Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

GRAMPS - User mailing list
It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.

At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

GRAMPS - User mailing list
You can add a new Event type extremely easily in Gramps

Instead of selecting one of the Pre-defined items from the Types pop-up menu, manually key in the word 'Engagement'. 

This new Type will be added to the Custom subsection of the pop-up menu.

Be careful, Custom types are case-sensitive. It is all too easy to accidentally add both an 'Engagement' & 'engagement' custom Types. And filtering for one one find the others.

-Brian

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:40, Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.

At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

Untitled Download Attachment
Untitled (206 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
Hi Dirk

Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.

The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
events.

As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
the information.

While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"

Dave

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
>
> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

GRAMPS - User mailing list



Hi Dave

Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist

We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
"common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
which is Divorce

I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
"Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.

And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
"Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
"To be Found" implying I have not looked
"Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it



Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:

> Hi Dirk
>
> Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
> Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.
>
> The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
> our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
> when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
> being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
> events.
>
> As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
> NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
> note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
> the information.
>
> While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
> reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
> wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
>>
>> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
>> --
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>> https://gramps-project.org
>
>


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

Dave Scheipers
Hi Phil

While all that is true, to bring two people together in a Gramps
relationship a Type is used to bring some meaning to that
relationship. Besides the "Unknown" there really are only two, Married
and Unmarried. While there is "Civil Union" this is a legal marriage
in all but name and was created to placate those that believe two
same-sex people cannot be "Married".

Other than which terminology is used in reports (Partner/Spouse) the
relationship type has very little impact in putting together a
genealogical history.  I started out using PAF. It had no concept of
relationship type which probably had more to do with the LDS concept
of two people are either married or they are not. Unmarried people are
not in a relationship.

And yes, the relationship type is a filtering option. But filters are
for the user's assistance. The relationship type is often (never?)
seen in the reports we send to our cousins.

But the issue was creating a new relationship type within Gramps;
Engaged. My argument was trying to make the point that this would be a
waste of time and in reports, may cause logic problems determining
which term (partner/spouse) to use. I hopefully pointed out that he
would be better served using the event "Engagement" with a note to
explain why the relationship did not result in a marriage.

Dave

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:54 AM phil wharram via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist
>
> We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
> become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
> gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
> "common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
> indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
> This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
> which is Divorce
>
> I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
> "Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
> when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.
>
> And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
> years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
> "Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
> "To be Found" implying I have not looked
> "Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it
>
>
>
> Regards
> Phil
> MLFHS 12583
> Dumfries
> On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:
> > Hi Dirk
> >
> > Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
> > Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.
> >
> > The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
> > our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
> > when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
> > being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
> > events.
> >
> > As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
> > NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
> > note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
> > the information.
> >
> > While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
> > reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
> > wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
> >>
> >> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
> >> --
> >> Gramps-users mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> >> https://gramps-project.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

victorengel
Interesting discussion. I realize that I've never considered engagement as a property of people before this discussion. I've always considered it an event. I do have a significant amount of Norwegian genealogy, and church records there often include engagement events, with prescribed times prior to marriage. Notice I said times (plural). Some people may not have considered there could be more than one engagement event prior to marriage. It would certainly be something to consider if a new status "engaged" were added. Presumably, a person would transition from single to engaged, unless two separate fields were used. If two fields were used, it would be a boolean field, I guess, which gets turned off upon marriage. Anyway, transitioning from engaged to engaged seems weird. Some information about how this worked in Norway is here: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Norway_Engagement_(Trolovelse)

However, I see no mention of there being multiple commitments in that document, which actually was a thing.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:22 AM Dave Scheipers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Phil

While all that is true, to bring two people together in a Gramps
relationship a Type is used to bring some meaning to that
relationship. Besides the "Unknown" there really are only two, Married
and Unmarried. While there is "Civil Union" this is a legal marriage
in all but name and was created to placate those that believe two
same-sex people cannot be "Married".

Other than which terminology is used in reports (Partner/Spouse) the
relationship type has very little impact in putting together a
genealogical history.  I started out using PAF. It had no concept of
relationship type which probably had more to do with the LDS concept
of two people are either married or they are not. Unmarried people are
not in a relationship.

And yes, the relationship type is a filtering option. But filters are
for the user's assistance. The relationship type is often (never?)
seen in the reports we send to our cousins.

