Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My older son married a woman with a child born out of wedlock, I do not know the details, and the child was 4 years old when my son married his mother a few years ago. My son and his wife went on to have another child. My son was going to adopt the child but that did not happen and I think that may have something to do with his wife's family, they are Filipino and the grandparents who are still in the Philippines were raising the child until the marriage. A few months ago, my son contacted me and asked for all the information I could provide on our family history so that his son could use this to earn a badge for Boy Scouts. I sent the information but, at the same time, I wondered whether it was appropriate in a way, historically and yes, I know it is just a kid and the Boy Scouts but from a technical point of view, how would this be handled. Our younger son is adopted. My 2nd cousin keeps the family history and both children are included in the family tree info. Both myself and my 2nd cousin along with my paternal great-grandparents have adopted children with all included but it is noted that they were adopted. As I said, other than for a technical question, I consider the two children both my grandchildren. So?
I have a grandson that my son did not adopt from a situation nearly identical to yours. He is my grandson, he is my 2nd grandson's half-brother, and he is my son's son - for all intents and purposes. What's the difference? Both your grandson and mine are being raised no different than if they were adopted or bio children. So to my mind, there is no difference.
We are a blended family - my husband was married twice and has 2 children from each of those marriages. They are family and no distinctions are made. They are here and we are inclusive rather than exclusive. I still am in touch with my ex-daughter-in-law and treat her as I did when she and my son were married.
This is a genealogy forum. How a person treats an ex daughter in law means nothing since she never was a relative thus the words in law.
I include my adopted cousins. Those that are adopted are my only exceptions for having a common progenitor. They are legally my cousins. I am not talking about adopting someone with a known family. They know of no other relatives. I do not include my sister's or anyone's step children. The fact that I like my sister's step children and their children more than any relative also means nothing.
Step children have their own parents. They share relatives with their parents families. The fact that the parents are no longer married, or living, means nothing.
No one has more than 4 grandparents. 2 grandfathers and 2 grandmothers. What some other people consider family doesn't matter in genealogy.
No marriage has ever added relatives until the wedded couple has children.
Never used the married names of any women in the family in genealogy. Not your mother or your daughter or anyone else.
NY Annie, Your feelings for someone does not make them a relative. Only a common progenitor or legal adoption does.
What a sad perspective you have on family, not to mention genealogy.
Taking such a narrow view of genealogy, (i.e. family history) is sad, and will limit how well you do your genealogy. We, and our ancestors, had many people who were/are important in our lives. Some of those are related by blood, and some not. Eliminating all the "not" relationships might make you miss a key piece of information that could solve a brick wall problem.
Attitude like yours is one of the reasons why so much bad genealogy is done. Why we come across family trees with only one child ... and all the other children discarded. Why that second wife ... the one who actually raised the children ... is discarded.
The people who are important in our lives are who make up our family. Not just the ones related by blood or a legal document.
What a sad perspective you have on family, not to mention genealogy.
Taking such a narrow view of genealogy, (i.e. family history) is sad, and will limit how well you do your genealogy. We, and our ancestors, had many people who were/are important in our lives. Some of those are related by blood, and some not. Eliminating all the "not" relationships might make you miss a key piece of information that could solve a brick wall problem.
Attitude like yours is one of the reasons why so much bad genealogy is done. Why we come across family trees with only one child ... and all the other children discarded. Why that second wife ... the one who actually raised the children ... is discarded.
The people who are important in our lives are who make up our family. Not just the ones related by blood or a legal document.
How could a non relative solve a genealogical brick wall?
Attitudes like yours is why so much bad genealogy is done. You look at their trees or charts and they make no sense. You start to research a supposed relative and then find that people only called them Aunt and they weren't really related. You find some names and then see they are step children and you have to go back and correct.
Genealogy is not PC. We do not get to decide who is family. We cannot add non relatives anymore than we can remove the mass murderer cousin.
As I stated before, how we feel about a person is not a factor. Other than my sisters, not one relative would make my list of 100 favorite people. That does not make those people family!
Most people who research genealogy are trying to follow the "bloodline". Genealogy programs allow for illegitimacy by showing the parents of a child without a marriage. They have mechanisms to show adoptions. They can even be tweaked to show same sex partnerships.
