unconnected people of the same surname

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

unconnected people of the same surname

KimFella
How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her
parents are?
"Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their
parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".

Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and
mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are
connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years
earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be
able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what
little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave
them unconnected.



--
Sent from: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GRAMPS-User-f1807095.html


_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

Dave Scheipers
> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her
> parents are?
> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their
> parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".

You could add an [unknown parent] or some such additional child under
"Granny" and then list this cousin under that [unknown...]. This will
at least keep the cousin connected. At some point you may find where
the cousin actually belongs. Remember to add appropriate notes so you
(or someone else) will know what this twig of the family means and
will not try to treat this twig as "real".

The converse of Uncle Fritzie is growing up and calling Grannie's good
friend Aunt Ruth, to latter learn Aunt Ruth is not even related.


> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and
> mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are
> connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years
> earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be
> able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what
> little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave
> them unconnected.

I had a "cousin" contact me after finding me on this list. He is
researching any and everyone that he can identify with our common
surname. It is not a common name. He is in the Netherlands and I am in
the U.S.  He has not linked his line with mine.... yet. I have traced
my line to the Antwerp region of Belgium and with his help expanded
that line. I added him and his direct line to my tree. They are there
so that as I add new people, and doublecheck that I have not already
added them they are part of the comparison. Maybe one day he or I will
find that missing link.

These stray families will never get added to reports. Unless you do a
total dump of the database to the NarWeb or to certain reports, they
will never show up on a filtered report. Similarly, my aunt married
into a family with an old New England family name. The same name has
appeared with other relatives from the 16-1700's. I have extend some
of that research in both directions looking for the missing link. The
lines coming forward are my relatives. The ones going back, so far,
are not currently related.

You may want to create a special Tags for these records so they are
easily identifiable.

HTH Dave


_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

KimFella
I guess for now the best bet is simply to add them as new people with as much
info as I can find in "Granny's Journal" plus a note to effect I haven't
found the connection. At least this way I don't forget to add the
information. I will probably always have people that I know the connection
but no names or dates. So why not at least track the ones I have plenty of
info for but no connection.

I thought about adding a series of 'unknown' ancestors (blank grey boxes on
the chart) but I don't know how many generations of unknowns to add. Plus
the actual connection if ever found may ziz-zag from paternal ancestor to
maternal. The blank grey boxes on the chart may confuse me by implying that
the connection is known even if the name isn't.

Yeah. Even trying to describe it is confusing. Better to leave it at "Add
the new person without any ancestors or descendants"


Dave Scheipers wrote

>> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who
>> her
>> parents are?
>> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify
>> their
>> parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a
>> cousin".
>
> You could add an [unknown parent] or some such additional child under
> "Granny" and then list this cousin under that [unknown...]. This will
> at least keep the cousin connected. At some point you may find where
> the cousin actually belongs. Remember to add appropriate notes so you
> (or someone else) will know what this twig of the family means and
> will not try to treat this twig as "real".
>
> The converse of Uncle Fritzie is growing up and calling Grannie's good
> friend Aunt Ruth, to latter learn Aunt Ruth is not even related.
>
>
>> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and
>> mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are
>> connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years
>> earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually
>> be
>> able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose
>> what
>> little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave
>> them unconnected.
>
> I had a "cousin" contact me after finding me on this list. He is
> researching any and everyone that he can identify with our common
> surname. It is not a common name. He is in the Netherlands and I am in
> the U.S.  He has not linked his line with mine.... yet. I have traced
> my line to the Antwerp region of Belgium and with his help expanded
> that line. I added him and his direct line to my tree. They are there
> so that as I add new people, and doublecheck that I have not already
> added them they are part of the comparison. Maybe one day he or I will
> find that missing link.
>
> These stray families will never get added to reports. Unless you do a
> total dump of the database to the NarWeb or to certain reports, they
> will never show up on a filtered report. Similarly, my aunt married
> into a family with an old New England family name. The same name has
> appeared with other relatives from the 16-1700's. I have extend some
> of that research in both directions looking for the missing link. The
> lines coming forward are my relatives. The ones going back, so far,
> are not currently related.
>
> You may want to create a special Tags for these records so they are
> easily identifiable.
>
> HTH Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list

> Gramps-users@.sourceforge

> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org





--
Sent from: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GRAMPS-User-f1807095.html


_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

GRAMPS - User mailing list
Remember to set the Note you create (the one which succinctly describes the potential connection) to the "To Do" type. 