But the issue was creating a new relationship type within Gramps;
Engaged. My argument was trying to make the point that this would be a
waste of time and in reports, may cause logic problems determining
which term (partner/spouse) to use. I hopefully pointed out that he
would be better served using the event "Engagement" with a note to
explain why the relationship did not result in a marriage.

Dave

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:54 AM phil wharram via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist
>
> We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
> become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
> gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
> "common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
> indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
> This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
> which is Divorce
>
> I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
> "Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
> when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.
>
> And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
> years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
> "Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
> "To be Found" implying I have not looked
> "Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it
>
>
>
> Regards
> Phil
> MLFHS 12583
> Dumfries
> On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:
> > Hi Dirk
> >
> > Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
> > Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.
> >
> > The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
> > our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
> > when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
> > being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
> > events.
> >
> > As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
> > NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
> > note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
> > the information.
> >
> > While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
> > reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
> > wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
> >>
> >> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
> >> --
> >> Gramps-users mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> >> https://gramps-project.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers


Hi Dave

Just my obtuse way of saying do you what works best for you, GRAMPS
terminology is only one of many ways of interpreting Family History.

Civil Marriage/Union goes back to 1837 in the UK and applies to all
those married in a register office (other places now apply). This was
for all who wanted to be legally bound but would not or could not go
through a religous ceremony.

So I use Gramps Civil Union to identify all those not married in a
religous ceremony/location

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries

On 03/12/2019 16:21, Dave Scheipers wrote:

> Hi Phil
>
> While all that is true, to bring two people together in a Gramps
> relationship a Type is used to bring some meaning to that
> relationship. Besides the "Unknown" there really are only two, Married
> and Unmarried. While there is "Civil Union" this is a legal marriage
> in all but name and was created to placate those that believe two
> same-sex people cannot be "Married".
>
> Other than which terminology is used in reports (Partner/Spouse) the
> relationship type has very little impact in putting together a
> genealogical history.  I started out using PAF. It had no concept of
> relationship type which probably had more to do with the LDS concept
> of two people are either married or they are not. Unmarried people are
> not in a relationship.
>
> And yes, the relationship type is a filtering option. But filters are
> for the user's assistance. The relationship type is often (never?)
> seen in the reports we send to our cousins.
>
> But the issue was creating a new relationship type within Gramps;
> Engaged. My argument was trying to make the point that this would be a
> waste of time and in reports, may cause logic problems determining
> which term (partner/spouse) to use. I hopefully pointed out that he
> would be better served using the event "Engagement" with a note to
> explain why the relationship did not result in a marriage.
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:54 AM phil wharram via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave
>>
>> Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist
>>
>> We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
>> become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
>> gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
>> "common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
>> indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
>> This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
>> which is Divorce
>>
>> I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
>> "Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
>> when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.
>>
>> And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
>> years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
>> "Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
>> "To be Found" implying I have not looked
>> "Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Phil
>> MLFHS 12583
>> Dumfries
>> On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:
>>> Hi Dirk
>>>
>>> Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
>>> Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.
>>>
>>> The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
>>> our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
>>> when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
>>> being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
>>> events.
>>>
>>> As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
>>> NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
>>> note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
>>> the information.
>>>
>>> While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
>>> reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
>>> wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
>>>> --
>>>> Gramps-users mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>>> https://gramps-project.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>> https://gramps-project.org
>


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

GRAMPS - User mailing list
It all depends on where you live.

Over here a civil union can be used by heterosexual and homosexual partners. It is similar to a marriage, but there are some very distinct differences.

You can only be married by an officer of the Civil Registry, not in a church or court. You can only get your marriage blessed in a church after the civil marriage.

But back to the engaged status. In the old days people could be engaged for a long time before they were able to marry. In my case it has to do with two Jewish people who were not able to marry during WWII. Both were murdered in Auschwitz. But you can think of other situations as well, engaged soldiers dying in a war. My point is that being engaged was quite a serious matter, much more then just being boyfriend and girlfriend.

phil wharram via Gramps-users wrote:


Hi Dave

Just my obtuse way of saying do you what works best for you, GRAMPS terminology is only one of many ways of interpreting Family History.