In this way, the data can document those who are genetically related (important now that DNA is being used to help identify common ancestors) and also describe the other relationships that we call "family."
Sure, there is always the possibility of infidelity and name changes and past adoptions that were not identified as such, but we do the best we can. I think it would be wrong, though, to identify a person, no matter how important and how beloved, as a blood relative in a genealogy data set if that person is known not to be so related.
In regard to the OP, the daughter-in-law is simply shown as having another partner with whom she had her son. There was no marriage.
How could a non relative solve a genealogical brick wall?
Attitudes like yours is why so much bad genealogy is done. You look at their trees or charts and they make no sense. You start to research a supposed relative and then find that people only called them Aunt and they weren't really related. You find some names and then see they are step children and you have to go back and correct.
Genealogy is not PC. We do not get to decide who is family. We cannot add non relatives anymore than we can remove the mass murderer cousin.
As I stated before, how we feel about a person is not a factor. Other than my sisters, not one relative would make my list of 100 favorite people. That does not make those people family!
Lol. Yeah, I do bad genealogy. Nice try.
Look. Your ancestor's friends, neighbors, associates may often have mentioned your ancestors. They left them things in wills. They sold land to them. They mentioned them in their diaries. They had them witness their documents. They may have moved with them from one place to another, and provide the key to finding your ancestor's prior location. That neighbor might be a step-sibling from a remarried mother. There are many ways that their records can solve your genealogical problems.
Any good genealogical program today will allow you to connect all kinds of people to your ancestors records. They won't show them as a blood line - as that would be incorrect. But they will show them as A PART OF YOUR ANCESTOR'S LIFE.
The purpose of genealogy (despite your simplistic adherence to a narrow definition of the word) is not only to prove a blood line, regardless of what the dictionary says. It's to recreate the lives of our ancestors. Who they were, what they experienced, what their lives were like, and who was important in their lives.
Personally, I have many grandparents. Only four of them were related by blood. Most of the others were important people in my life (one, I never met). Three of them were my (step)grandparents from before I was born. Do you think they don't factor into my life? They do. And even moreso into the lives of the grandparent that they married. Oh, and one of the pairs never married - but they lived together longer than most marriages last. And yes, I've researched all of their families, as well.
The world is made up of all kinds of relationship. And they're all important.
Any good genealogical program today will allow you to connect all kinds of people to your ancestors records. They won't show them as a blood line - as that would be incorrect. But they will show them as A PART OF YOUR ANCESTOR'S LIFE.
The purpose of genealogy (despite your simplistic adherence to a narrow definition of the word) is not only to prove a blood line, regardless of what the dictionary says. It's to recreate the lives of our ancestors. Who they were, what they experienced, what their lives were like, and who was important in their lives.
Good points.
Using Ancestry, one can easily enough identify family relationships. In second marriages, where children born to a previous partner are blended, you don't have to mix them with the genetic progeny, merely note the first spouse and list the children under that relationship.
I've written of this before - my uncle's second wife had the same last name as my uncle, from the woman's previous marriage. There was no connection between my uncle and his wife's first husband that I could figure, it was just a strange coincidence. However, when Uncle died, his step-kids were listed in his obit, just as if he had fathered them, while his own biological kids (because of some asinine family squabble) were left out.
From a genealogical view, that could have created a mess down the road. I didn't discount that Uncle cared for his step-kids like they were his own, but that situation had to be made clear. I put a copy of the obit in his records, with an addendum that made it clear these weren't his bio-kids, then researched until I could find the name of Aunt's first husband. Those kids are listed under the pairing of Aunt and her first husband, not Aunt and Uncle. I even threw in research on the first husband's family, adding about 200 people to my tree, to make it known that this was for genealogical purposes, not a personal one.
I'm all for honesty, but also realize that family structures can be convoluted and emotional. I'm not going to delete non-genetic family, but I will make sure the proper connections are documented.
If it weren't for some non-bio connected "family" members, my niece and nephew would not have been able to connect with their younger half-siblings. While those children are not bio related to me, they are to my niece and nephew - and very important in their family, ergo also in mine. But they would not have been found had it not been for the egg donor's first husband (kept secret from subsequent husbands, including my brother). He - the first husband - stepped forward to help connect the children of the egg-donor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good points.
