Non-spouse "spouses"

[PatrickR]

Does anyone have an ideas of what we can do with this genealogical situation?

I have an ancestor who married three times. but has five spouses listed. One of her two pseudo husbands is from a situation common today, having had a child out of wedlock; one still wants to acknowledge the parentage of the child, but the two parents were never spouses to each other; I always find it a bit disconcerting.

The second pseudo husband was a less common occurrence, a result of my ancestor being a 17th century pioneer of New France. She came to Canada in 1670 as a Fille du Roi, an impoverished girl from Paris, recruited emigrate and help populate the colony. As did a number of girls, she signed a civil marriage contract with a suitor, but one or both parties had a change of heart, and the contract was annulled. This was not a regular occurrence in New France, but was not uncommon; for women in the colony at this time, it was, in modern parlance, a seller’s market, as men outnumbered marriageable women by more than a 2:1 ratio.

In both cases, there was never a marriage, but I still had to list both men as spouses of my ancestor in order to record the information. I created my own fact, “Did Not Marry (Family)”, but she still shows up with five husbands.

Does anyone have to deal with these situations, and does anyone have any better idea of how to deal with them? Are these situations the type that some regular RMG fact could be created for them, especially considering the fact that it seems we have children being raised outside the older, traditional family groups more frequently today than in previous generations, just as we are having more same-gender marriages than before, something RMG has addressed quite well.

Does anyone else feel it necessary to address this issue in any other manner?

[mscheffler]

I may have missed your point. You can define parents for offspring of the non-wed parents without creating a marriage fact. These do not show up as spouses on the parent’s edit person screens. I checked a descendant list for someone in my family. The children of unwed parents were listed under their parents without regard to marital status of the parents.

[kfunk]

Don’t get hung up on the term of spouse. RM uses that for lack of a better option. For your two examples you simply don’t enter a marriage date. The RM user interface will still use the term of spouse, but this is something only you will see.

[PatrickR]

The man with whom my ancestor made and annulled a marriage contract had no children with her. She did not marry the man with whom she had a child, so he was not her spouse.

I’m not asking my question about the child; I am asking about if we need an alternate definition of the term “spouse”. The two non-spouses are counted as spouses, one because he ALMOST became her spouse and the other because they conceived a child together but did not marry and raise the child together.

[PatrickR]

RM uses that for lack of a better option.

And I am asking if anyone can think of another option.

For your two examples you simply don’t enter a marriage date.

I do not enter a marriage fact for either of them, much less a date. As I said in my initial post, my alternative was to create a new fact, “Did Not Marry”. I’m just wondering if anyone else has any other ideas, or whether this is a relationship that RMG could find an alternative description.

In the first incident, I entered a fact for “Marriage Contract”, my new fact “Did Not Marry”, and “Annulment”. For the second, I listed a Miscellaneous fact that she gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and that she sued the father to force him to support the child (it is a relatively well-noted scandal in French Canadian history), and (again) the “Did Not Marry” fact.

It is really an issue of bookkeeping, but I just find it troubling to see her counted as having had five spouses when she was only married three times (widowed twice). The word “spouse” is generally taken to mean “any one member of a married pair in relation to the other”.

[kfunk]

@PatrickR

And I am asking if anyone can think of another option.

…and I am saying that no, there is no other option. I don’t even know of any of the other major genealogy packages that have such an option. As I also said, ‘Spouse’ only used in the RM UI. RM also allows an option for each couple to select other terms, such as Partner or making up one of your own by selecting an Other option. However, RM does NOT make use of those terms. Your usage of the custom facts are probably about the best you are going to get.

I am sure that there could be a probable fix if RM actually made use of the Partner and Other categories that can be entered. That, I suspect, would not be a trivial coding change as it would involve altering database tables and the report generator as well as tweaking the UI based on the entered information.

[rzamor1]

I didn’t want an engagement to show up for a family member that didn’t later marry. If you use the family facts it will make a permanent connection between the two individuals. I decided to just enter the engagement as a note and not add the fact or the person to the database. You can either use the Miscellaneous fact to record it, or create an engagement (indiv) fact so it shows as a personal fact for them only.

[emkaysmith]

To me, the simple solution wold be to just create a new Fact Type (which takes about 30 seconds). Since I have a lot of pioneer ancestors on the frontier in the early 19th century (where formal marriage was often a matter of convenience), I have a Fact Type called “Unwed.” I thought about “Mistress,” but that seemed awfully judgmental. I also have one for “Migration” for tracking those guys in the westward movement.