Civil Marriage/Union goes back to 1837 in the UK and applies to all those married in a register office (other places now apply). This was for all who wanted to be legally bound but would not or could not go through a religous ceremony.

So I use Gramps Civil Union to identify all those not married in a religous ceremony/location

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries

On 03/12/2019 16:21, Dave Scheipers wrote:
Hi Phil

While all that is true, to bring two people together in a Gramps
relationship a Type is used to bring some meaning to that
relationship. Besides the "Unknown" there really are only two, Married
and Unmarried. While there is "Civil Union" this is a legal marriage
in all but name and was created to placate those that believe two
same-sex people cannot be "Married".

Other than which terminology is used in reports (Partner/Spouse) the
relationship type has very little impact in putting together a
genealogical history.  I started out using PAF. It had no concept of
relationship type which probably had more to do with the LDS concept
of two people are either married or they are not. Unmarried people are
not in a relationship.

And yes, the relationship type is a filtering option. But filters are
for the user's assistance. The relationship type is often (never?)
seen in the reports we send to our cousins.

But the issue was creating a new relationship type within Gramps;
Engaged. My argument was trying to make the point that this would be a
waste of time and in reports, may cause logic problems determining
which term (partner/spouse) to use. I hopefully pointed out that he
would be better served using the event "Engagement" with a note to
explain why the relationship did not result in a marriage.

Dave

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:54 AM phil wharram via Gramps-users
[hidden email] wrote:




Hi Dave

Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist

We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
"common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
which is Divorce

I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
"Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.

And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
"Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
"To be Found" implying I have not looked
"Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it



Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:
Hi Dirk

Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.

The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
events.

As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
the information.

While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"

Dave

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
[hidden email] wrote:

It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.

At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org




--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org






--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

Dave Scheipers
Hi Dirk

In all drop-down lists, you can add your custom Types. And this
includes the Relationship Type. All you need to do is type your choice
into the block. If your speakers are on, it will *bing* at you but you
will be allowed to do it.

The issue, is that any customizations like this, Gramps may/will not
know how to handle this new information. If you should have the need
to operate Gramps or print reports in another language, custom items
will not translate.

I do not know the full extent the Relationship Type plays in
determining what and how information is used.  Those in relationships
are either referred to as Spouse or Partner.  The terminology for
Engaged is  Fiancé/Fiancée. These terms are obviously not built into
Gramps' coding.

I suggest you make your customization and then see how the reports you
utilize handle this change.

If you use a text report, you can output to an OpenDocument text and
manually edit the report. Graphical reports will also offer various
options to manually edit.

Not speaking for the developers, I do not see this enhancement being
hard coded into the program. Others have wanted a "Divorced" relation
type add to no avail. You could file a feature request. Maybe one of
the developers will agree with you and write the code.

The bottom line, you can do what you want to do. You just need to
understand the possible ramifications in doing this, which I confess
and readily admit that I do not know what the full ramifications are.