I use an umbrella family where the father is a bookmarked fiticious person named 'Connection Unknown'. (The manually set Family ID is F_000 so the ID sorts to the top.) All the earliest known progenitors of the as-yet-to-be-connected twigs are offspring of this family.

When I connect the twig into the main Tree, that twig is deleted from family F_000.

The other comment about the false leads is good too. Anyone unfamiliar with colloquialisms might misinterpret a US eulogy containing "another fine son of our dear Uncle Sam" as being a relative rather than an admired American patriot.

-Brian

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 19:05, KimFella
I guess for now the best bet is simply to add them as new people with as much
info as I can find in "Granny's Journal" plus a note to effect I haven't found the connection. At least this way I don't forget to add the information. I will probably always have people that I know the connection but no names or dates. So why not at least track the ones I have plenty of info for but no connection.

I thought about adding a series of 'unknown' ancestors (blank grey boxes on the chart) but I don't know how many generations of unknowns to add. Plus the actual connection if ever found may ziz-zag from paternal ancestor to maternal. The blank grey boxes on the chart may confuse me by implying that the connection is known even if the name isn't.

Yeah. Even trying to describe it is confusing. Better to leave it at "Add the new person without any ancestors or descendants"


Dave Scheipers wrote

>> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her parents are?
>> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".
>
> You could add an [unknown parent] or some such additional child under
> "Granny" and then list this cousin under that [unknown...]. This will at least keep the cousin connected. At some point you may find where the cousin actually belongs. Remember to add appropriate notes so you (or someone else) will know what this twig of the family means and will not try to treat this twig as "real".
>
> The converse of Uncle Fritzie is growing up and calling Grannie's good friend Aunt Ruth, to latter learn Aunt Ruth is not even related.
>
>
>> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave them unconnected.
>
> I had a "cousin" contact me after finding me on this list. He is researching any and everyone that he can identify with our common surname. It is not a common name. He is in the Netherlands and I am in the U.S.  He has not linked his line with mine.... yet. I have traced my line to the Antwerp region of Belgium and with his help expanded that line. I added him and his direct line to my tree. They are there so that as I add new people, and doublecheck that I have not already added them they are part of the comparison. Maybe one day he or I will find that missing link.
>
> These stray families will never get added to reports. Unless you do a total dump of the database to the NarWeb or to certain reports, they will never show up on a filtered report. Similarly, my aunt married into a family with an old New England family name. The same name has appeared with other relatives from the 16-1700's. I have extend some of that research in both directions looking for the missing link. The lines coming forward are my relatives. The ones going back, so far, are not currently related.
>
> You may want to create a special Tags for these records so they are easily identifiable.
>
> HTH Dave


_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

StoltHD
How about create an Event called "Granny's Journal", add the citation and the source to it, and link the people you are not sure about with a custom role to that Event, Same way as you link Witnesses, Lodgers and anything else you want to an Event...

At least many of us that do more than lineage-linked research make use of this workaround in lack of another way to link people to others that's not siblings or parents

You will  see everyone that's linked to the event under the event's References Tab, sadly I have not figured out how to add the Role Type in this View...

This is the way I add People sharing addresses, or Ship lists, or other information where there are multiple people I want to register, but that's not part of the family (as far as information are at that point in research time)

søn. 5. mai 2019 kl. 03:05 skrev Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users <[hidden email]>:
Remember to set the Note you create (the one which succinctly describes the potential connection) to the "To Do" type. 

I use an umbrella family where the father is a bookmarked fiticious person named 'Connection Unknown'. (The manually set Family ID is F_000 so the ID sorts to the top.) All the earliest known progenitors of the as-yet-to-be-connected twigs are offspring of this family.

When I connect the twig into the main Tree, that twig is deleted from family F_000.

The other comment about the false leads is good too. Anyone unfamiliar with colloquialisms might misinterpret a US eulogy containing "another fine son of our dear Uncle Sam" as being a relative rather than an admired American patriot.

-Brian

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 19:05, KimFella
I guess for now the best bet is simply to add them as new people with as much
info as I can find in "Granny's Journal" plus a note to effect I haven't found the connection. At least this way I don't forget to add the information. I will probably always have people that I know the connection but no names or dates. So why not at least track the ones I have plenty of info for but no connection.