[PatrickR]

I created the fact “Did Not Marry” to keep track of the “couples” that were not actually married, but was curious if anyone had any other or better ideas, and whether this was a topic that might merit a more specific genealogical definition, and possibly be addressed in RMG, maybe something as simple a checkbox to indicate such an exception, or another option in the mother/father label (“non-partner”, perhaps?) that would ignore them when counting number of spouses.

I think your “Unwed” fact might be pretty similar to my fact. I also created a “Migration” fact, both for individuals and couples, for basically the same purpose

To an extent, it is an annoyance of bookkeeping: my ancestor married three times, but is credited with five spouses, owing to a child born out of wedlock (which proved a bigger scandal for the father than the mother), and a civil marriage contract which was later annulled (both parties marrying others).

I was wondering if there could be a way to allow RMG to note the special circumstances, and not count the two special cases as being counted as spouses. I count partners in common law marriages as being spouses, but contracts or affairs in which the parties were not true partners

Three marriages remains the known record among my ancestors, even though RMG insists that it’s five. It’s a minor annoyance that is of little importance, but I thought I’d bring it up just to see if there were any ideas among our community.

[TomH]

If you do not want a pair of people to be counted as and presented as spouses in the RM user interface, you must not use a “Family” type fact because that “couples” them. You could use Association which will report them both or Share an “Individual” type event between them. That avoids any presentation as a couple or family.

[PatrickR]

Again, I MUST use a family fact to record that two people were the father and mother of a child; it is NOT an “association” fact, nor a shared individual-type fact. They, for however brief a time, were a couple, but they just were not SPOUSES with each other.

Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford dictionaries all define the word “spouse” as “a person’s husband or wife”. The definition does not extend to one’s lover or one’s domestic partner; those are not defined as being a spouse, except in RMG’s (and other genealogical companies’) database. Perhaps it is time to consider that we should no longer use shaky workarounds in such situations.

[rzamor1]

The family unit then will show each parent as a spouse. You cannot change the name Spouse on the Edit Person screen. But, you can change their labels on the Family view and the Family Group Sheet. Just don’t add a marriage fact and one won’t be mentioned on the narratives. To change the label click on the spouse row on the Edit Person screen and select the Father and Mother label from the drop list. If you want a custom label select Other and enter one.

[TomH]

What label would you prefer for the relationship between the members of an unmarried, impermanent couple that produced a child?

• Co-parent - some will object if either one had nothing to do with the child’s upbringing but is valid for some cases
• Co-progenitor - that could work in your example

[PatrickR]

A third cousin of mine, who was the child of her alcoholic mother’s brief affair, refers to her biological father as her “sperm donor”. I don’t think that one would work either. : -)

“Co-parent” actually has a definition as a non-spousal relationship, and should be used for that situation, but does not apply to all.

The term “partner” is what I use for two people who cohabited, whether they had children or not. For those who had just a brief connection, did not marry, did not cohabit, but did produce offspring? They were not each others’ spouses, and I believe that we misidentify them by calling labeling them thus.

I do not know exactly what to call them, but I do know that “spouse” is not it. This is why I brought up the subject; I do not have the answer, but I believe I have identified the problem, and thus the question.

So far, most of the replies I’ve seen make suggestions that I’ve already tried, and are still only workarounds.

To the child, they are still mother and father; to each other, they are something other than spouses or partners. Perhaps “non-spouse” is a starting point.

I had a small surprise when the 1950 census was digitized and released. Three different distant relatives who had never married were all listed living with another person of the same sex; one was “head of household”, and the other was “partner”. One had openly admitted they were gay (this in the 1970s, when it was still illegal in some states), and freely listed herself and partner as just that, admitting to the Census Bureau what might have at the least cost her job; the other two were male, and a public admission would have likely created even worse trouble for them (one worked as a psychiatrist at a military hospital). I could not call them spouses, as they were not allowed to marry, but I am comfortable with calling them partners. The problem I see is that RMG, no matter what label I give a couple, STILL calls all of them spouses.

[TomH]

I kicked around some ideas with Gemini and it ended up (perhaps trying to please me) with:

Co-progenitor

• Meaning: A shared, mutual ancestor or source.

• Applicability: It perfectly captures the concept of two individuals who are the biological sources for the child’s existence, regardless of their personal relationship or legal status. It applies equally to the man (sperm donor) and the woman (egg provider/recipient).

• Family Tree Fit: It clearly establishes a biological link without implying a marital, romantic, or co-parenting relationship, which is exactly what you need to replace the inappropriate “spouse” label.

Conclusion: “Co-progenitor” is arguably the best single-word term for the relationship between the sperm donor and the egg-providing woman/recipient in a non-couple context, as it focuses purely on the shared biological contribution.

