, if you still think this is a problem, then
> the best bet is to send a sample Gedcom file along with the details to
> produce the chart showing the problem to support at family historian.
> On 16 September 2010 09:15, Graham Chamberlain<agc(a)katiandgraham.com>wrote:
>> It seems there is a 'bug' in the relationship calculation: where I have a
>> relation like uncle who has had children by two wives, the children of one
>> marriage are shown as cousins but those of the other marriage are shown as
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I am using Historian 4.1 My query, I have been married on two
occasions, my first wife having died.
There is a difference of 18yrs between my two wedding photographs. I
have been trying to add the different photographs to the appropriate
wedding details. Is this possible, and if so how?
Use Associated Person, which allows you to specify the nature of the relationship.
From: family-historian-users-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: [FHU] Godchild
Could you tell me the best way to add the fact that a relation is my Godchild?
Thanks very much.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3136 - Release Date: 09/15/10 19:34:00
The Family Historian Users Mailing List is where Family Historian users can discuss aspects of the program
New and inexperienced users can post questions and ask advice, and experienced users of Family Historian can share their knowledge and give tips.