I thought about adding a series of 'unknown' ancestors (blank grey boxes on the chart) but I don't know how many generations of unknowns to add. Plus the actual connection if ever found may ziz-zag from paternal ancestor to maternal. The blank grey boxes on the chart may confuse me by implying that the connection is known even if the name isn't.

Yeah. Even trying to describe it is confusing. Better to leave it at "Add the new person without any ancestors or descendants"


Dave Scheipers wrote

>> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her parents are?
>> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".
>
> You could add an [unknown parent] or some such additional child under
> "Granny" and then list this cousin under that [unknown...]. This will at least keep the cousin connected. At some point you may find where the cousin actually belongs. Remember to add appropriate notes so you (or someone else) will know what this twig of the family means and will not try to treat this twig as "real".
>
> The converse of Uncle Fritzie is growing up and calling Grannie's good friend Aunt Ruth, to latter learn Aunt Ruth is not even related.
>
>
>> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave them unconnected.
>
> I had a "cousin" contact me after finding me on this list. He is researching any and everyone that he can identify with our common surname. It is not a common name. He is in the Netherlands and I am in the U.S.  He has not linked his line with mine.... yet. I have traced my line to the Antwerp region of Belgium and with his help expanded that line. I added him and his direct line to my tree. They are there so that as I add new people, and doublecheck that I have not already added them they are part of the comparison. Maybe one day he or I will find that missing link.
>
> These stray families will never get added to reports. Unless you do a total dump of the database to the NarWeb or to certain reports, they will never show up on a filtered report. Similarly, my aunt married into a family with an old New England family name. The same name has appeared with other relatives from the 16-1700's. I have extend some of that research in both directions looking for the missing link. The lines coming forward are my relatives. The ones going back, so far, are not currently related.
>
> You may want to create a special Tags for these records so they are easily identifiable.
>
> HTH Dave
_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

Peter Merchant
In reply to this post by KimFella
On 04/05/2019 23:16, KimFella wrote:

> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her
> parents are?
> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their
> parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".
>
> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and
> mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are
> connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years
> earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be
> able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what
> little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave
> them unconnected.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GRAMPS-User-f1807095.html
>
I notice in my tree where I was researching a name that was in my tree(Hardman) but it turned out to be not related to my Hardman tree that I created a Tag (Edit--> Tag) for this family and then tagged everybody in it. Now when I look at the list of people, all of these are in green. I can't remember whether I chose that colour, or gramps selected it for the family.

If, as I go further back, I do find that they are related, I just have to undo the tag.


Peter M.


_______________________________________________
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: unconnected people of the same surname

GRAMPS - User mailing list
Peter,

All the new Tags default to Black and are added at the bottom of the Organize Tags list. You would have had to change that "Hardman" Tag to Green. 

Tag colors are only shown in the Categories with row/column table/list style Views. Not in Gramplets or layouts like the Relationships view.

It is worth noting that Records with multiple Tags are assigned the color of the higher Tag in the list. (So, if you imported your data and allowed it to assign Import time/datestamp  Tags in Black, you'll never see list records in any color until you move the another Tag higher in the list.)

For more info about using Tags, see:
https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Gramps_5.0_Wiki_Manual_-_Filters#Tagging

-Brian

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 13:49, Peter Merchant
On 04/05/2019 23:16, KimFella wrote:

> How do I display a cousin when I only know she is a cousin but not who her
> parents are?
> "Granny's Journal" mentions a couple of cousins but doesn't identify their
> parents. And one "we called him Uncle Fritzie but he was really a cousin".
>
> Then from a Madeira Wines website I have found a couple of Leacocks (and
> mypeerage.com lets me trace them forward) but I don't know how they are
> connected going back. One of them would have been born about 100 years
> earlier than my first connected Leacock. I'm assuming I will eventually be
> able to find a connection so I do want to include them so I don't lose what
> little info I do have on them. I suppose I can just enter them and leave
> them unconnected.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GRAMPS-User-f1807095.html
>
I notice in my tree where I was researching a name that was in my tree(Hardman) but it turned out to be not related to my Hardman tree that I created a Tag (Edit--> Tag) for this family and then tagged everybody in it. Now when I look at the list of people, all of these are in green. I can't remember whether I chose that colour, or gramps selected it for the family.

If, as I go further back, I do find that they are related, I just have to undo the tag.


Peter M.



_______________________________________________
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