|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 1, 2014 7:02:05 GMT -5
I’ve always assumed that a husband & wife are of the same generation & in my family tree I have given reference numbers to individuals accordingly, eg X-100 & X-100-w (for wife) for the first generation, then 100-201, 100-202, etc. for their children, using suffixes –w for wife & -h for husband. Some individuals who appear in the tree from different families have two ref nos therefore.
I’ve now found the following problem:-
Generation 1.
James Casley 1825 (ref 664-783) & Henry Casley 1833 (ref 664-787), are brothers, sons of William Casley 1794 (ref 532-664) & Celia Hockin.
Generation 2.
Daughter of James, Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856 (ref 783-881), married widower Benjamin Rowe 1848 (so ref 783-881-h). Ref X-8FQ was also allocated to Benjamin to use with his first marriage & with his children, so Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856 has a second ref X-8FQ-w.
Son of Henry, Henry 1873 (ref 787-897), married Ann Eddy Rowe 1876 (so ref 787-897-w).
BUT
Generation 3.
Ann Eddy Rowe 1876 (ref 787-897-w) is the daughter of Benjamin Rowe 1848 (ref 783-881-h & X-8FQ) from his first marriage to Elizabeth Eddy 1850-1878. She should also therefore have the ref 8FQ-9XX.
Father & daughter appear in the SAME generation.
Can a woman marry a widower from a previous generation, ie husband & wife are of two different generations?
If so, I could give Benjamin Rowe 1848 (ref 783-881-h & X-8FQ) a new second ref, X-7** to replace X-8FQ, & give his second wife Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856 (ref 783-881 & X-8FQ-w) a new second ref, X-7**-w.
Thank you in advance for any suggestions/information re the husband & wife generation “problem”.
|
|
|
|
Post by sue on Sept 1, 2014 12:18:55 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure women could & did marry widowers that were a full generation or more older than them....!
However, I think that perhaps you are asking a question that is specific to the operation of the software package you are using...... Does the supplier of the software provide support?
Sue
|
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Sept 1, 2014 13:18:55 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure women could & did marry widowers that were a full generation or more older than them....! However, I think that perhaps you are asking a question that is specific to the operation of the software package you are using...... Does the supplier of the software provide support? Sue On one side of the family We have the granddaughter of the eldest of 16 children marrying the son of the next to youngest, so their ages were similar but they were technically of different generations. I think how you number them is probably up to you so long as you remember why you did what you did! |
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 1, 2014 15:45:58 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure women could & did marry widowers that were a full generation or more older than them....! However, I think that perhaps you are asking a question that is specific to the operation of the software package you are using...... Does the supplier of the software provide support? Sue The numbering system is my own, not part of my software - RootsMagic. The system does not use generations by ages, but allocates a number based on that of the parents, ie the children of parents ref 101 would have references beginning with 101, eg 101-201,101-202,101-203. The children of a parent reference 101-203 for instance would have references 203-301,203-302, & so on. |
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 1, 2014 15:47:39 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure women could & did marry widowers that were a full generation or more older than them....! However, I think that perhaps you are asking a question that is specific to the operation of the software package you are using...... Does the supplier of the software provide support? Sue The numbering system is my own, not part of my software - RootsMagic. The system does not use generations by ages, but allocates a number based on that of the parents, ie the children of parents ref 101 would have references beginning with 101, eg 101-201,101-202,101-203. The children of a parent reference 101-203 for instance would have references 203-301,203-302, & so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 1, 2014 17:44:36 GMT -5
The best system I think is one that simply adds Reference numbers according to the order in which individuals are entered into a database. The relationships between two people are then calculated according to the relationship of each to a common ancestor. My personal opinion is that the system you are using can and will, and possibly has already, cause total confusion!
Technically speaking it is possible to have a husband and wife who are two generations apart. It is not uncommon to find families with 20 or more children (take William Thomas of Zennor who I think had 23!!) and I have a number of them in my own database.
To have that many children can be accomplished with just one wife if she were say around 18 at marriage but often there will be two or even three marriages involved, Nonetheless all children of the husband are direct siblings and therefore of one generation. With 20+ children we would be looking at around 25-28 years between eldest and youngest so there is definitely scope for a 2-generation gap and most certainly for a 1-generation gap as you appear to have found.
The thing you need to do is to ensure when entering your information that you have the correct people linked.
CT
|
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 3, 2014 11:43:43 GMT -5
I've resolved only today a Casley/Rowe relationship that had upset my system for the allocation of reference numbers to individuals in my tree.
William Casley 1794 married Celia Hockin 1795 on 07 Dec 1816. Their children included two sons James Casley 1825 & Henry Casley 1833.
James Casley 1825 married Elizabeth Thomas 1828 on 10 Dec 1853. Their children included Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856.
Benjamin Rowe 1848 married Elizabeth Eddy 1850 on 28 Dec 1870. Elizabeth Eddy died & was buried on 01 Feb 1878. Their children were Ann Eddy Rowe 1871-1872, Ann Eddy Rowe 1876, & Elizabeth Ellen Rowe 1878.
Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856 married widower Benjamin Rowe 1848 on 22 Jun 1879 & so became the step-mother of Ann Eddy Rowe 1876.
Henry Casley 1873 married Ann Eddy Rowe 1876 on 23 May 1899 i.e. he married the step-daughter of his cousin Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856.
That is where the "generation problem" originated. I am happy to continue using my present referencing system.
I should have resolved the problem before my original post & apologise for the same.
Allan.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 3, 2014 11:44:07 GMT -5
I've resolved only today a Casley/Rowe relationship that had upset my system for the allocation of reference numbers to individuals in my tree.
William Casley 1794 married Celia Hockin 1795 on 07 Dec 1816. Their children included two sons James Casley 1825 & Henry Casley 1833.
James Casley 1825 married Elizabeth Thomas 1828 on 10 Dec 1853. Their children included Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856.
Benjamin Rowe 1848 married Elizabeth Eddy 1850 on 28 Dec 1870. Elizabeth Eddy died & was buried on 01 Feb 1878. Their children were Ann Eddy Rowe 1871-1872, Ann Eddy Rowe 1876, & Elizabeth Ellen Rowe 1878.
Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856 married widower Benjamin Rowe 1848 on 22 Jun 1879 & so became the step-mother of Ann Eddy Rowe 1876.
Henry Casley 1873 married Ann Eddy Rowe 1876 on 23 May 1899 i.e. he married the step-daughter of his cousin Elizabeth Ann Casley 1856.
That is where the "generation problem" originated. I am happy to continue using my present referencing system.
I should have resolved the problem before my original post & apologise for the same.
Allan.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Sept 3, 2014 11:44:58 GMT -5
Don't know why my messages appear twice! Hope this one doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by donne on Sept 3, 2014 11:55:42 GMT -5
I agree with CT. All commercial genealogical database software applications I've come across allocate a sequential family and person number as you enter the individuals and the marriages. These numbers are required for the internal housekeeping of the software. Are you over-riding the sequence numbers created by Rootsmagic or creating a separate field for your numbering system? You are likely to come across all sorts of marriages in your genealogical research - cross-generational and cousin marriages, for example - and it's unwise to invent a system of numbering which restricts the variety of the couplings! For a straightforward plain ancestor tree the old 'Ahnentafel' system is logical but doesn't allow for the many sideshoots which most of us have in our database.
|
|