I hope this helps, Dave



On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It all depends on where you live.
>
> Over here a civil union can be used by heterosexual and homosexual partners. It is similar to a marriage, but there are some very distinct differences.
>
> You can only be married by an officer of the Civil Registry, not in a church or court. You can only get your marriage blessed in a church after the civil marriage.
>
> But back to the engaged status. In the old days people could be engaged for a long time before they were able to marry. In my case it has to do with two Jewish people who were not able to marry during WWII. Both were murdered in Auschwitz. But you can think of other situations as well, engaged soldiers dying in a war. My point is that being engaged was quite a serious matter, much more then just being boyfriend and girlfriend.
>
> phil wharram via Gramps-users wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Just my obtuse way of saying do you what works best for you, GRAMPS terminology is only one of many ways of interpreting Family History.
>
> Civil Marriage/Union goes back to 1837 in the UK and applies to all those married in a register office (other places now apply). This was for all who wanted to be legally bound but would not or could not go through a religous ceremony.
>
> So I use Gramps Civil Union to identify all those not married in a religous ceremony/location
>
> Regards
> Phil
> MLFHS 12583
> Dumfries
>
> On 03/12/2019 16:21, Dave Scheipers wrote:
>
> Hi Phil
>
> While all that is true, to bring two people together in a Gramps
> relationship a Type is used to bring some meaning to that
> relationship. Besides the "Unknown" there really are only two, Married
> and Unmarried. While there is "Civil Union" this is a legal marriage
> in all but name and was created to placate those that believe two
> same-sex people cannot be "Married".
>
> Other than which terminology is used in reports (Partner/Spouse) the
> relationship type has very little impact in putting together a
> genealogical history.  I started out using PAF. It had no concept of
> relationship type which probably had more to do with the LDS concept
> of two people are either married or they are not. Unmarried people are
> not in a relationship.
>
> And yes, the relationship type is a filtering option. But filters are
> for the user's assistance. The relationship type is often (never?)
> seen in the reports we send to our cousins.
>
> But the issue was creating a new relationship type within Gramps;
> Engaged. My argument was trying to make the point that this would be a
> waste of time and in reports, may cause logic problems determining
> which term (partner/spouse) to use. I hopefully pointed out that he
> would be better served using the event "Engagement" with a note to
> explain why the relationship did not result in a marriage.
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:54 AM phil wharram via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Sorry but the binary Married or Unmarried really does not exist
>
> We all start as being Single. we form partnerships that may or may not
> become an engagement(s), a "partnership between two people of any
> gender" this partnership maybe formalised by marriage, civil union,
> "common law" (in the UK)or by carving both names on a prominent rock,
> indeed it may never be formalised whether of short or long term duration.
> This partnership being capable of dissolved by a variety of means one of
> which is Divorce
>
> I would argue that very little is binary in human existence apart from
> "Alive" or "Dead" and the boundary between the two can get very complex
> when you are considering comatose or "brain dead" individuals.
>
> And in the case of my unmarried partnerships stretching back over 200
> years how do I classify certainly not "Unknown" I hate that term
> "Not found" implying I have looked but not found anything
> "To be Found" implying I have not looked
> "Not Proven" implying I might believe I know but cannot substantiate it
>
>
>
> Regards
> Phil
> MLFHS 12583
> Dumfries
> On 03/12/2019 13:41, Dave Scheipers wrote:
>
> Hi Dirk
>
> Since most of our work deals with what was, the couple was either
> Married or Unmarried regardless of any unique event types.
>
> The events mark the progression of the relationship. It is only with
> our living relatives that a change in relationship becomes a factor
> when a couple goes from Unmarried but having an Engagement event to
> being Married with an Engagement, Licensed, and finally Marriage
> events.
>
> As to the engaged couple that tragically died before marrying, I would
> NOT make a custom relationship type just for this rare occurrence. A
> note or newspaper article will be a much more affective way to convey
> the information.
>
> While the Relationship type does cause changes in wording in some
> reports, the actual Relationship type does not appear in reports. The
> wording would be as simple as using  "Partner" instead of "Spouse"
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:39 AM Dirk Munk via Gramps-users
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
>
> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
On 12/3/19 3:38 AM, Dirk Munk via Gramps-users wrote:
> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps
> meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were
> engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.
>
> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and
> in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that
> two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.

In 5.0.2, at least, "Engagement" is what looks to be a standard Event type
(not in the Custom section).  There's also "Marriage Banns", for those older
engagements.


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding 'engaged' as type of partnership

victorengel
Marriag banns I guess is what I was referring to. Here is what wikipedia has to say about them.

"The Council of Trent on 11 November 1563 (Sess. XXIV, De ref. matr., c. i) made the provisions more precise: before the celebration of any marriage, the names of the contracting parties should be announced publicly in the church during Mass, by the parish priests of both parties on three consecutive Holy Days.[3] Although the requirement was straightforward in canon law, complications sometimes arose in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, when one of the parties to the marriage did not have a home parish in the Roman Catholic Church."

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:31 PM Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 12/3/19 3:38 AM, Dirk Munk via Gramps-users wrote:

> It is my impression that being engaged was a far more formal and perhaps

> meaningful thing decades ago, than is it is now. Two people who were

> engaged were not living together, but were seen as partners.

>

> At the moment it is not possible to enter this kind of relationship, and

> in my opinion it should be possible to show this kind of relationship that

> two people had, when one or both of the partners died for instance.



In 5.0.2, at least, "Engagement" is what looks to be a standard Event type

(not in the Custom section).  There's also "Marriage Banns", for those older

engagements.





--

Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.





--

Gramps-users mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

https://gramps-project.org


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org