[LeLibran]

An interesting suggestion, and generally O.K. for a purely genetic study (which few people really pursue), apart from where it takes more than two people to create a child, e.g. surrogacy, which introduces an additional ‘relationship’, or to individuals who had/have a ‘partner’ but had/have no children. Also, from a ‘family history’ rather than genealogical study, it would not be a term applicable to same-sex couples, with or without children.

Personally, I believe that those who worry about the simple term ‘spouse’ are overly concerned about an outdated dictionary definition, which should have been updated to be more in-tune with the real world usage of the term in the same way that they tend now to react to the modern ‘slang’ use (or misuse) of other words that previously had a single clear, but narrowly defined, meaning. The term ‘Sick’ comes to mind as a relatively recent example.

[PatrickR]

Conclusion: “Co-progenitor” is arguably the best
single-word term for the relationship between
the sperm donor and the egg-providing
woman/recipient in a non-couple context, as it
focuses purely on the shared biological
contribution.

Is this conclusion your own, or are you quoting a source?

I found extremely few uses of the term “co-progenitor” (many of which occurring in scientific or literary discussions). I can accurately state that my great-great grandfather was a co-progenitor of me and my third cousin (and of our children, and of their children), and can argue that such a term is too nebulous to use for non-spousal parents. In all of its usages I found (even the scientific and literary) referred to entities or events many generations removed.

I would further argue that it does nothing for the situation of people who shared what is considered a “couples” fact (like a marriage contract that was annulled).

I found one or two uses of it in human genealogy (in non-genealogical writings), but I would not care to use it myself, feeling the term too esoteric, being a phrase that I would never think to use, either in my normal conversation nor my writing.

I would not insist that we need an entirely new term (though that may become more problematic as time passes), but I would think that RMG could add a check box to indicate “non-spouses”, and use it to change the count of “number of spouses”, remove such couples from any report that lists spouses, as well as eventually being searchable.

In such cases as I’ve described, I use the “Partner” or “Other” designation in place of “Mother” and “Father” on the parental labels. Here is a question: Can we search for such label changes? Do changes in the parental label show up on any report?

[PatrickR]

An interesting suggestion, and generally O.K. for a
purely genetic study (which few people really pursue),
apart from where it takes more than two people to > >create a child, e.g. surrogacy,

True story: my wife worked for three years as a nanny of twin boys for a gay couple; the ova were donated by a woman and implanted into another, who was the surrogate (they had two mothers, in effect), and each ova was fertilized by a different partner. Two mothers, and different fathers, the two boys are twin half-brothers. I’m just glad that this wasn’t my family; I still can’t do the math.

Personally, I believe that those who worry about
the simple term ‘spouse’ are overly concerned
about an outdated dictionary definition

Thank you, but unless and until such time as that word’s definition actually gets updated, I will accept what is currently there and will remain concerned. I have a niece who lived with two different men and had children by both; she did not marry either (both partners having issues, one with substances and the other with anger), and never referred to either as her spouse, even while cohabiting with them. I have not found any of my family’s younger generation re-defining the word “spouse” just yet. YMMV.

[TomH]

@PatrickR

Conclusion: “Co-progenitor” is arguably the best
single-word term for the relationship between
the sperm donor and the egg-providing
woman/recipient in a non-couple context, as it
focuses purely on the shared biological
contribution.

Is this conclusion your own, or are you quoting a source?

That was Gemini.

And I’m merely contributing optional words to be used as labels on the user interface when “spouse” seems inappropriate or misleading. There won’t be one word that fits all so it implies that the label has to be a variable for the “couple” or “pair” that is intended to appear in a lineage report (chart, narrative, list). I’m not suggesting that the “spouse” label be replaced by “co-progenitor”; rather it is just one of several that might be employed to more accurately characterize the relationship.

@PatrickR

RMG could add a check box to indicate “non-spouses”, and

Might be the simplest, but still complicated, option. But “non-spouse” is as obscure and more limitless than most terms as it befits the entire world’s population except for my wife.

@PatrickR

I use the “Partner” or “Other” designation in place of “Mother” and “Father” on the parental labels. Here is a question: Can we search for such label changes? Do changes in the parental label show up on any report?

No, not that I am yet aware of and it’s only been asked for since 2010, soon after RM4 was released, and maybe earlier if the feature was included in versions before then.

[rzamor1]

If the genealogy community were to change to a different term than spouse I think partner is the most likely. It feels like the whole world has made a switch to that term. The “partnership” can be anything you want, be it legal, non-binding, brief in length, etc. Then the Father/Mother labels would be exactly how the partnership is defined by the couple.