hi CountryLad, I usually record them as (examples) ...
John Smith was partnered with Mary Brown and they had x children
Way back, many also recorded illegitimate in a similar way ... John Smith married Mary Brown in 1900 and had x children John next had a partner, Jane Jackson and had x children -- Jane was the widow of ??? etc etc
This also works with any relationship including gay marriages/partnerships and any children of the union
If the parents of a child are not married I record the parents as 'Partners' or 'De facto' which means the same thing. They live together and have children. Not sure how it works in other parts of the world but in Australia the Law Courts see Partners and De facto relationships as marriages should the couples separate. But that's another story.
I don't like the word 'illegitimate' meaning the child was born out of wedlock. I know many couples not married with children. Their children don't give a dam about that because they have parents who love them, and they love them back.
A father may put his name on a child's birth certificate even if he is not married to the mother, many choose to do this. Also in New South Wales there is a Relationship Register which began on 1 July 2010. Giving legal recognition for a couple, regardless of their sex, by registration of the relationship. Look here is the page NSW.BDM
In Ontario (and likely the rest of Canada) a couple is considered married after one year of co-habitation and the law applies equally for the most part. There are a couple of exceptions related to end of life care and wills that should be altered to complete the equalization. In my genealogy records, I put in a "date of union" or "date of cohabitation" (same thing) and assign the given surname. The date may simply be the month and year of co-habitation.
Does the date of a couple getting together really matter? If there is an officially registered marriage/joining date, that can be recorded, but the relevant details are the date of birth and the parents of a person. If the designation of a relationship is wanted, then "partners" or "de Facto" as Tonkin noted, or any similar term that would suit your culture.
Thanks everyone for your considered opinion. This probably is a more widespread issue than before WW2. I include the word 'partner' in my notes. Genealogy software however seems to be behind the times as it requires the date of marriage for individuals. I usually overcome the issue by adding notes to my entries.
I tend to call them "co-parents " if it looks like a one-off kind of thing and "partners" if the relationship with partner and child is or was on-going . That's just my preference as far as genealogy is concerned . I don't mind using the term "illegitimate " in a genealogy tree just to formalize relationships although I agree it is not neccesary or even very relevant in our time. It's rather like using "step" or "adopted" in a family tree. It clarifies relationships and makes documentation easier but hardly necessary in an everyday way
I tend to call them "co-parents " if it looks like a one-off kind of thing and "partners" if the relationship with partner and child is or was on-going . That's just my preference as far as genealogy is concerned . I don't mind using the term "illegitimate " in a genealogy tree just to formalize relationships although I agree it is not neccesary or even very relevant in our time. It's rather like using "step" or "adopted" in a family tree. It clarifies relationships and makes documentation easier but hardly necessary in an everyday way
hi CountryLad,
I usually record them as (examples) ...
John Smith was partnered with Mary Brown and they had x children
Way back, many also recorded illegitimate in a similar way ...
John Smith married Mary Brown in 1900 and had x children
John next had a partner, Jane Jackson and had x children
-- Jane was the widow of ??? etc etc
This also works with any relationship including gay marriages/partnerships and any children of the union
Welcome CountryLad.
If the parents of a child are not married I record the parents as 'Partners' or 'De facto' which means the same thing. They live together and have children. Not sure how it works in other parts of the world but in Australia the Law Courts see Partners and De facto relationships as marriages should the couples separate.
But that's another story.
I don't like the word 'illegitimate' meaning the child was born out of wedlock. I know many couples not married with children. Their children don't give a dam about that because they have parents who love them, and they love them back.
A father may put his name on a child's birth certificate even if he is not married to the mother, many choose to do this. Also in New South Wales there is a Relationship Register which began on 1 July 2010. Giving legal recognition for a couple, regardless of their sex, by registration of the relationship.
Look here is the page NSW.BDM
In Ontario (and likely the rest of Canada) a couple is considered married after one year of co-habitation and the law applies equally for the most part. There are a couple of exceptions related to end of life care and wills that should be altered to complete the equalization. In my genealogy records, I put in a "date of union" or "date of cohabitation" (same thing) and assign the given surname. The date may simply be the month and year of co-habitation.
Does the date of a couple getting together really matter? If there is an officially registered marriage/joining date, that can be recorded, but the relevant details are the date of birth and the parents of a person. If the designation of a relationship is wanted, then "partners" or "de Facto" as Tonkin noted, or any similar term that would suit your culture.
Thanks everyone for your considered opinion. This probably is a more widespread issue than before WW2. I include the word 'partner' in my notes. Genealogy software however seems to be behind the times as it requires the date of marriage for individuals. I usually overcome the issue by adding notes to my entries.
I tend to call them "co-parents " if it looks like a one-off kind of thing and "partners" if the relationship with partner and child is or was on-going . That's just my preference as far as genealogy is concerned . I don't mind using the term "illegitimate " in a genealogy tree just to formalize relationships although I agree it is not neccesary or even very relevant in our time.
It's rather like using "step" or "adopted" in a family tree. It clarifies relationships and makes documentation easier but hardly necessary in an everyday way
I tend to call them "co-parents " if it looks like a one-off kind of thing and "partners" if the relationship with partner and child is or was on-going . That's just my preference as far as genealogy is concerned . I don't mind using the term "illegitimate " in a genealogy tree just to formalize relationships although I agree it is not neccesary or even very relevant in our time.
It's rather like using "step" or "adopted" in a family tree. It clarifies relationships and makes documentation easier but hardly necessary in an everyday way